In times of crisis, cash is increasingly recognised for its resilience. At an IMIA organised roundtable, Päivi Heikkinen (Head of Payment Systems Department and Chief Cashier, Bank of Finland), Matthias Schroth (Director of Cash Management Department, Oesterreichische Nationalbank – OeNB), and Koen Thuis (Head of Cash Policy & Oversight Department, De Nederlandsche Bank – DNB) discussed approaches to the future of cash infrastructure and the cash payment habit with the aim of preserving cash resilience.
Martina Horakova framed the issue of resilience around how everyday payment habits enable cash to function in a crisis. She asked whether central banks consider a ‘target level’ of cash use and infrastructure to preserve resilience, drawing a parallel with the digital euro’s legislation, which provides for strong access and mandatory acceptance from the outset. She also asked about the role of public communication, such as the ‘use it or lose it’ campaign.
Koen Thuis cited recent power outages in Spain and Portugal, where small grocery shops coped but large supermarkets failed. ‘They had access to cash, but acceptance was in danger because of the infrastructure. Never take tech for granted – this can happen anywhere,’ he said.
Päivi Heikkinen underlined the role of cash within wider resilience planning: ‘we see cash as part of the resilience toolkit. It’s not a silver bullet, but one tool among many. Our main task is to ensure that civil society can keep functioning as normally as possible in a crisis – whether due to a cut to sea cables, a cyber incident, or even the weaponisation of payments’.
Päivi noted that the Bank of Finland tried to estimate the cash cycle’s minimum viable level but said this involves more guesswork than science. What matters, she stressed, is that the system must be alive in normal times if it is to work in a crisis. ‘Cash cannot be kept in the cupboard and dusted off when needed – it has to be up and running.’ On mandatory acceptance, she remarked, ‘food stores, which also usually sell basics like batteries and water, must accept cash. Beyond that, if other retailers want to accept cash, that’s their choice, but mandatory acceptance must cover essentials’.
Matthias Schroth described Austria’s ‘use it or lose it’ communication campaign: ‘I fully agree with the idea of ‘use it or lose it.’ If people use cash regularly, there is demand, and if there is demand, the infrastructure will survive. That is the best protection in a crisis’.
He acknowledged that such a campaign might seem odd in high-cash-use Austria. But the OeNB sees value in being proactive: ‘people fear cash could be abolished. Our message is: don’t be afraid – just use it’.
Martina noted that in Austria, when the central bank says ‘use it or lose it’, the message resonates because access and acceptance are strong: ATMs are never far away, withdrawals are free, and cash is widely accepted. In other jurisdictions, the same appeal could ring hollow when fees are applied, ATMs are not close at hand, or cash acceptance levels are low.
Matthias agreed: ‘if access to cash becomes difficult, people stop using it. If it is easy and convenient, they will keep using it. That is why maintaining coverage is critical’.
Austria still has strong infrastructure: 97% of Austrians live within 5 km of an ATM, and around two-thirds live within 1 km.
Withdrawals are free, and 90-95% of the ATM network is bank-operated. Merchants can access exchange money and deposit cash, supported by the OeNB’s subsidiary.
After hard negotiations, Austrian banks agreed to maintain these standards until 2029 under an MoU with the Association of Municipalities. To fill the gaps, the central bank will open 100-120 of its own ATMs. ‘At the same time,’ Matthias said, ‘the central bank will not open cash recyclers. Our new ATMs are for withdrawals only. For merchants, recycling facilities remain well covered by the existing infrastructure’.
Koen reported 98% uptime for Dutch ATMs – strong on average but fragile in remote areas. ‘If you only have one, it’s painful. At those critical points, we like to double the ATMs. Then it’s more resilient, because if one is down or empty, you have a second one’.
Martina noted that in the Netherlands, access was first safeguarded through the voluntary ‘Cash Covenant’ and policymakers are now moving to binding legislation. Crucially, the legislation goes beyond counting ATMs: it considers functionality (outages) and includes recycler ATMs with deposit facilities for both banknotes and coins.
Koen stressed the political will to move beyond voluntary agreements: ‘we are quite happy with stable accessibility. We think the law is stronger than the covenant – an evolution of how we look at cash. In uncertain times of crisis and geopolitical change, the choice between digital and cash is very important, and cash is a means of resilience. We want to protect use, accessibility, and affordability of cash’.
On branch networks, Päivi was blunt: ‘there are so few bank branches in this country that you don’t take them into account’. For her, ATMs and CIT services define access today.
She also flagged merchant needs: ‘they would very much like more recycling ATMs and night safes where they can deposit daily takings securely. That is one of the questions we urgently need to solve’.
Päivi stressed that cash volumes are so low that CIT collection is often not feasible. Without these services, even willing merchants face barriers to handling cash.
Päivi explained that in 2022 the Bank of Finland proposed that Parliament define what level of cash in society is adequate. That initiative stalled, as the Ministry chose to wait for the European Commission’s forthcoming legal tender regulation. ‘Delays in Brussels slow us down, and we hope the situation doesn’t deteriorate before a framework is in place.’ The European Commission tabled the Single Currency Package in June 2023 – draft laws on euro cash legal tender and the digital euro — which is still under discussion in Parliament and Council.
National processes, like Finland’s, have often slowed while waiting for the outcome. Martina noted that while Finland is waiting for Brussels, the Netherlands moved ahead with national legislation on access and acceptance.
Koen added: ‘there might be a different sense of urgency. Politics in the Netherlands wants to protect what’s left of the cash infrastructure. If usage goes below 20%, the costs are borne by the banks or remaining users. We don’t think that is fair. We like ‘fair share’ – costs should be shared by all who have access to money, digital or tangible’.
Päivi reported on Finland’s situation. ‘We rely on the European Central Bank’s SPACE study when evaluating cash acceptance. The last figure was above 80%, which, given the low level of usage, we consider at least somewhat acceptable’.
She outlined tools of persuasion: ‘regulatory threat is effective in persuading merchants to accept cash, because sooner or later the European legal tender regulation will arrive.
We also use moral persuasion: merchants want to serve their customers. For essentials – food, medicine, fuel – acceptance remains strong’.
Koen described the Dutch picture: ‘according to DNB’s own data, acceptance is at 96%, but some sectors – pharmacies, cinemas, and government institutions – are lower. Less acceptance reduces the need to access cash, and that puts the cash cycle in danger’.
He explained how legislation is moving forward: ‘we have upcoming national legislation that will require merchants to accept cash. The law will be civil law and will prevail over freedom of contract. Mandatory acceptance will probably be there by mid-2026. We observe that people are annoyed they can’t pay by cash, and retailers as a result miss out on volumes’.
Matthias argued that a clear legal framework is needed to guarantee the right to pay with cash in Austria, though cash acceptance in Austria remains very high. He explained the legal uncertainty: ‘some lawyers argue it is forbidden for a shop to refuse cash, others say merchants can insist on cards only. At present, the only way to resolve a dispute is through civil law, which is burdensome for consumers’.
Päivi set out the Bank of Finland’s position: ‘we have done a lot of policy work, knowing legislation has stalled, and we must be outspoken. We speak in public, to interest groups and politicians. I think we have built a broad consensus. Even a large commercial bank said at our Payments Forum that cash must remain available – whereas previously the sentiment was the opposite’.
She added: ‘a profitable, sustainable cash cycle is essential. That means ensuring cash-in-transit companies operate efficiently and professionally, so they can provide merchants with deposit facilities and maintain withdrawals. It’s a whole cycle that has to be cared for’.
Matthias emphasised communication: ‘we often focus on inclusion – older people, younger people, those struggling with digitalisation. That is important. But we also emphasise freedom of choice. Surveys show many people feel they control their spending better with cash. Some may prefer digital, others cash; neither group should feel ashamed. In Austria you can love online shopping and love cash – it is not a contradiction’.
He explained with an analogy: ‘the iPhone is a high-end product. It costs more but integrates hardware and software so well that it is simple to use. Nobody says you buy an iPhone because you are too stupid for Android. You buy it because it works perfectly. The same is true for cash. I don’t pay with cash because I am poor, or old, or unable to use digital tools. I pay cash for good reasons. That is the image we must project’.
Koen described DNB moving further into operations: ‘we also stepped forward into the chain of the cash cycle, because we are going to take care of the seal bags – the cash money of retailers. We will handle the seal bags cost-neutrally at the central bank. Before, this was done at commercial cash centres’.
Almost all costs were previously borne by commercial banks, but this move by DNB resulted in a merge of processes and took some cost pressure out of the chain.
Martina framed the central dilemma: are commercial banks responsible under their banking licence obligations, or should central banks, as public institutions, fill the gaps, or is the solution a hybrid model?
Päivi was clear: ‘cash services are part of basic banking services, and it’s stipulated in law. Banks that receive deposits are liable for those services and must provide them. If central banks go into end-customer services, there is a moral risk: credit institutions will step back. It is the duty of banks to serve their customers, not central banks to act as substitutes’.
Matthias countered with Austria’s model. He admitted that there is a danger that banks rely too much on the central bank. ‘Our (cash logistics) subsidiary GSA is 100% owned by the central bank. We sell services at market prices and keep competition alive in a tight market. Banks benefit from synergies, but they still pay for the services, and OeNB organises them efficiently, and this system has worked since 1999.’
It is in the mix, Matthias said: the cash cycle remains a duty of commercial banks, but the central bank is also a player. Austrian banks are among the best in Europe, yet customers still demand more.
Linking that stance to OeNB’s ATM rollout, he argued: ‘why shouldn’t we invest a small part of seigniorage? Cash is our product, and we should not be standing on the sidelines’. He added that if banks fail to deliver on the MoU, the central bank can still say it did its job.
Päivi noted the gap between Finland and Austria may be narrower than it seems. Both work closely with cash-handling companies to keep the system functioning.
Her bottom line: central banks can work the ‘back office,’ yet responsibility for endcustomer services remains with the banks.
