but rather from the cumulative impact. the tendency of policymakers can be to add new regulations, guidance, and supervisory expectations, becoming more and more prescriptive and creating an ever - larger body of material that a banker must digest and apply over time. at some point, however, this overwhelming body of material ( more than 5, 000 pages just last year ) is simply undigestible by the individual or small staff at a community bank primarily responsible for making sure the bank meets all relevant expectations. this begs the questions : how should policymakers approach regulation and supervision in a world with so many competing priorities, each one of which may seem important on a standalone basis? and how can we maintain a bank regulatory framework that is “ fair ” for community banks? my recommendations will sound familiar to those who have followed my past remarks. first, i think we need to focus on effective prioritization of risks, particularly for the smaller and community banks. while we should not ignore new and evolving risks, we know that certain core risks are always important in the sound management of a bank — for example, credit risk, liquidity risk, interest rate risk, succession planning, and information technology. particularly in the wake of some supervisory gaps in the lead up to the failure of silicon valley bank, one response by bank examiners could be to simply flag as many issues as possible. - 8however, we must be very careful not to assess the effectiveness of the supervisory process by the quantity of findings documented in examination reports. quantity alone does not tell us that we have identified the right issues or taken appropriate steps to ensure these issues are addressed in a timely way. prioritizing the quantity of findings over quality creates a serious risk of distracting bank management from core risks. when it comes to non - core risks, or emerging risks, it is incumbent upon bankers to manage risks that may be material based on, among other things, their business model and activities. the role of regulators is to support banks in these efforts — and to help identify any non - core risks or emerging risks that banks may have overlooked — but not to push down a one - size - fits - all set of requirements or expectations that are designed for larger banks or that may be irrelevant under a community banking model. second, i think it is important to improve transparency and predictability in the bank regulatory framework. uncertainty is a significant contributor to the cumulative burden on community banks. one area where this concern is particularly acute is in the

of workshops, marked the end of phase i of the implementation programme of the risk management framework at the bank. following the end of the risk sensitization workshops the next stage required the implementation of the framework in the business areas. as mentioned earlier, the bank faced a number of teething problems in the implementation process of the first stages of the framework with departments having some difficulties in following written guidance that was being given by the risk management department. as one of the possible solutions to this, senior management agreed to the risk management department ’ s suggestion that phase ii of the risk management framework implementation process also be effected through workshops, targeting the risk liaison officers who are, by definition, the critical anchors of the approved risk management framework. this background therefore justifies the gathering that we have here today. ladies and gentlemen : your group, as risk liaison officers, alternates and risk coordinating officers, occupies and a plays a very important role in the governance structure of the risk management framework. you may wish to note that your group plays a function of a “ critical link ” between staff from your respective departments and the head of department who is, by definition, the risk manager. for this reason, the importance of your responsibilities should be very clear and need not be overemphasized. for those who might have forgotten their roles, i wish to encourage you to re - familiarize yourselves with the risk management and business continuity management ( bcm ) policies, where your respective responsibilities are clearly spelt out. having said this, the workshop you are attending today and tomorrow has the following key objectives : i. to explain the practical aspects of “ context establishment ” and the “ risk identification ” processes so as to ensure that you fully understand these initial, but critical steps, in the risk management process so as to enable you to assist your respective departments to complete these important stages of the process ; and ii. to remind you of your role and responsibilities, as risk liaison officers, alternates and risk coordinating officers, in the risk management framework. ladies and gentlemen : allow me to reiterate what i said during the risk sensitization workshops – the success of the bank of zambia risk management framework will in a large measure depend on how well this process will be understood and how well its implementation at departmental level will be facilitated by you. as risk liaison officers, alternates and risk coordinating officers for your respective departments, you will be expected to not only provide leadership and guidance to your respective departments on risk