(Argus Media, Amsterdam, 30 January 2023) The Dutch government does not provide a “clear and complete” overview about the state’s climate expenditure, while certain fossil fuel subsidies are “at odds” with domestic climate goals, according to a report by the Dutch court of audit. The court of audit presented its findings to the Dutch parliament on 25 January, noting that the three ministries — economic affairs and climate policy, finance, and climate and energy policy — involved in reporting the state’s climate expenditure did not provide consistent information. Dutch export credit agency Atradius — in charge of the country’s public financing for foreign fossil fuel projects — ended all financing for export credit insurance as of this year in line with the Glasgow pledge made during the UN climate conference Cop 26 in 2021, while certain exemptions for oil and gas projects remain in place. Projects that ensure European energy supply security by reducing “unwanted” dependencies on Russian oil and gas are among those exemptions granted
Netherlands
European countries back weakened ECA fossil fuel financing pledge
(Financial Management Magazine, Durham, 4 November 2022) As noted in our October What’s New, ten European countries had agreed to spell out this year how they will limit export finance support for overseas fossil fuel projects. But they shelved a draft pledge to explicitly end it after pushback from Italy. The final statement was weaker than a previous draft seen by Reuters. At the UN COP26 climate summit in November 2021, 39 countries and financial institutions, including the Netherlands, signed the Glasgow Statement on International Public Support for the Clean Energy Transition, committing signatories to end their direct international public financing for fossil fuels by the end of 2022, except in exceptional circumstances, and fully prioritize their public finance for clean energy transition. If all signatories followed through on their pledges with integrity, this could directly shift US$28 billion a year from fossil fuels to clean energy and help shift even larger sums of public and private money away from investments in climate-harming fossil fuels. International and Dutch NGOs now argue that the new policy published by the Dutch Government on restricting finance for fossil fuels has such significant loopholes, that it essentially means the Netherlands has reneged on its promise. The Dutch government said it intends to stop giving companies and banks credit insurance for exports in the fossil fuel sector as of Jan. 1, following through on a pledge made at the COP-26 climate conference in Glasgow. When the pledge was announced in 2021, the Cabinet said it did so knowing it would put Dutch exporters at a competitive disadvantage to exporters in countries that do still offer such insurance and the Finance Ministry said the Netherlands might reconsider the policy if other countries fail to adhere to their COP-26 pledges. According to Statistics Netherlands (CBS), petroleum and petroleum products made up 9.3% of Dutch exports in 2021, with a trade value of 54.7 billion euros. Around 20 countries including Germany, the United States, Britain and Canada made similar commitments, but only a few including France have so far implemented them into policy. On the other hand, Australia chose not to sign the Glasgow Statement at a public event held at Cop27 in Sharm el-Sheikh.
Italy pushes to weaken European fossil fuel financing pledge
(Reuters, Brussels, 2 November 2022) Italy is attempting to weaken a pledge 10 European governments intend to make to stop export credit support for fossil fuel projects. The pressure from Italy comes as delegates from nearly 200 countries prepare for a United Nations climate change summit next week in Egypt, where world leaders will attempt to agree tougher action to tackle global warming. A group of ministers planned to make a joint statement on November 3rd committing to end public trade and export finance support for overseas fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022. The countries, which together make up the “Export Finance for Future” group, are Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Britain. [Delays in the statement’s release point to controversial negotiations.] A draft of the governments’ statement, seen by Reuters, said they would agree to end new direct official trade and export finance support for “exploration, production, transportation, storage, refining, distribution of coal, crude oil, natural gas, and unabated power generation”. Three sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters Italy had asked to remove the list specifying which fossil fuel activities would lose such support. “Italy objects that there is no consistency between the objective of achieving strategic autonomy from Russia and the impossibility of financing the necessary infrastructure,” an official briefed on Rome’s position told Reuters. Italy’s export credit agency SACE declined to comment. As countries attempt to balance fighting climate change with their short-term response to the energy crisis, some – including Germany – have suggested new investments in gas fields are needed. Countries are still negotiating the draft statement, which could change before it is published. Italy was the biggest backer of fossil fuels within the group, committing 8.4 billion euros in the period – with downstream oil and gas projects and gas-fuelled power plants among the projects. Italy is also moving to keep a Lukoil-owned refinery in business despite new sanctions against Russia kicking in next month. On September 30 the European Commission approved, under EU State aid rules, a €2 billion Italian scheme for the reinsurance of natural gas and electricity trade credit risk in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine. A hard right coalition that includes pro-Russian voices just took power in Italy after running a campaign focused on energy costs and inflation.
Dutch government offers export credit insurance to new Manila airport
(Business Mirror, Makati City, 25 May 2022) SAN Miguel Corp. on Wednesday said it received support for the P740-billion (US$14 billion) new Manila International Airport (NMIA) project in Bulacan following the approval of the Dutch government, represented by Atradius Dutch State Business (DSB) of export credit insurance to Royal Boskalis Westminster N.V., to cover its 1.5-billion euro contract for land development works at the airport project site in Bulakan, Bulacan. The approval comes after more than a year of “rigorous” review of the project’s long-term environmental and social impact mitigation measures to ensure that the multi-billion project is done with sustainability in mind and aligned with the country’s climate ambitions. It is the largest export credit agency insurance policy granted in the 90-year history of Atradius. The airport project will feature four parallel runways, a terminal and an interlinked infrastructure network that includes expressways and railways.
European export finance alliance pushes for green incentives [eventually!]
(Global Trade Review, London, 24 November 2021) Seven European countries have pledged to promote reforms and encourage green incentives in the export credit sector, but dashed campaigners’ hopes that they would axe public finance for fossil fuels more quickly than the end of 2022 deadline set at the Cop26 conference. The Export Finance for Future (E3F) coalition, initially comprising Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK, held its second virtual meeting today, hosted by the Dutch government. Belgium, Finland and Italy also joined the alliance today, Dutch state secretary for finance Hans Vijlbrief told the summit following the nations’ closed-door talks. A statement expected after the meeting had not been published as of press time, but a draft seen by GTR said the E3F countries would collaborate on strategies to meeting a pledge signed by each at the Cop26 climate change summit to end public finance support for fossil fuels by the end of 2022. The E3F members provided €20bn in export finance for fossil fuel projects overseas between 2018 and 2020, according to data cited by Oil Change International, a campaign group, and ODI, a think-tank. This compares to €17bn for clean energy projects over the same period. Vijlbrief indicated that attendees at the closed-door meeting endorsed support for natural gas beyond the end of the [Cop26] 2022 deadline. “We all know gas will play a role for a couple of years in our energy supply, that’s no secret,” he said. Peder Lundquist, chief executive of EKF, Denmark’s ECA, told the summit that “logically you need some kind of transition”, pointing to natural gas as a “stable” energy source for power grids in less-developed countries that would struggle to handle a rapid shift to renewables. Deputy assistant for export finance at France’s Treasury directorate, Paul Teboul, said his government does not plan to end support for upstream gas projects until 2035.
UKEF £1.5bn earmarked for Nigeria ‘largely untouched’
(PUNCH Nigeria, Lagos, 24 October 2021) The £1.5bn financing set aside for Nigeria by the UK Export Finance, the United Kingdom government’s export credit agency, has remained largely untouched, the UK Government Department for International Trade, Nigeria has said at the 2021 Energy Sustainability Conference organised by the Energy Institute Nigeria in Lagos. “UKEF is focussed on 30 countries in Africa with a combined market risk appetite of £58bn.” According to Chimwemwe Chalemera, Country Director, UK Government Department for International Trade, Nigeria, the UK’s renewable energy capabilities are a right match with the energy needs of Africa and Nigeria in achieving net zero ambitions. Meanwhile over 50 Nigerian civil society groups have written to President Buhari calling for oil in the massive OPL 245 field to be kept in the ground. This is the field that Shell and Eni acquired after allegedly paying $1.1 billion in bribes. The companies’ subsidiaries are currently being prosecuted in Nigeria and there is still an investigation in The Netherlands.
SACE and NEXI finance large carbon bomb vessel for Dutch SBM Offshore
(Offshore Technology, London, 16 September 2021) Dutch floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) operator SBM Offshore has completed the largest project financing in its history, of the vessel FPSO Sepetiba, for a total of $1.6bn. SBM Offshore was established in 1862 and its main activity is to design, supply, install, operate, and maintain FPSO vessels. It accounts for over 1,660,000 [barrels?] of total fleet oil production capacity. The project financing was secured by a consortium of 13 international banks, with insurance cover from Nippon Export and Investment Insurance and SACE. The vessel has a processing capacity of up to 180,0000 (sic) barrels of oil per day, a water injection capacity of 250,000 barrels per day, associated gas treatment capacity of 12mmscm, and a minimum storage capacity of 1.4mmbbl. It will be moored in approximately 2,000m water depth and will be deployed at the Mero field in the Santos Basin offshore Brazil. The Libra block, where the Mero field is located, is under a production sharing agreement with a consortium comprised of Petrobras as the operator with 40% interest; Shell with 20%; TotalEnergies with 20%; China Southern Petroleum Exploration and Development Corporation with 10%; and China National Offshore Oil Corporation with 10% interest. Petrobras, a state-owned Brazilian multinational corporation in the petroleum industry, awarded a contract to SBM Offshore for the 22.5 years lease and operation of the FPSO for the Mero field in December 2019. The Guardian notes that carbon bombs, gigantic coal, oil and gas projects from around the world, if they go ahead, will raise global emissions and cause dangerous climate change.
CSOs say newly launched export finance coalition (E3F) fails to lead
(Oil Change International, Washington, 15 April 2011) In response to the launch of a new Export Finance for the Future coalition (E3F), 21 civil society organizations (CSOs) from 14 countries released a statement criticizing the lack of ambition from the coalition. The seven European countries, which according to French Finance Minister, Bruno Le Maire represent around 40% of export financing in the OECD, pledged to end formal trade and export financing directed at thermal coal mines and coal supply chain infrastructure. While welcoming the initiative as a step in the right direction, the CSOs, including Oil Change International, state that the coalition fails to take the urgent action that is required to meet climate goals: “Rather than adding new commitments, the E3F principles are simply a reiteration of what most signatories are already doing: not supporting the coal sector, increasing support for ‘green products’, and being more transparent about their support for oil and gas. For this coalition to make a real difference, it needs to take decisive action to end all export finance for fossil fuels, following at least the level of ambition shown by the UK, which put an end to virtually all new export finance for fossil fuels last month.” Seven European countries (Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) formally pledged to end their support for agencies that finance export projects Fossil fuels. CSOs note that a few countries are embarrassingly absent from the coalition, including the US and Canada. In January, the White House published an Executive Order stating that it would “promote ending international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy,” including finance provided by US EXIM. And while Canada’s export finance institution, Export Development Canada (EDC), was among the first ECAs to adopt a climate change policy, it remains a top provider of export support for fossil fuels.
ECAs, the Kachi Lithium Brine project and environmental concerns
(Proactive Investors, London, 16 March 2021) Australia’s Lake Resources NL has refreshed its Argentine Kachi Lithium Brine Project prefeasibility with a net present value now at US$1.58 billion and is also assessing the potential increase of lithium carbonate production at the project as demand continues to rise from battery makers for high purity lithium carbonate. The Kachi project remains highly scalable and the company is working towards an expansion, which would make it globally significant in terms of high purity lithium carbonate production, and well-positioned to supply the expected deficit in battery-grade product over the next few years. Lake Resources NL’s Kachi project is a large lease holding of 70,000 hectares with an expandable resource of 4.4 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent of which only 20% is used for 25 years of production at 25,500 tonnes per annum. Joint financial advisors have been appointed to structure and arrange project finance, with a focus on export credit agencies for the development of the Kachi Project. While the race is on to find a steady source of lithium, a key component in rechargeable electric car batteries. the Guardian has recently noted that the lithium ‘white gold’ rush threatens environmental damage on an industrial scale.
Atradius DSB launches ‘Green Label’ to promote greater environmentally responsible export transactions
(Both ENDS, Amsterdam, 29 January 2021). Atradius Dutch State Business (ADSB) recently launched the so-called “Green Label”. This is a methodology to determine whether a transaction can be qualified as a green transaction. Such green transactions are eligible for export credit insurance with specific, more attractive terms and conditions:
- Cover for up to 95% – in stead of the usual 70-90% – of the total value of project finance transactions;
- Flexible acceptance criteria for small green transactions up to €5 million;
- Flexible definition of export, allowing cover for domestic transactions that have export potential in the long run.
The green label is also meant to be a tool to determine the share of green transactions in ADSB’s overall portfolio. Starting from 2019, ADSB annually reports on this.
Aligning itself with the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Netherlands Finance Corporation for Developing Countries (FMO), ADSB reviews whether transactions contribute to:
a) reduction of climate change (mitigation); or
b) adaptation to the impacts of climate change; or
c) reduction of ecological footprint beyond local legal requirements.
The Green Label distinguishes 11 categories of ‘green’ business, which in their turn have a total of 36 sub-categories. In an Annex to the document an overview – Green List – is provided of various types of business within each of these categories.
Depending on the intensity of the contributions of transactions to the environment or climate, they are identified as dark green, middle green or light green, but that does not affect their eligibility for the specific favourable terms and conditions for green transactions. The current Green Label will be valid for one year (to December 2021) and evaluated thereafter to ensure it incorporates further insights and developments.
It is observed that the Green Label aligns well with the EU taxonomy. However it is also noted that there can be differences between the two since the EU taxonomy is valid only for transactions within the EU, while ECA backed transactions are usually located outside the EU.
Both ENDS notes that this distinction between standards within the EU being different from the standards that ECAs may observe abroad is problematic, particularly where it relates to values and concerns that are universal. This is clearly the case where we need to address issues such as climate change, environmental standards or human rights.
Overall Both ENDS welcomes the Green Label as an effort to open up for further dialogue on the green qualifications of specific transactions. Many CSOs might question – for example – whether hydro dams for electricity, biomass, refurbishing thermal power plants or industrial farming should qualify for the label green, or instead a brown label.
Equally, we hope ADSB and other ECAs will prioritize effective instruments to put an end to support for transactions with obvious negative environmental and climate impacts, such as transactions supporting the exploration and production chains of all fossil fuels. Following recent announcements by the UK government and the new Biden administration in the USA to phase out public support for fossil fuels, it becomes high time for all ECAs to follow suit.
