The climate crisis can’t be solved if export credit agencies continue to support fossil fuels. We, a group of concerned civil society organizations, call on governments to immediately end all export credit and other public support for fossil fuels.
Coal
Coal-project financing outside of China hits 12-year low
(Resiliance, US-UK-AU, 11 July 2023) The global energy crisis fueled by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sparked widespread fears of a “return to coal” – yet, to date, there is scant evidence of this. Indeed, in the world of project financing, any supposed rebound has been illusory. The financing of coal power outside of China has now hit its lowest point since 2010, according to our latest figures in the Global Coal Project Finance Tracker (GCPFT). We found that for every $1 in coal project lending that reached financial close in 2022, another $14 earmarked for previously proposed projects was stopped. But, despite a myriad of economic, political and social headwinds that have slowed funding to the coal sector, project lending continues to display resilience, particularly in southeast Asia.
Export credit market shows strong growth: Berne Union
(Reinsurance News, Brighton, 15 May 2023) Berne Union, the global association for the export credit and investment insurance industry, has reported that its market showed “strong growth” across business lines in 2022 and a fall in claims paid overall. Highlights from the year’s data show that the export credit industry supported $2.83 trillion of cross-border trade and investment with an additional $68.6bn in non-cross-border support for exporters. Berne Union notes that growth has been supported by the return of significant transactions in the transportation sector as well as a large expansion of manufacturing sector project. The report notes that renewable energy transactions also continue to increase and are close to doubling 2019 levels, while commitments for natural resources continue to decline now at just 33% of their 2019 levels. Total claims paid fell from $9 billion to $7.6 billion over 2022, following a notable drop in MLT transportation claims which had spiked in the first stages of the pandemic. [However as noted in other articles of this issue of What’s New, ECAs poured 77% of their spending into fossil fuel projects between 2018 and 2020, making claims for increased renewable energy transactions almost irrelevant! ]
IFC announces it will stop clients funding new coal projects
(IFC, Washington, no date 2023) One of the key goals of the Paris Agreement is to ensure that financial flows are consistent with a pathway toward low emissions and climate resilient development. In 2020, The International Finance Corporation (IFC) the World Bank’s private sector arm launched the Green Equity Approach (GEA) to help our financial institution (FI) clients continue to do business in a changing world. This year (2023) IFC, is taking the next step toward alignment with Paris Agreement ambitions by introducing an update to the GEA under which IFC will start requiring a commitment from FI clients to not originate and finance any new coal projects. Previous policy allowed the IFC’s financial clients to support new coal projects as long as they exited coal by 2030, but new update explicitly rules out new coal. However Re-Course notes that the IFC still has a fossil fuel addiction. In the year when the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) are finally aligning their portfolios with the Paris Agreement, over seven years after the Agreement itself was made, it is time for change. [ECA Watch can only hope the OECD and all ECAs could move quickly in this direction for all fossil fuel project credits and insurance.]
China trails global financial firms in committing to end investments in coal projects
(South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, 4 May 2023) The number of financial institutions globally that have committed to coal divestments has doubled in the past three years, but it remains negligible in China, according to a new IEEFA study. While more than 200 “globally significant” companies now have formal policies restricting investment in coal mining or coal-fired power projects, just three financial institutions from China have established a formal coal policy,
200 and counting – Global financial institutions committed to coal divestment has doubled in 3 years
(IEEFA, Lakewood OH, 4 May 2023) In its latest report, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has found that globally significant financial institutions (FIs) are committing to divesting away from coal at a quicker rate as climate change becomes a priority globally. It took almost six years for the first 100 institutions to adopt coal exclusion policies, but since then the number has doubled in just over three years. “Interestingly, it’s not the largest asset managers who are leading the way. It’s more the medium- sized ones who recognise their duty to clients. This is a reflection that the market is learning and learning fast amid regulators getting tough on greenwashing. Collectively, the whole finance ecosystem is working together to find where the issues are,” said IEEFA’s debt markets leader for Asia Pacific Christina Ng. While several large global asset managers have established formal coal exit policies, the three largest asset managers managing assets worth US$20 trillion have either formulated weak coal exit policies or have no policy at all. Overall, there are 114 FIs in Europe, 53 in Asia-Pacific, 27 in North America, 6 in Africa, and 2 in South America. European financial institutions are leading the way in coal divestment with stricter policies than those in other regions. A total of 22 FIs in the emerging economies have also established coal divestment policies, including South Africa, Malaysia, China, Turkey, India, and the Philippines. Interestingly these countries are largely reliant on coal for electricity.
OECD countries reach historic agreement to modernize export credit support
(Trade Finance Global, London, 7 April 2023) A modernisation package agreed in principle by participants will specifically allow countries to offer greater support for green projects while also expanding the use of export credits in the context of an evolving world economy and an increasingly competitive landscape. Within the package of reforms, the Participants agreed to expand the scope of green or climate-friendly projects eligible for longer repayment terms, as permitted under the Climate Change Sector Understanding (CCSU). “The modernisation package agreed by Participants to the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits is a great milestone to help increase the impact of trade and finance flows on securing our climate objectives,” OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann said. “It will allow the scaling up and a better targeting of public and private finance to support climate-friendly investments and help us meet our global net zero emissions objective.” This reform is expected to come into effect later this year, once Participants complete their formal internal decision-making processes and agree to the new Arrangement text. [As noted in the next What’s New article, OECD ECAs have a long way to go to brag about reducing the current $1 to $7 ratio of renewable to fossil fuel project support!]
ECAs of a wide range of OECD countries still finance oil and gas
(Energy Monitor, London, 17 April 2023) All 38 members of the OECD have pledged to reach net zero, with the US and EU in the middle of hugely significant domestic decarbonisation programmes. Yet export finance remains misaligned with the requirements of net zero, directing seven times more support to fossil fuels ($33.5bn per year) than renewables (just $4.7bn per year) on average from 2019 to 2021, according to the OCI. Between 2019 and 2021, OECD ECAs were the world’s largest public international financiers of energy projects. Although China is not subject to the OECD Arrangement guidelines, “a general trend has seen Chinese international public finance eventually follow the OECD guidelines, which also help shape G7 and G20 commitments”, says Nina Pušić, from the NGO Oil Change International (OCI). China’s international coal financing ban, for example, came into effect the same year that the OECD ECAs introduced a similar ban. OECD ECAs (most notably Japan, South Korea and Canada) were the world’s largest public international financiers of oil and gas between 2019 and 2021. Canada has since implemented a pledge made at COP26 to end export finance for oil and gas, but others, including Japan, the US and South Korea, have yet to either make such a pledge or fully follow on through on it. There is a campaign under way from 175 civil society groups from more than 45 countries – including the OCI, the Club of Rome and Friends of the Earth – for the OECD to phase out international public financing of fossil fuels.
Commitment to end international finance for fossil fuels is shifting billions but key countries are missing in action
(Oil Change International, Washington, 15 March 2023) Promise Breakers, a report released today by Oil Change International, reveals that the Glasgow Statement, a joint commitment forged at the 2021 UN climate summit (COP26), is already shifting an estimated USD 5.7 billion per year out of fossil fuels and into clean energy, with the potential of a further 13.7 billion per year if all Glasgow Statement signatories fulfill their commitments. At COP26 in Glasgow, 39 countries and institutions pledged to end international public finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022 and shift this money to clean energy. This report is the first international assessment of signatories’ implementation of the commitment since the passing of the end of 2022 deadline. The report reveals that while some high-income countries have kept their Glasgow commitment, a group of major providers of international public finance have broken their promise, including Germany, Italy, and the United States. The report contains a detailed report card on each signatories’ policies, with recommendations for improvement.
Pandemic, disasters, war: Michal Ron looks back on Berne Union Presidency
(Global Trade Review, London, 30 January 2023) Michal Ron was elected president of the Berne Union, the international association for the export credit insurance industry, at a particularly unstable time for global trade. In an exclusive interview with GTR, she looks back on her two-year term, which included major shocks to the trade credit insurance sector, beginning with a global pandemic and ending in war in Europe. “Starting with a global pandemic, it was already in one of the worst moments, during lockdown. Then we had a very high number of natural disasters… all a consequence of climate change. And then as if that wasn’t enough, we had the war in Ukraine, at the very heart of Europe. One of my objectives when I began was definitely inclusivity and giving a voice to the lesser-known emerging markets, that multilateralism approach… Another was climate. Climate for me was one of the biggest pillars of my presidency. We created a working group task force on climate that included not just members of the Berne Union, but also the banking sector, development finance institutions and multilaterals. So that has been extremely effective and helpful for those of us who are, to an extent, lagging behind in terms of transformation towards greener, renewable energy, the circular economy… I also opted for a geographical region as an area of focus, because of its potential, which is the Sub-Saharan Africa region. Not everyone exports to, or is active in, that continent. But this is still the area where the largest growth, both trade and GDP, per annum is forecast. It is a very complex, and we could say also a particularly challenging region to operate in… My biggest regret for this period was also on the multilateralism front. As a result of the Ukraine war, we had to suspend the membership of the Union for two countries, Russia and Belarus. It went against all my past ideology, in terms of professional conduct on export credit and because it goes against the apolitical nature of the Berne Union. It was the first time ever that members were suspended on a geopolitical basis. It was petitioned by many of the Berne Union members, and it became inevitable when the UN came out with a resolution last March, condemning both countries on the international front, and sanctions were introduced. GTR: The war has also caused major energy price hikes; do you think export credit agencies (ECAs) are going to play a bigger role in helping secure imports, like the recent deals Euler Hermes has guaranteed with Trafigura for German gas and strategic commodities imports? Ron: We call it a strategic import. It might have different names in different countries, but that’s what we’re looking at. It has become part of many ECAs’ portfolios and we are seeing the number increasing day by day… GTR: Does ECA support for gas potentially contradict some climate goals, especially for members of the Export Finance for Future, who have committed to phasing out support for fossil fuels? Ron: There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this issue. You have countries that are very adventurous in terms of climate change. Very few, but still some, have already declared a net-zero strategy already commencing on the first of January [2023]. But let’s not forget that so far we are talking about four ECAs… But then you have countries such as Germany, such as Italy, that have been very dependent on gas. This is clearly an issue that has internal contradictions in terms of what to do about public support for fossil fuels. We obviously have a situation where we need to take into account a gradual phasing out, rather than an abrupt one point in time. At the Berne Union we’re doing a lot of information-sharing seminars in order to learn from more adventurous and greener export credit agencies and companies, insurers: how they do it, how they got there, how are they using scientific criteria to monitor progress? We are, in parallel, grappling with the complexity of ensuring additional sources of energy. I think most of us will not go back to the worst offenders such as coal-based plants.
