(Bank Track, Nijmegen, 26 November 26, 2019) Ahead of the November 27 auctioning of exploration licenses for 14 onshore and offshore oil and gas blocks in the Dominican Republic, environmental groups warned financiers not to back companies which may end up being awarded licenses. Dominican NGO CNLCC, Italy’s Re:Common and BankTrack have raised concerns over the major climate risks and adverse environmental and social impacts which would result from the opening up of fossil fuel blocks in the country’s Cibao, Enriquillo, Azua, and San Pedro basins which together cover more than 20 percent of Dominican territory. A major corruption scandal has plagued the Dominican Republic involving the Brazilian construction company Odebrecht, which received the Punta Catalina coal-fired power plant contract due to an opaque, allegedly criminal tendering process. European banks were compelled in 2018 to freeze their project finance disbursements.
Re:Common
Trading away EU principles in the name of national export interests
(Euractiv, Brussels, 20 November 2018) MEPs need to follow the lead of the European Ombudsman and force the European Commission to shine light on the opaque role of national Export Credit Agencies. An important milestone in this direction was set by recent decisions of the Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, which she spoke of at a public hearing of the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament. Following an appeal filed by the ECA-watch network – the Ombudsman detected severe shortcomings in the European Commission’s monitoring of national Export Credit Agencies (ECAs), including “maladministration”, failure to acquire adequate information to formulate its judgement, failure to include environmental and human rights standards when it comes to supporting coal projects and the necessity to keep a written record of its analysis and assessment. ECA’s activities have so far been exempt from human rights-related considerations to the point that arms export for cross-border conflicts could have well fit among their activities. There is a long way to go to ensure that European Export Credit Agencies respond to the much needed demand for accountability and transparency, and the European Parliament has a big role to play. It will have to take a firm stand and make sure the Commission does its homework and complies with the Ombudsman’s recommendations. It is a matter of democratic control and the credibility of the European institutions.
European Ombudsman concludes the European Commission failed to carry out a human rights impact re ECAs
(European Ombudsman, Brussels, 17 July 2018) Following a complaint launched by ECA Watch members, the European Ombudsman has determined that the European Commission wrongly decided not to carry out a human rights impact assessment before agreeing to the 2015 Sector Understanding on Export Credits for coal-fired electricity generation projects, negotiated in the context of the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits. The Ombudsman found maladministration on the part of the Commission for having taken this decision in the absence of a thorough analysis of whether it was likely there would be any significant economic, social or environmental impacts, including on human rights. The Arrangement and its subsidiary Sector Understandings are a loosely monitored “Gentlemen’s Agreement” among participating OECD members, which provide “a framework for the orderly use of officially supported export credits”. This is a welcome decision and follows the Ombudsman’s recent demand for greater transparency on the part of European ECAs.
Banks criticised for funding coal deals despite Paris agreement
(ECA Watch, Ottawa, 31 December 2017) At the One Planet Summit in Paris in December 2017 a number of NGO, environmental and social movement organizations released briefings and research reports highlighting fossil fuel projects that are being funded by multilateral and national development banks and export credit agencies. The Big Shift global campaign released a briefing titled Dirty Dozen (pdf); complementary reports, ‘Banks vs. the Paris Agreement’ and ‘Investors vs. the Paris Agreement’ (pdf) were launched by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Urgewald, Friends of the Earth France, and Re:Common at the Climate Finance Day in Paris; and the Natural Resource Defense Council released Power Shift: International Coal vs. Renewable Energy Finance.
G20 countries need to stop using export credit agencies to finance fossil fuel projects
(FOE US, Washington, 16 October 2017) Although at least seven major countries — including Canada, France, and Germany — have made commitments to phase out coal power domestically, their export credit agencies, or ECAs, have poured money into coal plants and other fossil fuel projects in other countries. According to a new report by Friends of the Earth U.S. and Oil Change International, ECAs annually fund $32 billion worth of projects in the oil and gas sector alone. That is 11 times more than what ECAs provide to clean energy projects. The OECD Export Credit Group has implemented restrictions on financing of some coal plants but unfortunately, these restrictions are not enough to stem the destructive financing of ECAs. Key findings of the report include: From 2013 to 2015, G20 ECAs provided 12 times as much support to fossil fuels as clean energy; ECAs provided over $32 billion annually to support oil and gas projects; Japan is the worst offender, providing over $13 billion annually to fossil fuels, followed by Korea and the United States supporting almost $8 and almost $6 billion annually, respectively. An end to ECA’s support of fossil fuels would probably stop many dangerous projects from going forward. One is a coal plant in Vietnam — Long Phu 1 — that would produce at least 6.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. Another project is the development of liquefied natural gas in northern Mozambique, which has already destroyed the land of local communities and endangers unique ecosystems such as mangroves and coral reefs. The president of the World Bank recently noted that plans to build more coal-fired power plants in Asia would be a “disaster for the planet” and overwhelm the deal forged at Paris to fight climate change. The report recommends that all ECAs disclose the amount and nature of all fossil fuel-related transactions, as well as information on their decision making process, and formulate policies to phase out all support for fossil fuels. The report follows an NGO coalition’s July 2017 report showing G20 nations provide four times more public financing to fossil fuels than to renewable energy.
New database reveals world’s biggest coal plant developers
(Banktrack, Berlin 29 June 2017) The environmental NGO urgewald and its partners have revealed which companies are at the forefront of plans to expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by a staggering 42.8%. urgewald’s previous in-depth research played a key role in initiating the coal divestment actions of the Norwegian Government Pension Fund and the insurance company Allianz.
NGOs question Italy’s SACE intent to support Mochovce nuclear plant
(RE:Common & ECA Watch Europe, Brussels/Rome, 27 November 2014) NGOs have written to Italy’s Minister of Economic Development and SACE to express their deep concern about SACE’s intention to issue a financial guarantee of up to 500 million Euros in favour of the controversial Enel-sponsored Mochovce 3 and 4 nuclear power plant project in Slovakia. Last June the German government decided to stop future support through Euler Hermes guarantees for nuclear power plants, in line with the decision in 2011, soon after Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, to phase out nuclear power production in Germany by 2021.
Press release – International NGO Call on Goverments to #EndCoalFinance
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11 June 2014
International NGOs Call on Governments to #EndCoalFinance
On Monday, June 16 the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s Export Credit Group will meet to discuss climate and energy related financing through Export Credit Agencies – public agencies that fund or guarantee private corporations from their home country to invest or export overseas.
International civil society organizations are targeting governments today, Wednesday, June 11, to call for an end to public finance for coal. A Twitterstorm will urge OECD governments to end financing and guarantees for coal through Export Credit Agencies.
Last week in Brussels, G7 nations confirmed their commitment “to the elimination of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and continued discussions in the OECD on how export credits can contribute to our common goal to address climate change.”
In the OECD Export Credit Group meeting, governments will be considering a proposal from the United States and the United Kingdom to open a process to adopt restrictions for financing high carbon intensity projects (primarily coal power plants).
This opportunity to end Export Credit Agency financing for coal is a key part of the larger effort to end public financing for fossil fuels and high carbon projects.(1)
Regine Richter, from Urgewald in Germany says: “Guarantees worth billions from the country of energy transition? While climate experts warn that more coal plants mean the end of the 2° C target?! It’s time to stop this contradiction and finish coal support through Hermes guarantees.”
Lucie Pinson, Amis de la Terre France says: “After ending coal support through its development agency last year, France has to finish its job if they are serious about fighting climat change. France could not give the lead to the COP21 in Paris next year if Coface keeps supporting coal power plants overseas whose emissions account for 14% of domestic emissions!”
Between 2007 and 2013 public financial institutions provided at least $51 billion in funding for coal projects abroad. The largest proportion of this comes from national Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) from OECD countries, which have provided at least $32 billion over this period or 63 percent of total public support. (2)
Over the past year, the World Bank, the European Investment Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have committed to ending support for coal projects except in limited circumstances. The US, the UK, the Netherlands and Nordic countries have made similar commitments to end public finance for coal projects overseas.
Given the improvements in multilateral practice, it is increasingly likely that OECD Export Credit Agencies could end up as a place of last resort for carbon intensive industries that are no longer able to secure funding due to their high risk and poor environmental performance.
For more information on the Twitterstorm, go here: http://www.eca-watch.org/node/3600
1. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), to stay within a 2°C global temperature rise – a level climate scientists believe would allow us to avoid the worst impacts of climate change: at least two thirds of current proven fossil fuel reserves need to stay underground.
2. According to data compiled by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Oil Change International. These staggering statistics probably under-estimate the total amount due to lack of reporting by many of these shadowy institutions.
Civil Society groups request ECAs discontinue financing of coal projects
September 13, 2013
Participants to the Export Credit Arrangement
Members of the Export Credit Group
To the Participants and the Members:
We are writing to urge your member Export Credit Agencies to discontinue financing of coal projects following recently announced decisions by other leading public finance institutions to halt public financing of coal. In this context, we would also like to suggest important implications for the provision of beneficial financing for carbon capture and storage and other fossil fuel technologies in the Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Renewable Energy, Climate Change Mitigation and Water Projects (hereafter Climate Change Sector Understanding). And, we write concerning the need for increased transparency in the OECD Export Credit Group and the Participants to the Arrangements’ climate change-related policy setting and implementation processes.
Carbon Capture and Storage: As Greenpeace and others have shown, carbon capture and storage (CCS) presents a false hope for mitigating climate change. CCS has not proven to be either environmentally or economically viable at scale. The capture, transport, compression and injection of CO2 is an inefficient process which has been estimated to actually increase the fuel requirements of a plant with CCS by about 25% for a coal-fired plant, and about 15% for a gas-fired plant, requiring the extraction, transport and combustion of even more fossil fuels, increasing harmful pollution. Scientists also fear that in many locations CCS injection can trigger earthquakes, rendering CCS to be a risky and likely unsuccessful strategy to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Systems to capture, transport, compress and inject CO2 can dramatically increase the price per kWh of power generated over a project’s lifecycle, rendering such systems uncompetitive. Thus, financial support for CCS permissible under the Climate Change Sector Understanding diverts limited climate change mitigation financing away from sustainable renewable energy solutions and hinders, rather than assists, the necessary transition away from fossil fuels.
CCS creates unacceptable risks and liabilities for project sponsors, financiers, governments and the environment. The number of project cancelations is high, putting financiers and project sponsors at risk. Host government capacity to effectively implement and manage local liability regimes that protect communities and the environment over the life of a project is unknown; and it is next to impossible to create a financial provision to fund post-site closure monitoring and remediation because the long term costs of CCS are unquantifiable. Moreover, there is a risk of chronic and catastrophic CO2 leakage, posing climate risks as well as threats to the local environment and human health.
CCS technology is still in the demonstration phase. It is highly unrealistic as an option for delivering carbon emission reductions at the scale and timeframe necessary to avert catastrophic climate change, with only 8 demonstration projects operating globally, falling far short of the International Energy Agency’s CCS roadmap target of 100 plants by 2020 and 3,000 plants by 2050. Technological maturity will take another decade or two, thus missing the most critical window for emission reductions. Thus, CCS cannot deliver significant reductions in time to keep the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius.
Even if, theoretically, CCS were to become feasible, its widespread use would facilitate the perpetuation of fossil fuel combustion on a massive scale, with all the attendant adverse health and environmental impacts, including respiratory & cardiovascular system damage, disease, cancer, and death, along with air & water pollution. Carbon capture and injection is increasingly used to boost oil production, which will likely result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution. The provision of special financial benefits for a technology that facilitates a new era of coal plants clearly conflicts with emerging bans on public financing of coal plants (see Ending Coal Financing below). Thus, the use of CCS to expand both coal and oil projects defeats the credibility of the Climate Change Sector Understanding.
CCS thus contradicts the overall purpose of the Climate Change Sector Understanding to provide adequate financing to projects “significantly contributing to climate change mitigation,” as well as other specific provisions including that supported projects “should result in low to zero carbon emissions, or CO2 equivalent, and/or in high energy efficiency.” Hence, we call on you to abandon the inclusion of CCS in the currently agreed Climate Change Sector Understanding. We urge the Participants to rescind provisions supporting CCS at the Participants’ next negotiating session on the Climate Change Sector Understanding.
Low Emissions/High Energy Efficiency Fossil Fuel Power Plants: We are also deeply concerned about the Participants’ consideration of potential inclusion of “[C]onditions for low emission/high energy efficiency fossil fuel power plants including definition of CCS-readiness.” Support for low emission/high energy efficiency fossil fuel projects perpetuates the use of fossil fuels is a false solution which ensures more greenhouse gas emissions, worsening climate change while diverting precious, limited public resources away from sustainable renewable energy solutions. Increases in efficiency normally occur with the evolution of technologies, whereas in this case the Participants are being asked to subsidize the status quo.
As described in the section above, CCS fails to meet the requirements of the Climate Change Sector Understanding, and CCS-readiness contravenes these requirements even further. Since the future viability of CCS technology in general and on any given project remains wholly uncertain, proponents of CCS-readiness cannot provide verifiable quantitative and measurable data to demonstrate that the following requirement of the Climate Change Sector Understanding Appendix II can be met:
- “Participants shall provide a detailed description of the proposed Project Class or Type and information on how such projects fulfill the criteria [including] evaluation of the direct contribution of the Project Class or Type to climate change mitigation, including a comparison of the sector performance, based on measurable data regarding carbon emissions or CO2 equivalent and/or in high energy efficiency, with conventional and in-use newer technological approaches; this comparison shall, in all cases, be based on quantitative measures, such as a decrease in emissions per unit produced.” [Emphasis added]
And:
- “A description of the technical and performance standards of the Project Class or Type.”
What’s more, adding a project class or type to the Sector Understanding on the basis that it might be viable in the future eviscerates any reasonable standard of compliance. The potential inclusion of CCS-readiness also begs the question of whether any and all types of projects covered under other Sector Understandings should be granted advantageous financing conditions just because project sponsors might comply with a given requirement in the future.
As such, the proposal to include CCS-readiness based on conjecture about the future is grossly irresponsible, and should be soundly rejected.
Ending Coal Financing: We would like to draw your attention to the fact that the European Investment Bank (EIB), World Bank, and the U.S. Government have recently issued directives to end the financing of coal projects abroad except in extremely limited circumstances. We feel this is an important move in addressing both climate change and local environmental and community health concerns, and an important step in the larger process of addressing public financing for harmful fossil fuel projects. We believe other public finance institutions, such as the members of the OECD Export Credit Group, should also discontinue coal financing without exception, and begin a rapid phase-out of other forms of fossil fuel financing. If not, coal developers will exploit this policy gap in order to push through projects with ECA support that other institutions would not contemplate supporting, thus renewing a race to the bottom. The risks of this scenario to ECAs and the OECD would be severe.
Lack of Transparency: We remain concerned that the Participants and the OECD Export Credit Group continue to provide scant information on the implementation of the Climate Change Sector Understanding and climate change provisions of the Common Approaches. For example, despite requests, these bodies have not provided public information on the number, type, financial volume or location of projects that benefit from the Climate Change Sector Understanding. Also, the Export Credit Group has not provided requested public information on carbon emissions that are to be accounted for and reported on under the revised Common Approaches. As the world’s largest class of public finance institutions, which is establishing public policy on one of the most important global issues of our time, this lack of public transparency is inexplicable and unacceptable. You can and must do better.
We look forward to your response to all of the above concerns and suggestions.
Sincerely,
ECA-Watch Europe
Antonio Tricarico
Re:Common
Italy
Ben Schreiber
Acting Climate and Energy Program Director
Friends of the Earth
United States
Iris Cheng
Energy Campaigner
Greenpeace International
The Netherlands
Vanya Walker-Leigh
Climate Change Adviser
Nature Trust Malta
Malta
Amanda Starbuck
Energy & Finance Program Director
Rainforest Action Network
USA
Arthur Mitzman,
Coordinator
Concerned Citizens against Climate Change
The Netherlands
Tomislav Tkalec,
Head of Energy Programme
Focus, Association for sustainable Development Slovenia
Slovenia
Hozue HATAE
Campaigner
Friends of the Earth Japan
Japan
Gloria Kuang-Jung Hsu
Coordinator, Academic Committee
Taiwan Environmental Protection Union
Bikash Rath
Sr. Programme Manager
Regional Centre for Development Cooperation
India
Kuba Gogolewski
Energy campaigner
CEE Bankwatch Network
Central and Eastern Europe
Lucie Pinson – Les Amis de la Terre
Chargée de campagne Finance privée/Coface
Private finance/ Coface campaigner
France
Sam Chelladurai
India READ Centre
India
Visar Azemi
Kosovo Civil Society Consortium for Sustainable Development
KOSID
Kosovo
Rose Braz
Climate Campaign Director
Center for Biological Diversity
United States
Garret Tankosić-Kelly
SEE Change Net Principal
SEE SEP Programme Manager
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Mahesh Pandya
ParyavaranMitra
India
Feli Esau
RCP-Network/OLEDD-CSO
D.R.Congo
Helene Connor
Helio International
France
Nick Hildyard
The Corner House
England
Wiert Wiertsema
Both ENDS
The Netherlands
Christopher Brandt
The Climate Concept Foundation
Germany
Regine Richter
Urgewald
Germany
Doug Norlen
Pacific Environment
United States
Heike Drillisch
CounterCurrent—GegenStroemung
Germany
Johan Frijns
Executive Director
BankTrack
The Netherlands
Julien Vincent
Market Forces
Australia
Debi Goenka
Executive Trustee
Conservation Action Trust
India
Falguni Joshi,
Gujarat Forum On CDM,
India
Eva Filzmoser
Nature Code – Centre of Development and Environment
Austria
Gabriel Sundoro Wijoyo Wynn
Green Empowerment
Southeast Asia
Adrian Lasimbang
Tonibung
Malaysia
Alba Valle
Euronatura
Portugal
Thomas Braunschweig
Berne Declaration
Switzerland
Cynthia Ong
Land Empowerment Animals People (LEAP)
Malaysia
Yuki Tanabe
Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES)
Japan
Thomas Wenidoppler
ECA-Watch Austria
Austria
Heike Mainhardt
Oil Change International
United States
Aviva Imhof
Pacific Coal Network Coordinator
Sunrise Foundation
Australia
Financing Nuclear Times
This newspaper style publication outlines the history of Export Credit Agencies’ support for the nuclear industry and concludes by detailing the destructive projects still in the pipeline.
Articles include; Crippling losses and corruption: nuclear exports Canadian-style; Gift RAPP: Canada’s support for nuclear power and proliferation in India and Pakistan; Nuclear – a publicly subsidised love affair; and German nuclear exports 2009 – 2011:Back to square one!
