ANNUAL REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION of Member States' Annual Activity Reports on Export Credits in the sense of Regulation (EU) No 1233/2011
Date: 2018-05-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, OECD, State aid, activity report, export aid, export credit, sectoral agreement

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.5.2018 COM(2018) 262 final  ANNUAL REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION of Member States' Annual Activity Reports on Export Credits in the sense of Regulation (EU) No 1233/2011  
 
 
ANNUAL REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION 

of Member States' Annual Activity Reports on Export Credits in the sense of Regulation 
(EU) No 1233/2011 

1. Introduction:  

Regulation  (EU)  No  1233/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16 
November  2011  on  the  application  of  certain  guidelines  in  the  field  of  officially  supported 
export credits and repealing Council Decisions 2001/76 EC and 2001/77/EC1 foresees in its 
Annex  I  that  Member  States  shall  make  available  to  the  Commission  an  Annual  Activity 
Report  in  order  to  increase  transparency  at  Union  level.  The  Commission  shall  produce  an 
annual review for the European Parliament based on this information.  

The  present  annual  review  covers  the  calendar  year  2015.  As  regards  the  scope  of  this 
exercise, it concerns  export  credit activities in  the  sense  of Regulation  (EU)  No  1233/2011, 
i.e.  "medium  and  long  term"  transactions  with  a  repayment  period  of  2  years  or  more.  This 
review  covers  neither  short  term  export  credit  transactions2  nor  activities  carried  out  by 
certain Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) outside the field of export credits (such as investment 
insurance).  It  must  also  be  noted  that  in  the  case  of  some  Member  States,  the  function  of 
Export  Credit  Agency  is  performed  by  an  insurance  company  operating  under  a  public 
mandate.  In  such  cases,  management  of  the  public  export  credit  programme  is  strictly 
separated from other private sector activities (the latter of which are of course excluded from 
the present review).   

The Commission has taken note of the Resolution adopted on 2 July 2013 by the European 
Parliament  on  the  first  reporting  exercise  under  Regulation  (EU)  No  1233/20113  and  has 
drawn  the  particular  attention  of  Member  States  to  the  recommendations  contained  in  this 
Resolution – such as the recommendation to the Council Working Group on Export Credits 
and  the  Commission  to  consult  with  the  European  External  Action  Service  on  further 
developing the reporting methodology.  

2. Annual Activity Reports received for the 2015 calendar year: 

Annual  Activity  Reports  have  been  received  from  the  following  Member  States:  Austria, 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, 
Italy,  Luxemburg,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Slovak  Republic, 
Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 

The remaining seven Member States (Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and 
Malta),  did  not  have  active  export  credit  programmes  in  the  sense  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  
1233/2011 during the reporting year. 

1 OJ L 326, 8.12.2011, p. 45. 
2  To  such  transactions,  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Member  States  on  the  application  of 
Articles  107  and  108  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  to  short-term  export-credit 
insurance applies. 

3 European Parliament resolution of 2 July 2013 on the first annual report from the Commission to the European 
Parliament on the activities of Member States’ Export Credit Agencies (2012/2320 (INI). 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3. Analysis of the Annual Activity Reports: 

a) General and financial information: 

The applicable regulatory framework (Regulation (EU) No 1233/2011) sets the general rules 
for  export  credit  transactions  and  programmes.  Although  most  European  governments  have 
set  up  an  ECA,  the  scope  and  type  of  export  credit  programmes  provided  differ  between 
Member States as well as the organizational structures of the ECAs.  

In  some  Member  States,  the  ECA  is  a  government  department  or  agency.  In  others,  an 
insurance  company  performs  this  function  under  a  public  mandate  and  under  government 
supervision.  It  is  not  uncommon  for  Member  States  offering  different  categories  of  export 
credit support to have more than one ECA (e.g. one agency which provides official support in 
the form of guarantee or insurance-style "pure cover" and another which provides interest rate 
style support). In 2015, 21 EU Member States were running export credit programmes in the 
sense of Regulation 1233/2011. These programmes were managed by a total of 29 different 
agencies and government departments.  

In general, Member States have expanded their toolkit of export credit programmes in recent 
years.  As  regards  the  types  of  export  credit  support  offered  by  European  ECAs,  the  most 
common  form  remains  "pure  cover" (i.e.  the  export transaction  in  question  is  financed  by  a 
commercial bank, for which the ECA provides a guarantee or insurance-type cover). All 21 
Member States providing export credits in the sense of Regulation (EU) No 1233/2011 during 
the  reporting  period  offer  this  kind  of  support.  15  Member  States  also  offer  other  forms  of 
support covered by Regulation (EU) No 1233/2011 and the OECD Arrangement on Officially 
Supported  Export  Credits4,  such  as  direct  credit  or  financing  (in  which  the  financing  is 
directly  provided  by  the  ECA,  not  by  a  commercial  bank)5,  re-financing6  or  interest  rate 
support schemes7. Several Annual Activity Reports also explicitly mention project finance8 or 
tied aid9.  

Generally  a  higher  degree  of  conformity  has  evolved  during  recent  years  as  the  OECD 
Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits has come to encompass a wide range of 
issues.  Nonetheless,  the  following  differences  should  be  borne  in  mind  as  they  render  it 
difficult  to  provide  a  fully-fledged  comparison  which  gives  a  complete  picture.  Firstly, 
Member  States  have  –  within  the  general  export  credit  types  mentioned  in  the  previous 
paragraph  –  developed  a  wide  variety  of  export  credit  programmes.  Moreover,  while  a 
particular product may be common to multiple ECAs, the terms and conditions attached to it 
may not be. Secondly, the impact of an export credit programme obviously also depends on 
the  characteristics  of  the  national  economy  and  on  the  capacities  of  the  private  financial 
sector.  

With these reservations in mind, the table below listing aggregate nominal risk exposure as of 
31 December 2015 provides at least a general idea of the size of the biggest “pure cover” type 
export credit schemes.10   

4 The OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits forms an annexe to the Regulation. 
5 Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovak Republic, Spain and United Kingdom. 
6 Hungary, Slovak Republic and Sweden.   
7 Finland, France, Poland, and Spain.  
8 Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands.  
9 Austria, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and Spain.  
10 Note that the United Kingdom also listed aggregate nominal risk exposure of £22.1bn as of 31 March 2016.  

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Official support in the form of “pure cover” in 2015 (€ billions) 

Largest in EU according to aggregate nominal risk exposure 

Germany 

France 

Sweden 

Italy 

Netherlands 

92.4 

75 

38.9 

24.6 

20.2 

As already mentioned above, European ECAs are active in a broad range of areas beyond the 
scope  of  the  reporting  under  the  EU  Regulation  (EU)  No  1233/2011.  The  latter  essentially 
covers medium and long term export credit activities (as defined by the OECD Arrangement 
on Officially Supported Export Credits). However, many European ECAs also offer products 
such  as  short  term  export  credits,  letter  of  credit  guarantees,  manufacturing  risk  guarantees 
and investment insurance products. It should also be noted that several Member States have 
developed sector-specific export credit products for (for example) aircraft manufacturing and 
shipbuilding.  It  is  useful  to  keep  this  in  mind  when  assessing  the  wider  economic  role  of 
ECAs.  

Detailed information  may be found in Sections II and IV of the reporting template used for 
the Annual Activity Reports, as well as in the general annual reports to which several Member 
States explicitly refer.   

Overall,  the  Annual  Activity  Reports  provide  relevant  financial  information  on  the  export 
credit programmes in 2015. It should be stressed, however, that according to Regulation (EU) 
No  1233/2011,  this  reporting  is  done  in  accordance  with  the  respective  Member  State's 
national  legislative  framework.  This  results  in  some  differences  in  presentation.  That  being 
said,  the  Commission  has  no  specific  observations  on  the  financial  aspects  of  the  Annual 
Activity Reports11.    

b) Treatment of "environmental risks, which can carry other relevant risks":   

According  to  Paragraph  2  of  Annex  I  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1233/2011  Member  States  in 
their Annual Activity Reports “shall describe how environmental risks, which can carry other 
relevant  risks,  are  taken  into  account  in  the  officially  supported  export  credit  activities  of 
their ECAs."  

Environmental risks receive increasing attention from Member States and play an important 
role  in  the determination  of  whether  export  credit  support  will  be  provided  or  not.  Member 
States  have  thus  developed  internal  processes  to  evaluate  the  risks  in  question.    Where  the 
risks  involved  are  deemed  to  be  unacceptable  or  disproportionate,  no  cover  is  provided. 
Where the risks are deemed to be acceptable, export credit support is typically conditional and 

11 According to Annex I, paragraph 1, the present reporting process is without prejudice to the prerogatives of the 

Member States' institutions exercising the supervision of the national export credit programmes. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
contingent  on  mitigation  measures  and  compliance  with  certain  standards.  An  explicit 
reference  to  such  conditional  cover  may  be  found  in  the  reports  of  Belgium,  Denmark, 
Hungary, Italy, Luxemburg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.  

As  regards  Member  States  with  several  ECAs,  Member  States  have  developed  inter-agency 
cooperation  and  coordination  in  order  the  evaluate  environmental  risks.  Typically,  where 
more than one agency is involved in the transaction such as where the transaction receives not 
only an export credit guarantee but also interest rate support, one agency is clearly designated 
to  ensure  that  the  transaction  meets  the  requirements  of  the  OECD  Recommendation  on 
Environmental and Social Due Diligence. Examples of this inter-agency cooperation include 
Italy and the Czech Republic.   

Paragraph 2 of Annex I mentions both environmental risks and "other relevant risks," which 
Member  States  have  interpreted  broadly.  Indeed,  several  Member  States  explicitly  refer  to 
social  impacts  as  well,12  such  as  human  rights13,  fundamental  labour  standards14,  and  anti-
bribery15. These risks are increasingly assessed by dedicated specialists within each ECA.  

Many  Member  States  refer  in  particular  to  the  procedures  contained  in  the  OECD 
Recommendation  on  Common  Approaches  for  Officially  Supported  Export  Credits  and 
Environmental and Social Due Diligence (the “Common Approaches”)16 which have gained 
acceptance  and  normative  force  even  beyond  OECD  membership.  Bulgaria,  for  example, 
applies  the  OECD  Recommendation  on  Bribery.  While  it  has  not  implemented  the  OECD 
Recommendation on Common Approaches to the Environment, nor the Human Rights related 
aspects, it remains "open" to integrating these Recommendations.  

However, in a recent trend, many Member States also look beyond the Common Approaches 
and have begun to benchmark against other international standards in addition to the Common 
Approaches  such  as  the  World  Bank  Safeguard  Policies,17  the  United  Nations  Guiding 
Principles  on  Business  and  Human  Rights18,  and  the  International  Labour  Organisation 
Declaration  on  Fundamental  Principles  and  Rights  at  Work.19  Another  recent  trend  is  the 
inclusion  of  climate  change  initiatives  in  this  context.20  Finally,  certain  Member  States  also 
cited  their  ongoing  commitment  to  improving  and  developing  existing  disciplines.  Finland, 
for  example,  noted  its  participation  in  inter-ECA  working  groups  as  well  as  wider 
international cooperation. 

In general, then, Member States have interpreted environmental and associated risk broadly. 
Transactions are assessed with not only environmental but many other considerations in mind. 
Member States have demonstrated not only the integration of the Common Approaches into 
their  export  credit  policies  but  also,  increasingly,  other  international  standards  and  have 
shown a commitment towards further evolution in this respect.  

12 Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Slovak Republic, Spain and Sweden.  
13 Finland, Germany and Sweden. 
14 Finland and the Netherlands.  
15 Netherlands.  
16  Austria,  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Germany,  Italy,  Luxemburg,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovak 
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
17 Slovak Republic.  
18 Finland.  
19 Netherlands.  
20 E.g. Belgium and Germany.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
c)  Other information contained in the Annual Activity Reports     

In addition to the information already mentioned in sections 3a) and b) above, the 21 Annual 
Activity  Reports  also  show  that  Member  States  have  developed  export  credit  policies  more 
generally  relating  to  the  environment,  anti-bribery  and  sustainable  lending  to  low  income 
countries. The three relevant OECD Recommendations21 play a major – but not exclusive – 
role. Even Member States which are not OECD Members apply these instruments or intend in 
principle  to  do  so.  It  is  however  obvious  that  the  OECD’s  Guidelines  and  Principles  on 
Sustainable  Lending  can  not  be  applied  by  export  credit  providers  who  are  not  doing  any 
lending to low income countries. 

Many Member States state in particular that the "Common Approaches" are applied beyond 
the  scope  defined  by  the  OECD22.  In  several  cases,  the  ECAs  in  question  have  developed 
relevant  instruments  themselves.  An  example  of  this  would  be  a  Corporate  Social 
Responsibility  policy,23  which  typically  involves  not  only  internal  efforts  but  also  close 
dialogue with the ECA's clients.24 

Like in the previous reporting exercise, many Member States stress the special importance of 
human  rights.  Practically  all  reports  continue  to  reflect  support  for  the  development  of  a 
human  rights’  dimension  under  the  new  Common  Approaches.  In  some  cases,  the  topic  is 
directly  linked  to  employment  rights25.  Certain  Members  also  reference  other  international 
standards such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights26 and 
the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards27. 

In general, Member States policies regarding ECAs have tended to converge. An example of 
this  is  in  anti-bribery  measures.  Many  Member  States  now  not  only  require  a  signed  non-
bribery  declaration  from  the  parties  involved  but  are  also  active  in  encouraging  banks  and 
exporters  to  develop  anti-bribery  measures  of  their  own.  Moreover,  certain  Member  States 
have  developed  their  own  specific  anti-bribery  and  anti-corruption  tools  in  addition  to 
compliance  with  the  Common  Approaches,  such  as  an  ethics  charter28  or  whistle-blowing 
measures29. Anti-money laundering measures are also increasingly cited as a priority.30  

Similarly,  convergence  is  demonstrated  by  the  close  adherence  to  the  requirements  of  the 
World  Bank  and  the  International  Monetary  Fund  cited  by  many  Member  States  as  regards 
sustainable lending practices to low income countries.  

Member States are also careful to ensure that ECAs operate as transparently as possible while 
respecting  the  confidentiality  that  may  be  necessary  to  commercial  transactions.  Particular 
attention was given to this issue by certain Members States in the Annual Activity Reports in 
respect  of  2015.31  Other  areas  to  which  Member  States  are  increasingly  giving  attention 

21 1. OECD Recommendation on Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and 
Environmental and Social Due Diligence (the so-called “Common Approaches”) 2. OECD Recommendation on 
Bribery and Officially Supported Export Credits. 3. The Principles and Guidelines to Promote Sustainable 
Lending Practices in the provision of Official Export Credits to Low-Income Countries 
22 France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
23 Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
24 e.g. Belgium and Sweden.  
25 Denmark and Sweden. 
26 Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden.  
27 Netherlands and Sweden.  
28 Luxemburg.  
29 Slovak Republic.  
30 E.g. Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
31 E.g. Belgium, France and Sweden.  

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
include  facilitating  dialogue  with  stakeholders  and  civil  society,  contributing  to  sustainable 
development,  and  promoting  compliance  with  the  OECD  Guidelines  for  multinational 
enterprises. 

It is clear, then, that the OECD Common Approaches have been fully integrated into Member 
State  export  credit  policies.  Moreover,  as  the  variety  of  considerations  included  above 
demonstrates,  the  Common  Approaches  are  increasingly  becoming  a  minimum  standard.  In 
many areas, Member States apply their own additional measures in order to ensure that export 
credit support is only available to transactions that meet a strict set of standards ranging from 
environmental to social.  

d) Compliance of ECAs with Union objectives and obligations: 

In  order  to  step  up  transparency  at  the  EU  level,  Member  States  shall  make  available  to 
Commission  an  Annual  Activity  Report,  reporting  in  line  with  its  national  legislative 
framework  certain  financial  and  operational  information  on  their  export  credit  activities, 
which also includes information on how environmental risks are addressed.  

According to Paragraph 3 of Annex I “the Commission shall produce an annual review for the 
European  Parliament  based  on  this  information,  including  an  evaluation  regarding  the 
compliance of ECAs with Union objectives and obligations”. 

The Treaty on the European Union (TEU) enumerates the general objectives of the Union in 
its Article 3 and the principles and objectives of the Union's External Action in its Article 21.  

As regards the EU's common commercial policy, reference to the principles and objectives of 
the Union's external action is made in Article 206 and in the first paragraph of Article 207 of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

The European Commission takes note based on the information provided that Member States 
with export credit activities in the sense of Regulation (EU) No 1233/2011 have established 
policies to accompany the management of their export credit programmes that are in line with 
the  EU’s  objectives.  The  export  credit-specific  Policy  Recommendations  developed  in  the 
OECD - the only international organisation to have developed specialised rules for this policy 
area so far – are in common use, but the activities of Member States go beyond this level.  

As mentioned in previous Annual Reviews, in response to a recommendation contained in the 
above-mentioned Resolution by the European Parliament of July 2013 on guidance for future 
reporting exercises, the Commission has issued a recommendation to notably use the work of 
international  monitoring  institutions  (including  the  UN)  as  guidance  in  further  policy 
developing.  Member  States’  reports,  to  a  different  degree,  already  use  such  international 
instruments  as  references  and  the  Commission  encourages  further  work  in  this  direction. 
Further dialogue with the European External Action Service when it comes to human rights 
policies would also be crucial. 

The  European  Parliament  has  called  upon  the  Commission  for  a  statement  on  whether 
Member States comply with Union objectives and obligations; the European Commission has 
performed  its  annual  review  in  accordance  with  Annex  1.  based  on  the  Annual  Activity 
Reports  submitted  by  Member  States  and  considers  in  view  of  the  information  contained 
therein  that  ECAs  are  in  compliance  with  Articles  3  and  21  TEU.  Of  course,  the  European 
institutions  may  like  to  set  themselves  jointly  more  ambitious  political  targets.  The 
Commission  stands  ready  to  facilitate  and  promote  a  relevant  inter-institutional  dialogue  in 

6 

 
 
 
 
this regard but must in the meantime perform its evaluation in accordance with Paragraph 3 of 
Annex 1.  

As  regards  compliance  with  international  obligations  and  obligations  under  EU  competition 
law, there have been no disputes at WTO level involving European export credit programmes 
during  the  reporting  period.  No  complaints  concerning  potential  infringements  of  EU  law 
involving export credit agencies were received by the European Commission in 2015.  

7