ANNUAL REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION of Member States' Annual Activity Reports on Export Credits in the sense of Regulation (EU) No 1233/2011
Date: 2018-05-17
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, 17.5.2018 COM(2018) 305 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  2016  calendar  year.  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  programmes  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 2016 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,  as  well  as  the 
organisational structure of the agency, differ between Member States.  

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 2016, 21 EU Member States provided export credit programmes in the sense 
of  Regulation  (EU)  No  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. Fifteen 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, tied aid,9 and/or financing for SMEs10.  

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. First, 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. 
Second,  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 2016 provides at least a general idea of the size of the biggest “pure cover” type 
export credit schemes.11   

4 The OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits forms an annexe to the Regulation. 
5 Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovak Republic, Spain and United Kingdom. 
6 Hungary, Slovak Republic and Sweden.   
7 Finland, France, Poland, and Spain.  
8 Denmark, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.  
9 Austria, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and Spain.  
10 Bulgaria, Denmark and Romania.  
11 Note that the United Kingdom also listed aggregate nominal risk exposure of £23.4bn as of 31 March 2017.  

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Official support in the form of “pure cover” in 2016 (€ billions) 

Largest in EU according to aggregate nominal risk exposure 

Germany 

France 

Sweden 

Italy 

Netherlands 

89.7 

68.7 

35.7 

26.1 

23.9 

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 2016. 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 Reports12.    

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 

12 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. There is increased 
emphasis on monitoring compliance with these conditions in the reports in respect of 201613. 
Convergence  in  practice  is  also  demonstrated,  for  example,  by  the  application  of  different 
assessment  procedures  depending  on  the  categorisation  of  the  transaction,  as  explicitly 
described by some Member States14. 

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 
the  OECD 
transaction  meets 
Recommendation on Environmental and Social Due Diligence. Examples of this inter-agency 
cooperation include Italy and the Czech Republic.   

the  requirements  of 

to  ensure 

that 

the 

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,15  such  as  human  rights16.  These  risks  may  be  assessed  by  external 
independent experts or, increasingly, 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”)  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. Certain Member States also 
apply  the  Common  Approach  beyond  the  recommended  scope  in  order  to  give  enhanced 
scrutiny to an even greater variety of transactions.17  

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,18  the  United  Nations  Guiding 
Principles  on  Business  and  Human  Rights19,  the  International  Labour  Organisation 
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work20, the Equator Principles21 and the 
International  Finance  Corporation's  Environmental  and  Social  Performance  Standards22. 
Another  recent  trend  is  the  inclusion  of  climate  change  initiatives  in  this  context,  including 
reference  to  the  UN  Framework  Convention  on  Climate  Change.23  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,  the  latter  of  which  was  also  cited  by  the  United  Kingdom.  The 

13 E.g. Belgium, Italy, Romania.  
14 E.g. Belgium, Denmark, Germnay, Slovak Republic and Spain.  
15 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
16 Austria, Germany and Sweden. 
17 Germany, the Netherlands and Spain.  
18 Slovak Republic.  
19 Finland and the Netherlands.  
20 Netherlands.  
21 United Kingdom.  
22 The Netherlands and Slovak Republic.  
23 E.g. Belgium and Germany.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Netherlands,  for  example,  is  developing  its  own  due  diligence  tools  to  review  the  human 
rights implications of transactions. Some Member States reported on changes that have been 
made to their own policies in 2016, demonstrating continuous internal assessment and review.  

In general, then, Member States have interpreted environmental and associated risks 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.  The  Common  Approaches 
themselves  were  revised  in  2016,  following  successful  international  cooperation  by  many 
Member States to reinvigorate the recommendations.  

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 Recommendations24 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. Many Member States state in particular that the "Common Approaches" are 
applied  beyond  the  scope  defined  by  the  OECD25.  In  addition,  Member  State  policies  are 
informed  by  international  standards  such  as  the  UN  Guiding  Principles  on  Business  and 
Human  Rights26  and  the  broader  EU  acquis  including,  for  example,  the  Regulation  on 
prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms27. Frequent references to 
EU  "objectives",  "standards"  and  "guidelines"  demonstrate  that  soft  as  well  as  hard  law 
instruments are taken into account and that the spirit is as important as the letter of the law.  

Moreover,  Member  States  increasingly  cite  additional  policy  objectives  or  considerations 
which complement those enshrined in the Common Approaches. Examples include gender,28 
social  sustainability29  and  preventing  tax  evasion.30  In  several  cases,  the  ECAs  in  question 
have  developed  relevant  instruments  themselves.  An  example  of  this  would  be  a  Corporate 
Social Responsibility policy,31 which typically involves not only internal efforts but also close 
dialogue with the ECA's clients.32 
As regards protection of the environment, new trends include an emphasis on sustainability33 
and  emissions  reductions34.  Like  in  the  previous  reporting  exercise,  many  Member  States 
stress  the  particular  importance  of  human  rights.  Practically  all  reports  continue  to  reflect 

24 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 
25 France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
26 Denmark, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden.  
27 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential 
requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 
28 United Kingdom. 
29 Romania, Slovak Republic, Spain.  
30 Sweden.  
31 Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
32 e.g. Belgium.  
33 Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, and Spain.  
34 Belgium and Denmark.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
support  for  the  development  of  a  human  rights’  dimension  under  the  new  Common 
Approaches. In some cases, the topic is directly linked to employment rights35.  

In general, Member States policies regarding ECAs have tended to converge. An example of 
this is in anti-bribery measures. Many Member States require a signed non-bribery declaration 
from the parties involved and state explicitly that coverage is automatically invalidated by a 
finding of bribery. In Portugal, for example, COSEC guarantees are not valid where there is 
evidence of bribery. An increasing number of Member States also mention the importance of 
monitoring36  and  are  active  in  encouraging  banks  and  exporters  to  develop  anti-bribery 
measures of their own.37  

Many 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  charter38  or 
whistle-blowing measures39. Anti-money laundering measures are also increasingly cited as a 
priority,40 along with the prevention of terrorism financing.41  

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  for  commercial  transactions.  Particular 
attention was given to this issue by certain Members States in the Annual Activity Reports in 
respect of 201642.  

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.  

35 Denmark and Sweden. 
36 Italy and United Kingdom.  
37 Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Poland.  
38 Luxemburg.  
39 Slovak Republic.  
40 Bulgaria, Romania, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
41 Bulgaria, Romania and Sweden.  
42 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France and Poland.  

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 that, in view of the information contained 
therein,  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  an  inter-institutional  dialogue  in  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 2016.  

7