ANNUAL REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION of Member States' Annual Activity Reports on Export Credits in the sense of Regulation (EU) No 1233/2011
Date: 2020-08-03
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, 3.8.2020  COM(2020) 348 final  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,  in  turn,  is  obliged  to 
produce an annual review for the European Parliament based on this information.  

The  present  annual  review  covers  the  2017  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. Only the public sector activities of such companies are covered by this 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  that 
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.  At  the  time  of  writing,  an  update  to  the  reporting 
methodology is under review by Member States.  

2. Annual Activity Reports received for the 2017 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 of the Commission pursuant to Article 93 (1) of the EC Treaty  
applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty 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, as noted 
above,  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 guarantees or insurance for commercial loans and another which, for 
example lends directly or provides interest-rate support).  

In 2017, 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  are  expanding  their  toolkit  of  export  credit  programmes.  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  offered  this 
kind of support during the reporting period. The vast majority of Member States also offered 
other  forms  of  support  covered  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  1233/2011  and  within  the  scope  of 
application of the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits,4 such as direct 
lending or financing (where funding is directly provided by the ECA and not by a commercial 
bank)5  or  re-financing6.  Several  Annual  Activity  Reports  also  explicitly  mention  project 
finance7, tied aid8 and/or lending to SMEs9.  

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  make  it 
difficult  to  provide  a  fully-fledged  comparison.  Firstly,  Member  States  have  –  within  the 
general  forms  of  export  credit  support  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  the  same. 
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.  

4 The OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits, as incorporated into Union law, is reproduced 
in Annex II to the Regulation. 
5 Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovak Republic, Spain and United Kingdom. 
6 Hungary, Slovak Republic and Sweden.   
7 Denmark, Germany, Italy and Netherlands.  
8 Austria, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and Spain.  
9 Bulgaria, Denmark and Romania.  

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
With these reservations in mind, the table below listing aggregate nominal risk exposure as of 
31 December 2017 provides at least a general idea of the size of the biggest “pure cover” type 
export credit schemes.10   

Official support in the form of “pure cover” in 2017 (€ billions) 

Largest in EU according to aggregate nominal risk exposure  

Germany 

France 

Sweden 

Italy 

Netherlands 

85,8 

69,2 

34,8 

25,6 

24,4 

As already mentioned above, European ECAs are active in a broad range of areas beyond the 
scope  of  the  reporting  obligation  under  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  example  for  aircraft 
manufacturing,  shipbuilding  and  rail  infrastructure.  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 2017. 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.  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  to  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."  

10 Note that the United Kingdom also listed aggregate nominal risk exposure of £23.1bn as of 31 March 2018.  
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 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ECAs  continue  to  assess  environmental  risks  and  Member  States  have  further  developed 
internal  processes  to  evaluate  the  risks  at  hand.  Where  the  risks  involved  are  deemed  to  be 
unacceptable or disproportionate, cover is not provided.12 Where the risks  are deemed to be 
acceptable,  export  credit  support  is  typically  conditional  and  contingent  on  mitigation 
measures and compliance with certain standards.13 Convergence in practices is demonstrated, 
for example, by the application of different assessment procedures depending on the type and 
category of the transactions explicitly described by some Member States.14 

Paragraph  2  of  Annex  I  mentions  both  environmental  risks  and  "other  relevant  risks”.  In 
general,  as in  previous  years, Member States have continued to  interpret  environmental and 
associated risks broadly.  

Transactions are assessed with not only environmental but many other considerations in mind. 
For  instance,  several  Member  States  explicitly  refer  to  social  impacts15  as  well  as  human 
rights16.  These  risks  may  be  assessed  by  external  independent  experts17  or,  increasingly,  by 
dedicated specialists within each ECA18.  

In  addition,  almost  all  Member  States  refer  in  particular  to  the  procedures  outlined  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 impact even beyond OECD membership.  

Many  Member  States  report  that  they  apply  the  Common  Approaches  beyond  the 
recommended  scope  in  order  to  give  enhanced  scrutiny  to  an  even  greater  share  of 
transactions.19  Member  States  also  go  beyond  the  Common  Approaches  and  benchmark 
against other international standards in addition to the Common Approaches. These standards 
include  the  World  Bank  Safeguard  Policies,20  the  United  Nations  Guiding  Principles  on 
Business  and  Human  Rights21,  the  Principles  of  the  United  Nations  Global  Compact,22  the 
International  Labour  Organisation  Declaration  on  Fundamental  Principles  and  Rights  at 
Work,23 the Equator Principles24, the International Finance Corporation's Environmental and 
Social  Performance  Standards25  and  the  OECD  Guidelines  for  Multinational  Enterprises.26 
Another  recent  trend  is  the  inclusion  of  climate  change  initiatives  in  this  context,  including 
reference  to  the  UN  Framework  Convention  on  Climate  Change.27  Finally,  some  Member 

12 E.g. Belgium, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg and  Portugal 
13 E.g. Belgium, Denmark, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic and 
Slovenia. 
14 E.g. Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Slovak Republic.  
15 Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic,  
    Spain, Slovenia and Sweden. 
16 Austria, Germany, Sweden and United Kingdom. 
17 E.g. Czech Republic, Slovak Republic.  
18 E.g. Belgium 
19 Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain.  
20 Slovak Republic.  
21 Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden.  
22 Sweden. 
23 Finland and Netherlands. 
24 United Kingdom.  
25 Netherlands and Slovak Republic.  
26 Sweden. 
27 Finland.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
States  also  mentioned  their  ongoing  commitment  to  improving  and  developing  existing 
disciplines. Finland, for example, noted its participation in inter-ECA working groups seeking 
common approaches to environmental and social issues, as well as wider international efforts 
to create common rules to ensure a level playing field.  

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 OECD Recommendations28 play a major – but not exclusive – role.  Also 
Member  States  that  are  not  OECD  Members  apply  these  instruments  or  intend  to  do  so. 
Bulgaria, for example, applies the OECD Recommendation on Bribery. Many Member States 
state  in  particular  that  the  "Common  Approaches"  are  applied  beyond  the  scope  defined  by 
the OECD.29 In addition, Member State policies are informed by international standards30 and 
the  broader  EU  acquis.  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  social 
sustainability31  and  preventing  tax  evasion.32  In  several  cases,  the  ECAs  in  question  have 
developed relevant instruments themselves. An example of this would be a Corporate Social 
Responsibility  policy,33  which  typically  involves  not  only  internal  efforts  but  also  close 
dialogue with the ECA's clients.34 
As regards protection of the environment, new trends include an emphasis on sustainability35 
and  emissions  reduction36.  Like  in  the  previous  reporting  exercises,  many  Member  States 
stress  the  particular  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 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.37 An increasing number of Member States also mention the importance of 

28 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 
29 France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
30 For details, see list above, section 3b).  
31 Denmark, Germany, Romania, Slovak Republic and Spain.  
32 Sweden. 
33 Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden.  
34 E.g. Belgium.  
35 E.g. Czech Republic, Italy, Poland, Romania and Spain.  
36 Belgium and Denmark.  
37 E.g. Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal and Romania. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
monitoring38  and  are  active  in  encouraging  banks  and  exporters  to  develop  anti-bribery 
measures of their own.39  

Many Member States have developed their own specific anti-bribery and anti-corruption tools 
in addition to compliance with the Common Approaches, such as whistle-blowing measures.40 
Anti-money  laundering  measures  continues  to  be  cited  as  a  priority,41  along  with  the 
prevention of terrorism financing.42  

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.43  

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.  Several 
Member States give particular attention to this issue in the Annual Activity Reports in respect 
of 2017.44  

Based  on  their  reporting,  Member  States  seem  to  have  integrated  the  OECD  Common 
Approaches  into  their  export  credit  policies.  Moreover,  as  the  variety  of  considerations 
included  above  demonstrates,  the  Common  Approaches  are  frequently  seen  as  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 aspects.  

d) Compliance of ECAs with Union objectives and obligations: 

In order to step up transparency at the EU level, Member States are obliged under Regulation 
(EU)  No  1233/2011  to  make  available  to  the  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 345 and the principles and objectives of the Union's external action in its Article 21.  

38 Belgium, Italy and United Kingdom.  
39 Belgium, Denmark and Germany.  
40   Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
41   Sweden.  
42   Sweden.  
43   E.g. Hungary, Italy and Netherlands. 
44   Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
45   Inter alia according to Article 3 paragraph 5 TEU, in its relations with the wider world the Union “shall 

contribute to […] the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, 
free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the 
child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the 
principles of the United Nations Charter”. 

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.  

All  reporting  Member  States  provide  evidence  of  having  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, and in most cases the activities of Member States go beyond this level.  

In order to deepen the ability of the Commission to further assess Member States’ activities, 
the  Commission  has,  in  collaboration  with  the  European  External  Action  Service  and  in 
consultations with several stakeholders, proposed to Member States to extend the scope and 
the level of detail of the information to be included in the Annual Activity Reports. A revised 
and extended template for the reporting exercise is currently under discussion with Member 
States.  

The  European  Parliament  has  called  upon  the  Commission  to  issue  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. As such, the Commission’s review 
is  based  on  the  Annual  Activity  Reports  submitted  by  Member  States,  and  cannot  be 
considered definitive. Nonetheless, the Commission considers that the information contained 
in  the  Annual  Activity  Reports  provides  strong  evidence  that  ECAs  are  in  compliance  with 
Articles  3  and  21  TEU  and  does  not  provide  evidence  of  non-compliance  by  any  Member 
State. Of course, the European institutions may wish 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 I.  

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 2017.  

7