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) 349 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  2018  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 or a financial institution 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 2018 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  provide  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 EU 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  or  a  financial  institution  perform  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 make-up schemes).  

In 2018, 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.  

Most Member States are offering an increasingly wide range of export credit programmes. As 
regards  the  types  of  export  credit  support  offered  by  EU  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)  or  re-financing5.  Many  Member  States  also  provide  project  financing  and  different 
forms of tied aid. Almost all Member States offer programmes designed to accommodate the 
specific needs of SMEs.  

Generally,  practices  and  underwriting  standards  are  becoming  increasingly  alike  among 
Member  States,  as  the  Arrangement  on  Officially  Supported  Export  Credits  has  come  to 
encompass  a  growing  number  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  capacity  of  the  private 
financial markets.  

4 The 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, Sweden and  
United Kingdom. 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
With these reservations in mind, the table below that lists the aggregate nominal risk exposure 
as of 31 December 2018 provides at least a general idea of the size of the biggest “pure cover” 
type export credit schemes.6   

Official support in the form of “pure cover” in 2018 (€ billions) 

Largest in EU according to aggregate nominal risk exposure  

Germany 

France 

Sweden 

Italy 

Netherlands 

86,5 

65,1 

28,1 

26,4 

24,4 

As already mentioned above, EU 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  Arrangement  on 
Officially Supported Export Credits). However, many EU 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. This may reflect the separate sector understandings in the 
Arrangement  on  Officially  Supported  Export  Credits  where  some  terms,  in  particular 
regarding  the  maximum  repayment  term,  are  adapted  to  the  specific  needs  of  particular 
industries.   

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 many Member 
States explicitly refer.   

Overall,  the  Annual  Activity  Reports  provide  relevant  financial  information  on  the  export 
credit  programmes.  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 Reports7.    

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 

6 Note that the United Kingdom does not provide a figure on aggregate nominal risk exposure per 31 December  
2018.   
7 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 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
relevant  risks,  are  taken  into  account  in  the  officially  supported  export  credit  activities  of 
their ECAs."  

Member States report that they are, on a continuous basis, refining their internal processes in 
order to  capture and  evaluate the environmental  risks at  hand. Where the risks  involved are 
deemed  to  be  unacceptable  or  disproportionate,  cover  is  not  provided.  Where  the  risks  are 
deemed acceptable, export credit support is typically conditional and contingent on mitigation 
measures  and  compliance  with  certain  standards.8  In  addition,  Member  State  policies  are 
informed by international standards and the broader EU acquis. References to EU objectives, 
standards and guidelines in the reports 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. 

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.9 

Paragraph 2 of Annex I in Regulation (EU) No 1233/2011 mentions both environmental risks 
and "other relevant risks”. In general, and as in previous years, Member States have continued 
to  interpret  environmental  and  associated  risks  broadly.  Many  Member  States  also,  when 
deemed warranted, report that they follow up the assessment of the risk during the lifetime of 
the transaction according to specific guidelines.  

Transactions are assessed with not only environmental but many other considerations in mind. 
For  instance,  several  Member  States  explicitly  refer  to  social  impacts10  as  well  as  human 
rights11.  These  risks  may  be  assessed  by  external  independent  experts12  or,  increasingly,  by 
dedicated specialists within each ECA13.  

Member  States  also  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 is an accepted 
and  well  established  assessment  tool  within  the  OECD  and  a  normative  impact  outside  the 
OECD.  

The  reporting  indicates  that  Many  Member  States  go  beyond  the  scope  of  the  Common 
Approaches  in  order  to  give  enhanced  scrutiny  to  an  even  greater  share  of  transactions.14 
Member  States  also  benchmark  against  other  international  standards  in  addition  to  the 
Common  Approaches.  These  standards  include  the  World  Bank  Safeguard  Policies,15  the 
United  Nations  Guiding  Principles  on  Business  and  Human  Rights,16  the  Principles  of  the 
United  Nations  Global  Compact,17  the  International  Labour  Organisation  Declaration  on 

8 E.g. Belgium, Denmark, France, Hungary. Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic,  
Slovenia and Sweden.  
9 E.g. Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
10 Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic,  
 Spain, Slovenia and Sweden. 
11 Austria, Germany, Sweden and United Kingdom. 
12 E.g. Czech Republic and Slovak Republic.  
13 E.g. Belgium 
14 E.g. Italy, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden. 
15 Slovak Republic 
16 E.g. Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden. 
17 Sweden 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Fundamental  Principles  and  Rights  at  Work,18  the  Equator  Principles,19  the  International 
Finance  Corporation's  Environmental  and  Social  Performance  Standards20  and  the  OECD 
Guidelines  for  Multinational  Enterprises.21  Some  Member  States  also  make  reference  to 
climate change initiatives, including reference to the UN Framework Convention on Climate 
Change.22 Finally, some Member States also mention their ongoing commitment to improving 
and developing existing disciplines.  

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 Recommendations23 play a major – but not exclusive – role. The 
three  Member  States,  Bulgaria,  Croatia  and  Romania,  that  are  not  OECD  Members  apply 
these  instruments  or  intend  to  do  so.  Romania  and  Croatia  apply  the  Common  Approaches 
and  the  OECD  Recommendation  on  Bribery,  while  Bulgaria  has  implemented  the  OECD 
Recommendation on Bribery. 

Many  Member  States  state  that  the  "Common  Approaches"  are  applied  beyond  the  scope 
defined by the OECD.24 In general, Member States seem to have stepped up their ambitions in 
combatting  bribery  and  corruption  by  introducing  new  compliance  measures  in  order  to 
tighten  the  anti-bribery  and  corruption  policy.  Many  Member  States  require  an  anti-bribery 
statement  from  the  insured  before  issuing  support,  which  states  explicitly  that  coverage  is 
automatically  invalidated  by  a  finding  of  bribery.  An  increasing  number  of  Member  States 
also  mention  the  importance  of  monitoring  and  engaging  in  dialogues  with  banks  and 
financial institutions on best practice policies regarding anti-bribery measures.    

Moreover,  Member  States  increasingly  cite  additional  policy  objectives  or  considerations, 
which  complement  those  enshrined  in  the  Common  Approaches.  Examples  include  social 
sustainability25  and  preventing  tax  evasion.26  In  several  cases,  the  ECAs  in  question  have 
developed relevant instruments themselves. An example of this would be a Corporate Social 
Responsibility  policy,27  which  typically  involves  not  only  internal  efforts  but  also  close 
dialogue with the clients of the ECA. 

As  regards  protection  of  the  environment,  new  trends  include  an  emphasis  on  sustainability 
and emissions reduction. 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.  

18 E.g. Finland and Netherlands 
19 United Kingdom 
20 E.g. Netherlands and Slovak Republic. 
21 Sweden 
22 Finland 
23 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 
24 France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
25 Denmark, Germany, Romania, Slovak Republic and Spain.  
26 Sweden. 
27 Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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.28 
Anti-money  laundering  measures  continues  to  be  cited  as  a  priority,29  along  with  the 
prevention of terrorism financing.30  

Member States’ policies seem to be converging, which, as one example, 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.  As  in 
previous years, Member States give particular attention to this issue in their Annual Activity 
Reports in respect of 2018.31  

Based  on  their  reporting,  Member  States  seem  to  have  integrated  the  OECD  Common 
Approaches into their export credit policies. Moreover, Member States seem to go beyond the 
Common  Approaches  exchanging  best  practices  and  assessment  methodologies  between 
themselves. The Common Approaches are more and more being 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 332 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.  

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. 

28 Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
29 Sweden.  
30 Sweden.  
31 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
32   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 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 I. 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 2018.  

7