For Immediate Release
Dec. 11, 2003

Contact:
Jon Sohn, Senior Policy Analyst, 202-222-0717 or jsohn@foe.org

Groups Blast Weak OECD Agreement on the Environment
to be Signed by Bush Administration
Loopholes Allow Export Credit Support for Harmful Projects to Continue

Paris, December 11, 2003 – A common agreement among Export Credit Agencies (ECAs), likely to be adopted today at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), has been heavily criticized by Friends of the Earth and the ECA-Watch, an international network of environmental, development, human rights and labor groups. The Bush administration is praising the agreement as a step forward in international environmental standards. ECAs are the largest source of public funding for extractive and infrastructure projects in developing countries.

The environmental policy, dubbed the “Common Approaches,” allows countries’ ECAs to support massive harmful infrastructure and extractive projects without applying internationally recognized minimal social and environmental standards, or even disclosing public interest information to affected communities and stakeholders, the group says.

“The loopholes in this agreement are so huge the ECAs can drive a truck through them,” said Jon Sohn, senior policy analyst with Friends of the Earth. “The Bush administration and Export-Import Bank should not sign an environmental accord that perpetuates the ECAs’ race to the bottom.”

While the new agreement does make reference to international standards, it does not require ECAs to apply any specific minimum set of them to projects, deferring rather to a broad list of varying standards that they can elect to apply, or not, at will. ECAs can waive the application of international standards at their own discretion according to language of the agreement. And while the new agreement references making environmental information publicly available 30 days prior to a final commitment, it still allows exceptions to this rule at the discretion of ECAs and does not explicitly require companies to make this information publicly accessible or consult with affected communities and stakeholders prior to project approval.

The OECD agreement was developed to promote coherence between all ECAs, and develop a level playing field through a common set of environmental standards. However, “Race to the Bottom II,” an ECA-Watch publication released at the start of the new OECD negotiations, argues that despite the existence of an earlier OECD agreement, in reality it did little to mitigate the devastating social, environmental and human rights impacts of ECA-funded projects. “Race to the Bottom II” is available at www.eca-watch.org.

-end-