- Export credit agencies (ECAs) – and the governments that oversee them – could be in violation of their international legal obligations if they do not take action to reduce their financing of fossil fuel-related activities imminently.
- That is the main conclusion of a new legal opinion published today, two days before ministers gather at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue.
- The opinion, which was commissioned by Oil Change International, for the first time lays out the international law obligations of ECAs that are responsible for tens of billions of dollars per year in support for fossil fuels.
The South African ECA – the Export Credit Insurance Corporation (ECIC) – and the South African government should be particularly aware of this opinion, as the government has recently released an updated draft nationally determined contribution to the Paris Agreement. The ECIC’s portfolio shows significant exposure to fossil fuels, and as a state-owned agency, this coupled with the updated NDC should prompt urgent action.
Of particular concern for the ECIC should be their US$800 million loan guarantee to the Mozambique LNG terminal project in the Cabo Delgado Province. The LNG industry in northern Mozambique, has caused suffering for local communities for years, even though gas will only be extracted after 2024 – if indeed this ever happens following last week’s announcement by Total, the project leaders, of ‘force majeur’. Read more
This makes the project’s future uncertain, as Total leaves the country without paying local contractors or fulfilling their obligations to local communities. The project’s Environmental Impact Assessment admits that the construction phase alone will increase the greenhouse gas emissions for the whole of Mozambique by 10% by 2022.
Referring to the best available climate science, the authors of the opinion, Professor Jorge E Vinuales from the University of Cambridge and Barrister Kate Cook of Matrix Chambers, state that: “if the extremely dangerous consequences of climate change are to be averted or, more modestly, their likelihood reduced, there is no room for additional fossil fuel capacity and existing capacity or its emissions must be reduced urgently and proactively.”
The legal opinion considers the international law framework that applies to ECAs which act on behalf of States or are regulated by them or operate as separate entities. Drawing primarily on customary international law, as well as on human rights, climate change agreements and OECD instruments, it concludes: “given the substantial contribution of ECAs to enable the emissions of greenhouse gases associated with existing and new fossil fuel-related projects/activities, in principle, States comply with their duty of due diligence only if they do their utmost to reduce their contribution to the problem, rather than extending it or increasing it.
“If export credit agencies don’t stop financing oil, gas and coal, then these institutions — and the governments responsible for them — could find themselves facing legal action. Civil society groups looking to safeguard the climate are increasingly turning to legal tools to protect our common future, and this opinion makes it clear that ECAs might become the next target of climate litigation,” said Karen Hamilton, Program Officer with NGO Above Ground.
The legal opinion also mentions the need to expand the OECD restrictions on export finance for coal-fired power to cover all fossil fuels and associated infrastructure, in line with the Paris Agreement goals. OECD members previously agreed to restrict export finance for coal-fired power plants in 2015, but progress on further restricting ECA finance for fossil fuels stalled during the Trump Administration. At the Biden Climate Summit, the US announced that it wants to “spearhead efforts to modify disciplines on official export financing provided by OECD export credit agencies (ECAs), to reorient financing away from carbon-intensive activities”.
Download the full legal opinion HERE
Author: Bryan Groenendaal