GCF on Export Credit Agencies Policy Gaps

GCF Board members on Export Credit Agencies Policy Gaps

One of the major debates during 13th GCF Board meeting was either to accredit or not the export credit agencies (ECAs). The reason behind the divide among Board members in judging the qualification of export credit agencies is solely due to policy gaps. These gaps became transparent only when the status of ECAs began to be scrutinized at this meeting. The argument against ECAs is that they are basically mandated towards exports and national development of their home countries, including job promotion and other national benefits.

On the other hand, some Board members argue that export credit agencies do not only function as export entities but as international development agencies as well. The Board members who supported the accreditation of ECAs mentioned countries that benefited development services from such agencies. To support that counter argument, some Board members insisted that many among the recent entities (33) accredited to the GCF have similar status with ECAs.

In attempting to resolve such issues, some Board members reckoned that creating an exclusion list could be the right solution. However, I don’t find that “exclusion list” meaningful in the sense that there is no clear guidance nor policy to which the list can be based from. The committee on accreditation have been mandated to examine accreditation issues to advance efficiency, fairness and transparency of the accreditation process, but clearly the policy gaps get in the way and that further scrutiny on the issue and developing a policy to cover the gap is needed.

If the Board accredit such agencies, it would violate its own governing principles and mandate as an institution that aims to achieving a paradigm shift, that is, moving away from fossil fuels energy use to green and sustainable energy – such as solar and wind energies. Local environmental organizations and some civil society organizations are against the accreditation to credit agencies not only because of their mandates but also because some agencies have records of massively supporting fossil fuel activities.

Due to such policy gap, the GCF Board members have decided to defer their decision to the next Board meeting which will be held in Quito, Ecuador in October this year.