BANKS DODGY DEALS CAMPAIGNS
About BankTrack
20 years of BankTrack – Our history
Visit us
Organisation
Our team
Our board
Guiding principles
Team up with us
Jobs at BankTrack
Our annual reports
Funding and finances
BankTrack in the media
Our privacy policy
Donate
2023-11-20 00:00:00
West Cumbria Coal Mine: dodgy mine, dodgier financier
2023-11-08 00:00:00
Westpac takes two steps forward, one big step back
2023-09-18 00:00:00
New report and blog: Barclays' bond with Adani
2023-08-23 00:00:00
Decarbonization: steel not making the cut
2023-11-20 11:26:40
Danske Bank excludes financing for oil and gas upstream expansion
2023-09-19 16:11:58
Société Générale announces leading climate policy on gas
2023-09-15 17:34:10
The number of major banks refusing to support EACOP reaches 24
2023-07-31 14:30:01
Equator Principles recognise projects’ risk to climate for the first time
Connect
2023-10-10 00:00:00
Still bankrolling coal (for steel)
2023-09-18 00:00:00
Barclays' bond with Adani
2023-06-26 00:00:00
How should financiers align with the Global Biodiversity Framework? Five Key Principles
2023-04-13 00:00:00
Banking on Climate Chaos 2023
See all publications
Sections
Banks Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate
Banks and Human Rights
Banks and Nature
Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA
End Coal Finance
Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine
Banks and Steel
Tracking the Equator Principles
Tracking the PRBs
Find a Better Bank
Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Financial Exclusions Tracker Equator-Complaints.Org Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack 20 years of BankTrack – Our history Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter Login
Home › BankTrack news ›
BankTrack News

Civil society calls on Equator banks to guarantee adherence to standards during Covid-19 pandemic

2020-10-01
By: BankTrack, First Peoples Worldwide & Rainforest Action Network
Contact:

Kate Finn: Kathleen.Finn@colorado.edu

Hannah Greep: hannah@banktrack.org

Oct 2016 protest against ETP's Dakota Access Pipeline. Photo: One Earth Sangha via Flickr (CC BY SA 3.0)
2020-10-01
By: BankTrack, First Peoples Worldwide & Rainforest Action Network
Contact:

Kate Finn: Kathleen.Finn@colorado.edu

Hannah Greep: hannah@banktrack.org

On the launch date of the newest iteration of the Equator Principles (EP4), 28 civil society groups are calling upon the Equator Principles Association (EPA) to publish additional guidance that states affirmatively that all projects financed in the coming period will not be considered Equator compliant unless they can demonstrate additional review against and compliance with all applicable IFC Performance Standards. In addition, they maintain that the distinction between so-called ‘Designated’ and ‘Non-Designated’ countries be removed entirely from any future revisions of the principles. 

The revised EP4 maintains the distinction between designated countries - those presumed to have “robust environmental and social governance, legislation systems and institutional capacity designed to protect their people and the environment”, typically high-income OECD member countries - and non-designated countries - poorer countries that are presumed to lack such systems, where projects need to comply with IFC Performance Standards. Under the principles, projects located in designated countries are deemed in automatic compliance with Principles 2, 4, 5 and 6, unless the Equator Principles Financial Institution (EPFI) deems it necessary to also assess the project under certain IFC Performance Standards.  

Civil society groups have underscored that the assumption is a false one, pointing to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) as an example of where risks to project-affected communities in a so-called designated country have had long-term impacts on the project. A federal court recently ruled that Energy Transfer, the developer of DAPL, must remove oil from the pipeline nearly three years after it went online. This ruling was based on the fact that Energy Transfer failed to provide a sufficient Environmental Impact Statement at the outset of the project - sending a strong message that failure to secure a social license to operate and failure to adhere to the highest standards of environmental review can incur additional legal, regulatory and financial hurdles in the future. 

In this letter to the EPA, civil society groups now note that the arbitrary nature of this distinction has been magnified by the global COVID-19 pandemic. They note changes to country policies in several designated countries in light of COVID-19, such as the Executive Order issued by the President of the United States of America on June 4, 2020, which allows federal agencies to use emergency provisions of established environmental laws to waive or entirely bypass environmental review requirements when approving infrastructure, energy, environmental, natural resource, and other development projects.   

Under EP4, an EPFI would be in technical compliance if it relied on the United States’ own loosened environmental assessment regime to provide financing for a project. 

This highlights that mere reliance on host country policies when financing projects in certain designated countries during the global pandemic is less protective of financial institutions in terms of risk mitigation and of the human rights of affected communities.

Moreover, since many Indigenous and local community leaders around the world are engaged in the public health crisis, they simply do not have the ability to dedicate time to a fulsome consultation process - which puts EPFIs at increased risk of funding a project that is moving forward without reaching consent in line with international standards and best practice.

Whilst the world struggles to deal with the impacts of COVID-19, in which entire communities and local economies are being forever changed, civil society is urging the EPA to address this implementation gap to ensure that EPFIs are indeed financing projects with the highest degree of alignment with the UN Guiding Principles and other international norms. To do so is to leverage project finance as a tool that rebuilds and repairs communities and environments to our mutual benefit long after this pandemic.

Hannah Greep, Equator Principles campaign coordinator of BankTrack, said: “The effects of the pandemic have magnified the already shaky argument for the distinction between designated and non-designated countries. It is not in the interests of those EPFIs who are adhering to the highest standards of social and environmental review to allow for laggards that do not. The EPA can and should ensure that this does not happen.”

“The pandemic underscores a critical need for more robust risk assessment in countries where communities are most vulnerable and where environmental and human rights regulations are being relaxed,” says Carla Fredericks, Director, First Peoples Worldwide. “In the U.S. and around the world many Indigenous and local community leaders are engaged in keeping their communities healthy. Now, more than ever, development must not move forward without their free, prior and informed consent. Additional guidance for EPFIs on operationalizing FPIC in line with the UNDRIP is imperative to shield EPFIs from future risk and to prevent long-term impacts to project-affected communities.”

Alison Kirsch, lead researcher of the climate and energy program at Rainforest Action Network, said: "The Equator Principles mean nothing if they allow projects to be financed without full community consultation and environmental review, using the global health pandemic as an excuse. The EPA needs to step up and ensure this is not the case -- and of course, member banks should stay far away from any projects moving forward under these circumstances, including in the U.S.”

See the full letter here.

 
Sections
Banks Policies Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate Banks and Human Rights Banks and Nature Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA End Coal Finance Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine Banks and Steel Tracking the Equator Principles Tracking the PRBs Find a Better Bank Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Financial Exclusions Tracker Equator-Complaints.Org Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack 20 years of BankTrack – Our history Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Vismarkt 15
6511 VJ Nijmegen
The Netherlands
Contact@banktrack.org
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter
©2023 BankTrack
BankTrack is a registered charity in the Netherlands (ANBI) - RSIN 813874658
Find our privacy policy here

Stay up to date

Sign up now for all BankTrack's news


Make a comment

Your comment will be reviewed, before being posted