BANKS DODGY DEALS CAMPAIGNS
About BankTrack
Visit us
Organisation
Our team
Our board
Guiding principles
Team up with us
Jobs at BankTrack
Our annual reports
Funding and finances
History
BankTrack in the media
Our privacy policy
Donate
2023-03-17 00:00:00
Briefing: The role of financial institutions in decarbonising the steel sector
2023-03-09 00:00:00
Dutch bank ING supports controversial pipeline to import gas from authoritarian Azerbaijan
2023-02-23 00:00:00
Financial institutions need to address steelmaking’s coal addiction
2023-02-07 00:00:00
What COP15 means for banks: meeting the Global Biodiversity Framework requires protecting Indigenous rights and divesting from harmful industries
2023-03-28 13:43:00
French bank Société Générale withdraws from Rio Grande LNG
2023-03-20 08:50:41
Who dares to finance Eni and Exxon’s dangerous Rovuma gas plans in Mozambique?
2023-03-14 14:59:00
New ING policy could spark bank shift away from financing oil and gas infrastructure
2023-02-24 13:46:14
Pego power station conversion plans halted
Connect
2022-11-22 00:00:00
Banking on Thin Ice: Two years in the heat
2022-11-17 00:00:00
BankTrack Global Human Rights Benchmark 2022
2022-10-21 00:00:00
Burning forests in the name of clean energy? How banks are failing to exclude the harmful wood biomass industry from finance
2022-06-28 00:00:00
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP): Finance Risk Update No. 3
2022-04-05 00:00:00
The BankTrack Human Rights Benchmark Asia
2022-03-30 00:00:00
Banking on Climate Chaos 2022
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
Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine
Tracking the Equator Principles
Tracking the PRBs
Banks and steel
Find a Better Bank
Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter Login
Home › Partner news ›
Partner News

Global finance sector failing to apply conservation criteria to pulp and paper funding

2020-03-21 | New York/Amsterdam
By: Environmental Paper Network
Contact:
  • Merel van der Mark, EPN Pulp Finance Working Group Coordinator, merel@environmentalpaper.org
  • Luisa Colasimone, EPN International Coordinator, luisa@environmentalpaper.org, +351 910 678 050
  • Joshua Martin, EPN North America Coordinator, joshua@environmentalpaper.org, +1 828 242 4238
Overview table of policy scores on protection against the Red Lines. Photo: Environmental Paper Network
2020-03-21 | New York/Amsterdam
By: Environmental Paper Network
Contact:
  • Merel van der Mark, EPN Pulp Finance Working Group Coordinator, merel@environmentalpaper.org
  • Luisa Colasimone, EPN International Coordinator, luisa@environmentalpaper.org, +351 910 678 050
  • Joshua Martin, EPN North America Coordinator, joshua@environmentalpaper.org, +1 828 242 4238

On the U.N. International Day of Forests, the Environmental Paper Network (EPN) has for the second time assessed the policies of major banks and funders of the pulp and paper industry worldwide against baseline environmental and social criteria developed by a global network of experts, known as the “Red Lines.” Despite having three years to improve their policies since the first publication of In the Red, the new analysis shows that, on average, financial institutions only scored “well protected” on 5 out of the 14 categories of Red Lines. The analysis reveals a high level of social and environmental risk in the sector for investors and an urgent need for stronger safeguards.

Merel van der Mark, EPN Pulp Finance Working Group Coordinator, said: “Our analysis shows banking institutions are far from getting a passing grade – the pulp and paper industry keeps ignoring basic environmental and social criteria but investors continue to pump money into their activities without proper guardrails. Financial institutions have the duty to require their clients and business partners take appropriate action and meet the required standards.”

According to the report, ‘In the Red 2020,’ financial institutions are failing to implement adequate protections on most of the EPN’s ‘Red Lines.’ The ‘Red Lines’ are 14 absolute minimum criteria that a large, international coalition of conservation organizations have determined all financial institutions should ensure their clients comply with, and are fully described in the Green Paper, Red Lines report.

In the 2020 assessment, the highest scores were obtained for requiring legality and respect for human rights, and there are significant improvements from the 2017 assessment in the “respect indigenous rights and customary land rights” criteria. (2) The worst scores earned by banks stem from the lack of requirements for full Environmental Impact Assessments and the lack of commitments to not introduce high-risk species, which include genetically engineered trees. 

The 2020 assessment also analyzed the sufficiency of using standards such as the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards, the Equator Principles, The Chinese Green Credit Guidelines and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) principles and criteria to reduce risk in the 14 categories of Red Lines. The findings show that these standards only protect against a maximum of three Red Lines.

The construction and operation of pulp and paper mills can lead to a range of long-term negative social and environmental impacts. To stop funding controversial projects, financial institutions must set up a full public investment policy framework for the sector, open the door to communication with civil society organisations, and ensure that all policies are implemented through adequate due diligence procedures.

---

** The Environmental Paper Network and our 156 member organisations want to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances of this moment, given the terrible impacts of COVID-19 for people around the world. The urgent need to respond to the pandemic and its impacts is rightly taking priority. However, climate change and deforestation remain existential threats, they make similar outbreaks in the future even more likely and reduce our resilience to them. Like coronavirus, they will require unprecedented global action in solidarity with those most vulnerable. We believe that the analysis contained in this report will prove useful in addressing that threat and is relevant to the emerging science (1) that protecting forests may be critical in keeping viruses at bay. 


Notes to Editors    

  1. Could keeping forests standing help keep viruses at bay?, 19 March 2020, Fern
  2. Due to some methodological adjustments to increase coherence, some scores changed between the 2017 and the 2020 assessment, although policies stayed the same.

 

Banks

ABN AMRO

Netherlands
Active

Agricultural Bank of China

China
Active

Banco Bradesco

Brazil
Active

Banco do Brasil

Brazil
Active

Banco Santander

Spain
Active

Bank of America

United States
Active

Bank of China

China
Active

Bank of Communications

China
Active

Barclays

United Kingdom
Active

BNP Paribas

France
Active

BTG Pactual

Brazil
Active

Caixa Econômica Federal

Brazil
Active

Cathay United Bank

Taiwan, Republic of China
Active

China CITIC Bank

China
Active

China Construction Bank

China
Active

China Development Bank

China
Active

China Everbright Bank

China
Active

China Merchants Bank

China
Active

China Minsheng Bank

China
Active

Citi

United States
Active

Commerzbank

Germany
Active

Crédit Agricole

France
Active

Credit Suisse

Switzerland
Active

DBS

Singapore
Active

Deutsche Bank

Germany
Active

First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB)

United Arab Emirates
Active

Goldman Sachs

United States
Active

HSBC

United Kingdom
Active

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)

China
Active

Industrial Bank

China
Active

Itaú-Unibanco

Brazil
Active

JPMorgan Chase

United States
Active

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)

Japan
Active

Mizuho Financial Group

Japan
Active

Morgan Stanley

United States
Active

NatWest Group

United Kingdom
Active

Nordea

Finland
Active

Norinchukin Bank

Japan
Active

Ping An Bank

China
Active

Rabobank

Netherlands
Active

Scotiabank

Canada
Active

Shanghai Pudong Development Bank

China
Active

Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB)

Sweden
Active

Standard Chartered

United Kingdom
Active

Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group

Japan
Active

Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings

Japan
Active

Wells Fargo

United States
Active

BNDES

Brazil
On record

CITIC Bank International

China
On record

Export-Import Bank of China

China
On record

Hua Xia Bank

China
On record
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 Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine Tracking the Equator Principles Tracking the PRBs Banks and steel Find a Better Bank Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Vismarkt 15
6511 VJ Nijmegen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 24 324 9220
Contact@banktrack.org
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter
©2022 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