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
2023-03-20 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
2022-12-14 11:08:26
HSBC announces it will no longer finance new oil and gas fields
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
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 › BankTrack blog ›
BankTrack News

The seven biggest problems with current reporting under the Equator Principles

2018-10-17
By: Naomi Geelen – BankTrack & Ryan Brightwell – BankTrack
Screenshot of Equator Principles website. Photo: Equator Principles Association
2018-10-17
By: Naomi Geelen – BankTrack & Ryan Brightwell – BankTrack

The June 2013 version of the Equator Principles (EPs) included new requirements for Equator Principles Financial Institutions (EPFIs) to report on projects financed under the EPs.

Under the current Principles (EP3), EPFIs are required to report the total number of Project Finance and Project Related Corporate Loan transactions – by sector, region, country designation and whether or not an Independent Review has been carried out. The names of projects financed, the year of financial closure and the host country should also be reported, but only for project finance transactions, and this reporting is subject to obtaining client consent and other possible exemptions. For Project Finance Advisory Services, only the total number of services mandated per sector and region is required.

The requirements included in EP3 fell short of what civil society groups had called for throughout the revision process, but EPFIs insisted that the new requirements were going to significantly improve the transparency of the Principles. As EPFIs are now once more considering a new version of the EPs (EP4), we review how the current requirements are implemented and identify the priorities that need to be addressed to ensure transparency and accountability.

1. Many projects financed ‘under Equator’ do not need to be reported

Project name reporting is crucial to the transparency and accountability of the EPs. Yet there are several large caveats to project name reporting, which together mean that only just over half of the transactions that fall under the EPs have had their project name reported .

Most significantly, the reporting of project names is applicable only to Project Finance transactions. Although the EPs apply also to Project Finance Advisory Services, Project-Related Corporate Loans and Bridge Loans under certain circumstances, there is no requirement for EPFIs to report projects which they support via these means.

Recommendation: All projects to which the EPs apply should be subject to project name reporting.

2. Some banks fail to report any project names

Project name reporting is also subject to an EPFI obtaining client consent, as well as to applicable local laws and regulations, and to “no additional liability for the EPFI as a result of reporting in certain identified jurisdictions.” This results in a significant number of projects still not being reported.

For example, out of 68 EPFIs that reported at least one Project Finance transaction in the latest reporting year, 37 reported project names for all transactions. However, 14 EPFIs reported names for less than half of the transactions they financed, including ten that reported no project names at all. One bank, Banco Mercantil del Norte of Mexico, financed 32 projects ‘under Equator’ in the latest reporting period, but reported no project names.

In some cases, EPFIs that are known to have financed an Equator project have not reported the project name, while other banks that joined the same loan syndicate did so. For example, Natixis and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation failed to report their involvement in financing the Dakota Access Pipeline, while ten other banks involved in the same lending syndicate did so. Some banks are clearly not making as much effort as others to secure client consent.

Recommendation: All financing obtained from EPFIs must be conditional upon the project sponsor(s) agreeing to the loans being publicly reported by the banks. Where laws and regulations prevent project name disclosure, the specific regulations and the countries in which these regulations apply should be disclosed.

3. Reporting is only available per bank

As reporting data is submitted by bank and reported per bank, it is not possible to search the EP website to find out which banks financed which project. Similarly it is not possible to search projects financed by sector or by country. This would all be feasible if the same data were presented in a more accessible database format. BankTrack has been amalgamating EP reporting data in a spreadsheet which makes this kind of analysis easier.

Recommendation: Project name reporting from all EPFIs should be amalgamated in a database searchable by year and by sector, with details of each EPFI taking part in the financing as well as project sponsor(s) names. Links to all documents publicly disclosed by the project sponsor(s) as part of their commitment to meet the requirements of EPs should also be included.

4. Project names and sectors are reported inconsistently

The same project is often reported differently by different banks. For example, one project – the expansion of a Guinean bauxite mine – is variously reported as ‘CBG – Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinée’, ‘Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinée’, ‘CBG Expansion’, and ‘Expansion of the Sangaredi Bauxite Mine’.

Furthermore there is no clear coherence in the categorisation of sectors. The same pipeline project may be categorised as ‘Oil & Gas’ by one bank and as ‘Infrastructure’ by another. Hydroelectric power plants are categorised variously as ‘Energy’ and ‘Infrastructure’, while gas-fueled power plants may be ‘Power’, ‘Oil & Gas’ or ‘Others’.

Recommendation: Banks financing each project should ensure they report the project name and sector consistently.

5. Project risk categories are not reported

While banks need to disclose the number of projects they financed by risk category (Category A, B and C), there is no requirement to report on the risk category assigned to each named project. This risk categorisation determines whether an assessment or Environmental and Social Impact Assessment is required, among other things, so is crucial for understanding how the EPs are applied.

Recommendation: The categorisation of each project should also be reported.

6. Even the information that is reported gets deleted after two years

The limited level of reporting that is currently published on the Equator Principles website does not stick around for long – only the most recent two years’ reporting data stays on the website. This is another reason we are collecting EP reporting data in a spreadsheet to avoid this reporting disappearing down the memory hole.

Recommendation: An archive of all Equator reporting should be kept on the EP website. Reporting from previous years that has been deleted should be restored.

7. Reporting takes too long to be published

As of October 2018, seventeen EPFIs have still not reported on their Equator finance for 2017 on the Equator Principles Association’s website, although in some cases EPFIs have reported this information in their own reporting. At the end of August, 57 EPFIs had provided no reporting for 2017 on the EP website.

The delay in disclosing the names of projects financed ‘under Equator’ makes it harder for communities and civil society to hold banks accountable for upholding their Equator commitments. To truly be accountable, EPFIs should move towards disclosing projects under consideration, before they are financed, in line with emerging good practice in development finance.

Recommendation: Project names should be reported as soon as possible after financial close, and on at least a quarterly basis rather than annually. EPFIs should move towards reporting the names of projects under consideration for Equator finance, so that affected communities can raise any concerns before financial close.

Footnotes

From the latest available year of reporting, banks reported a total of 131 project finance advisory services; 880 project finance transactions and 126 project-related corporate loan transactions to which the Equator Principles applied (1137 transactions in total, not accounting for duplicates where projects are financed by more than one bank). In total, 638 project names were reported.

The banks that conducted project finance transactions ‘under Equator’ in the latest reporting year but reported no project names are: Access Bank, Arab African International Bank, Banco Bradesco, Banco do Brasil, Banco Mercantil del Norte, Bancolombia, Industrial Bank of China, Itau Unibanco, Lloyds Banking Group and Mauritius Commercial Bank.

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 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