Export credit agencies support profits and fossil fuels but do not reduce inequalities

In the past months, yet another acronym is becoming more popular in the European Union’s  (EU) corridors, especially in discussions around sustainable development and the Global South: ECAs. It stands for export credit agencies. They are financial institutions that operate within, or in close alignment with, national governments. They support the development of companies in their country to develop their activities abroad by providing financial assistance under better conditions than the market (loans with low interest rates, guarantees in case of non-payment, insurance, etc.). ECAs thus make it easier and safer for their national companies to export. Their mandate is clear: increase national trade and promote national businesses. The fight against climate change or poverty reduction are not part of their mandate, only add-on objectives.

The good news is that recently, European governments, among others, committed to end public investment in fossil fuel projects (coal, oil, and natural gas) outside of their country in 2021. The bad news though is that not all European governments are on this path. Some member states are still lagging behind. Since 2022, Germany has approved 1.3 billion Euros in foreign fossil fuel finance. Italy's export credit agency SACE also still backs fossil fuel projects overseas. If a fossil fuel project by an Italian company outside of Italy goes wrong, SACE will protect at least part of the  capital companies or banks have used to finance the project, in both cases with public money. One of the latest projects to be guaranteed by SACE is the construction of 10 wells for the extraction of offshore natural gas in the Turkish Black Sea. Projects supported by export credit agencies have not also been in the spotlight for their impacts on human rights. In November 2025,Total Energies has been accused of complicity in war crimes for its controversial gas megaproject in Mozambique. The export credit agencies of the US, Italy and Japan are involved in this project. A criminal complaint accuses Total of having directly financed and materially supported a Mozambican army unit, which between July and September 2021 allegedly detained, tortured and killed dozens of civilians on the Mozambique LNG project site in Afungi, northern Mozambique. Counter Balance member ReCommon found out SACE approved a loan guarantee for €950 million for this project in January 2024 without a new environmental and social assessment and in full knowledge of the violent conduct of the Mozambican army.

But there is more bad news: the EU would like to use export credit agencies for what is supposed to be its development program. Indeed, in recent years, the EU has been shifting its development cooperation strategy away from social protection, education or gender equality towards the promotion of investments by European companies across the world in  large-scale infrastructure projects, including construction of mines, mega dams, ports, railways, pipelines and water desalination plants. These projects often take place  in countries already facing social and environmental challenges. Many of them, such as mines and mega dams, run a high risk of worsening these conditions and are mainly destined for export to Europe.  A key example is the improvement of a railway corridor between the mines of Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia to a port in Angola for a faster export of minerals to Europe. This new strategy is branded “Global Gateway”, which represents a radical ideological and geopolitical shift from previous development programs because it uses a significant part of development money for the promotion of EU multinationals abroad.

And suddenly, paths align. Shifting away from reducing global inequalities towards promoting European profits, Global Gateway is taking the same path as export credit agencies. Indeed, with more coordination between export credit agencies and Global Gateway projects, we could see more projects going to national champions: Engie, Eni, Iberdrola, Orange, Nokia, Siemens, RWE, etc. Even though some European export credit agencies have not abandoned fossil fuels, despite their governments’ commitment to do so in 2021, they are now being rewarded with increased political relevance through their association with Global Gateway.

The problem is not just about guaranteeing a just transition away from fossil fuels and respecting the EU’s historic responsibility for climate change. The issue is also about reducing global inequalities. The EU’s Global Gateway uses development funds. These resources are supposed to serve poverty reduction and sustainable development. This is not the mandate of export credit agencies. Their job is neither to reduce North/South inequalities nor to assume the EU responsibility for climate change. A recent conference by the trade department of the Commission promoted the convergence of Global Gateway and export credit agencies. Tellingly, at that conference, one key term was conspicuously absent: “development.” And it is no surprise: low-income countries (LICs) only received 2% of ECAs total financing between 2015 and 2024.  

Many communities around the world continue to face daily struggles: lack of access to clean water and energy, decent jobs, and quality public services such as schools or hospitals. Other communities are not being consulted before their land and source of subsistence get grabbed for dams, railways, large-scale energy projects, etc. The EU development budget should be used to directly serve these needs and should have strong guarantees in terms of participation of affected communities and transparency.  Upholding our historic climate responsibility and supporting sustainable development requires investment, but it can not come at the cost of sacrificing a global just transition to the narrow EU trade objectives ECAs are pursuing.