Businesses in other OECD countries are also  concerned that disclosure requirements, which the United States proposed  in OECD negotiations, will make sensitive business information public. Other  OECD members have made similar revisions. Most OECD members are now following similar basic procedures for  reviewing sensitive projects. Differences Exist in OECD Members’ Specific Environmental Guidelines

Despite the commonalities among OECD members’ environmental impact  review systems, differences exist in how ECAs review potential projects  and report on projects they undertake. However, some ECAs have taken steps to include  considerations for social impacts in their environmental standards. Near-Term Changes to Common Approaches May Be Limited

Any revisions or enhancements to the Common Approaches during 2003  may be limited because of the nature of the OECD negotiating process and  the resistance of many members to some of the more controversial aspects  of environmental guidelines. The United States is therefore unlikely to fully  achieve its original negotiating objectives, although most OECD members  would like the United States to accept the Common Approaches as a formal  OECD agreement. At the negotiations’  outset, many ECG members did not have environmental guidelines and  were reticent to negotiate on unfamiliar technical issues. Limited Evidence of Economic Impact, but Assessment Difficult for Several Reasons

There is limited evidence that Ex-Im Bank’s environmental guidelines have  affected U.S. exports, although the complexity of potential effects and the  lack of information make identifying and quantifying impacts difficult. The  evidence we reviewed indicates that any impacts are likely to be  concentrated in certain areas, especially the energy sector. The majority of  projects authorized by Ex-Im Bank do not require significant  environmental review, and most projects in the full environmental review  category are in the energy sector. This is because medium- and short-term transactions are generally  not subject to either screening or review. Some businesses are also concerned about other aspects associated with  the environmental review process. In response, we assessed (1) the  achievements of the Common Approaches and the remaining differences  among the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and  Development (OECD), (2) the prospects for further advancement on  common environmental guidelines for export credit agencies, and (3) the  impact that environmental guidelines for export credit agencies may have  on U.S. exports. Departments of the  Treasury and State and the Export-Import Bank. With the United States declining to accept the  Common Approaches in November 2001, 28 ECG members agreed to  voluntarily adhere to the Common Approaches.
Why GAO Did This Study

Export credit agencies (ECA) are responsible for providing billions of dollars worth of support for large-scale industrial projects annually, but until recently most ECAs did not formally review the environmental impacts of these projects. The United States, whose Export-Import Bank began using environmental guidelines in 1995, pushed for negotiations on common ECA environmental guidelines at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD negotiations halted in 2001 because the United States believed that the results, called the Common Approaches, were insufficient. The remaining OECD members then pledged to voluntarily implement the Common Approaches. In response to congressional interest in ECA environmental guidelines, GAO assessed (1) the level of convergence among OECD members and the prospects for further advancement and (2) what impacts such guidelines may have on U.S. exports.

What GAO Found

Since OECD negotiations began, members have made progress in developing environmental guidelines for their ECAs and are moving toward common environmental review practices. However, important differences remain. Having agreed to voluntarily implement the Common Approaches beginning in 2002, many OECD members adopted similar basic procedures for reviewing sensitive projects. However, OECD members' guidelines and practices differ in areas where the United States believes it has among the more advanced policies, including which technical standards ECAs use to review projects and the extent to which environmental impact information is publicly disclosed. Although OECD members are considering revising the Common Approaches in 2003, the United States is unlikely to achieve all of its original negotiating objectives because of the desire by some OECD members to gain more experience with the guidelines before renegotiating them and the reluctance of other members to take any steps that might be perceived as having a negative effect on the competitiveness of their exporters. There is limited evidence that the Export-Import Bank's environmental guidelines have affected U.S. exports, although the complexity of potential effects and the lack of information make identifying and quantifying impacts difficult. The evidence GAO reviewed indicates that impacts are likely to be concentrated in the energy sector. Most Export-Import Bank transactions do not require an environmental review because they are either short-term transactions, are in certain excluded sectors, or are not considered environmentally sensitive. Finally, while some businesses are more concerned about the impacts of environmental guidelines than others, their specific concerns are largely anecdotal and difficult to confirm.