How to Reflect Sustainable Development, exemplified by the Equator Principles, in Overseas Investment (해외투자(海外投資)와 지속가능발전 원칙 - 프로젝트 파이낸스의 적도원칙(赤道原則)을 중심으로 -)
-
- THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
- /
- v.31
- /
- pp.27-56
- /
- 2006
Today's financial institutions usually take environmental issues seriously into consideration as they could not evade lender liability in an increasing number of cases. On the international scene, a brand-new concept of the "Equator Principles" in the New Millenium has driven more and more international banks to adopt these Principles in project financing. Sustainable development has been a key word in understanding new trends of the governments, financial institutions, corporations and civic groups in the 21st century. The Equator Principles are a set of voluntary environmental and social guidelines for sustainable finance. These Principles commit bank officers to avoid financial support to projects that fail to meet these guidelines. The Principles were conceived in 2002 on an initiative of the International Finance Corporation(IFC), and launched in June 2003. Since then, dozens of major banks, accounting for up to 80 percent of project loan market, have adopted the Principles. Accordingly, the Principles have become the de facto standard for all banks and investors on how to deal with potential social and environmental issues of projects to be financed. Compliance with the Equator Principles facilitates for endorsing banks to participate in the syndicated loan and help them to manage the risks associated with large-scale projects. The Equator Principles call for financial institutions to provide loans to projects under the following circumstances: - The risk of the project is categorized in accordance with internal guidelines based upon the environmental and social screening criteria of the IFC. - For Category A and B projects, borrowers or sponsors are required to conduct a Social and Environmental Assessment, the preparation of which must meet certain requirements and satisfactorily address key social and environmental issues. - The Social and Environmental Assessment report should address baseline social and environmental conditions, requirements under host country laws and regulations, sustainable development, and, as appropriate, IFC's Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines, etc. - Based on the Social and Environmental Assessment, Equator banks then make agreements with borrowers on how they mitigate, monitor and manage the risks through a Social and Environmental Management System. Compliance with the plan is included in the covenant clause of loan agreements. If the borrower doesn't comply with the agreed terms, the bank will take corrective actions. The Equator Principles are not a mere declaration of cautious banks but a full commitment of lenders. A violation of the Principles in the process of project financing, which led to an unexpected damage to the affected community, would not give rise to any specific legal remedies other than ordinary lawsuits. So it is more effective for banks to ensure consistent implementation of the Principles and to have them take responsible measures to solve social and environmental issues. Public interests have recently mounted up with respect to environmental issues on the occasion of the Supreme Court's decision (2006Du330) on the fiercely debated reclamation project at Saemangeum. The majority Justices said that the expected environmental damages like probable pollution of water and soil were not believed so serious and that the Administration should continue to implement the project seeking ways to make it more environment friendly. In this case, though the Category A Saemangeum Project was carried out by a government agency, the Supreme Court behaved itself as a signal giver to approve or stop the environment-related project like an Equator bank in project financing. At present, there is no Equator bank in Korea in contrast to three big banks in Japan. Also Korean contractors, which are aggressively bidding for Category A-type projects in South East Asia and Mideast, might find themselves in a disadvantageous position because they are generally ignorant of the environmental assessment associated with project financing. In this regard, Korean banks and overseas project contractors should care for the revised Equator Principles and the latest developments in project financing more seriously. It's because its scope has expanded to the capital cost of US$10 million or more across all industry sectors regardless of developing countries or not. It should be noted that, for a Korean bank, being an Equator bank is more or less burdensome in a short-term period, but it must be conducive to minimizing risks and building up good reputation in the long run.
The Equator Principles are a set of voluntary environmental and social guidelines for ethical project finance. These principles commit banks and other signatories to not finance projects that fail to meet these guidelines. The principles were conceived in 2002 on an initiative of the International Finance Corporation and launched in 2003. Since then, dozens of major banks have adopted the Principles, and with these banks among them accounting for more than three quarters of all project loan market volume the Principles have become the de facto standard for all banks and investors on how to deal with potential social and environmental effects of projects to be financed. While regarding the Principles an important initiative, NGOs have criticised the Principles for not producing real changes in financing activities and for allowing projects to go through that should have been screened out by the Principles, such as the Sakhalin-II oil and gas project in Russia. In early 2006, a process of revision of the principles was begun. The Equator Principles state that endorsing banks will only provide loans directly to projects under the following circumstances: - The risk of the project is categorized in accordance with internal guidelines based upon the environmental and social screening criteria of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). - For all medium or high risk projects (Category A and B projects), sponsors complete an Environmental Assessment, the preparation of which must meet certain requirements and satisfactorily address key environmental and social issues. - The Environmental Assessment report addresses baseline environmental and social conditions, requirements under host country laws and regulations, applicable international treaties and agreements, sustainable development and use of renewable natural resources, protection of human health, cultural properties, and biodiversity, including endangered species and sensitive ecosystems, use of dangerous substances, major hazards, occupational health and safety, fire prevention and life safety, socio-economic impacts, land acquisition and land use, involuntary resettlement, impacts on indigenous peoples and communities, cumulative impacts of existing projects, the proposed project, and anticipated future projects, participation of affected parties in the design, review and implementation of the project, consideration of feasible environmentally and socially preferable alternatives, efficient production, delivery and use of energy, pollution prevention and waste minimization, pollution controls (liquid effluents and air emissions) and solid and chemical waste management. - Based on the Environmental Assessment, Equator banks then make agreements with their clients on how they mitigate, monitor and manage those risks through an 'Environmental Management Plan'. Compliance with the plan is required in the covenant. If the borrower doesn't comply with the agreed terms, the bank will take corrective action, which if unsuccessful, could ultimately result in the bank canceling the loan and demanding immediate repayment. - For risky projects, the borrower consults with stakeholders (NGO's and project affected groups) and provides them with information on the risks of the project. - If necessary, an expert is consulted. The Principles only apply to projects over 50 million US dollars, which, according to the Equator Principles website, represent 97% of the total market. In early 2006, the financial institutions behind the Principles launched stakeholder consultations and negotiations aimed at revising the principles. The draft revised principles were met with criticism from NGO stakeholders, who in a joint position paper argued that the draft fails by ignoring the most serious critiques of the principles: a lack of consistent and rigorous implementation.