good governance practices for the protection of human rights

ibery have been. Thirty ECAs from 28 OECD member States responded. The
survey showed that ECAs began adopting some anti-corruption procedures, but
that this effort was inconsistent across countries and not always comprehensive
within the same country. For example, all but four ECAs now inform applicants
of the legal consequences of bribery in international business transactions. All
but two have also taken the additional step, as recommended in the 2000 OECD
Action Statement, of introducing a warranty procedure that invites companies
to state that neither they nor anyone acting on their behalf has or will engage in
bribery in the ECA-supported transaction.
However, one in three respondents had not implemented the third step of the
Action Statement, namely making it an institutional practice to withhold support
for transactions if there is sufficient evidence of bribery. Also, nine ECAs did not
deny compensation to companies in instances where bribery had been proved in
a legal case. Furthermore, 16 of the respondents had not committed themselves
to seeking to recover sums provided to companies convicted of bribery. Twelve
had not institutionalized the requirement to inform the appropriate national legal
authorities if they had sufficient evidence of bribery after they had given support.
Furthermore, many ECAs had not adopted the practice of disclosing the names
of applicants, the amounts applied for, and the countries to which the goods and
services would be provided.
In November 2003, the OECD Working Party issued 11 best practice proposals
to deter and combat bribery in officially supported export credits and recommended
that they should be adopted as official practice by all ECAs. These recommendations
built upon what was already practised in some ECAs, demonstrating
that, if willing, ECAs are able to fight against corruption through innovative and
constructive practices. Some of these best practices build upon the measures
included in the 2000 Action Statement, for example requiring companies to sign
a “no bribery declaration” to obtain ECA support. Others include: imposing a
5-per-cent ceiling on a project’s cost for the commissions of agents employed
by ECA-supported companies; applying enhanced due diligence for agent commissions
over the 5-per-cent ceiling; requiring companies to provide the agent’s
details on all applications to ECA if the commission exceeds that threshold; requiring
companies to state on their applications whether they have been debarred
by any multilateral or bilateral financial institution from contracts with
that institution or whether they have been found guilty of bribery in a national
court; suspending support where there is “sufficient evidence” of bribery.
Impact on human rights and challenges
The OECD Action Statement on Combating Bribery and the best practice proposals
constitute significant progress in acknowledging the importance of ECAs
in the fight against bribery and in developing governance mechanisms through
which ECAs may contribute to this effort. However, further progress is desirable.
For example, the OECD Working Party has not yet decided whether there should
be a new action statement incorporating the best practices. Such a development
would be yet another step forward, especially if a stronger action statement
76