Corporate report

Categorisation for cases issued 2022 to 2023

Published 28 June 2023

© Crown copyright 2023

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eshr-risk-and-impact-categorisations-2022-to-2023/categorisation-for-cases-issued-2022-to-2023

Environmental, Social and Human Rights (ESHR) risk and impact categorisation of civil (non-aerospace) cases for which support was issued during 2022-23 that fell within the scope of the OECD Common Approaches and/or the Equator Principles.

1. Angola

1.1 Case: Design, construction, equipping and operation of a burns hospital in Kilamba, Angola

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

B

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee / Direct Lending

ESHR risks profile

Medium potential ESHR risks, including:

  • Climate change;
  • Noise and vibrations;
  • Hazardous materials management;
  • Waste and wastewater management;
  • Air emissions;
  • Water resources;
  • Worker welfare;
  • Management of third-party contractors and suppliers;
  • Grievance mechanisms;
  • Occupational health and safety;
  • Emergency planning and response;
  • Traffic management;
  • Cultural heritage;
  • Community engagement; and
  • Community health, safety and security

International standards applied

  • IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (2012)
  • WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:
    • General EHS Guidelines (2007)
    • EHS Guidelines for Health Care Facilities (2007)
    • EHS Guidelines for Water and Sanitation (2007)

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational project is not expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2equiv per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

2. Belgium

2.1 Case: Design, engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning, operation and maintenance of a 1,450 kta ethane cracker and associated transportation, storage and utilities infrastructure (Project One) located at the Port of Antwerp, Belgium.

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

A

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

High potential ESHR risks, including:

  • climate change;
  • biodiversity;
  • occupational health and safety;
  • emissions to the atmosphere (including land, air and water);
  • waste and hazardous material management;
  • emergency planning and response;
  • community health and safety; and
  • community engagement.

International standards applied

  • IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (2012)
  • WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:
    • General EHS Guidelines (2007)
    • EHS Guidelines for Large Volume Petroleum based Organic Chemicals Manufacturing (2007)

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

A CCRA was conducted for the Project which considered the Project context, host country commitments and policies related to climate change, the Project’s emissions and climate-related factors potentially affecting the Project. Estimated scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions were considered reasonable and in accordance with the GHG Protocol. The Project has committed to become carbon neutral (for Scope 1 & 2 emissions) 10 years after the start of the operations phase. As a result, the Project is not considered to hinder the ability of the European Union (EU) to meet current climate-related policy or international commitments, including the Paris Agreement.

During operations, Scope 1 emissions are estimated to be 655 ktCO2 equiv/annum and Scope 2 emissions are estimated to be 53 ktCO2equiv/annum. UK Export Finance considers that scope 1 and scope 2 Project emissions have been effectively minimised via the consideration of technology options, with the most efficient option selected.

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

3. Benin

3.1 Case: Design, construction, equipping and operation of a new governmental building complex in Cotonou, Benin.

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

B

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

Medium potential ESHR risks, including:

  • Worker welfare and occupational health and safety;
  • Grievance mechanisms;
  • Emergency planning and response;
  • Noise, vibrations, dust and air emissions;
  • Hazardous materials, waste and drainage management;
  • Community engagement;
  • Traffic management; and
  • Land acquisition

International standards applied

  • IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 (2012)
  • WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:
    • General Guidelines (2007)
    • EHS Guidelines for Construction Materials Extraction (2007)

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational project is not expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2equiv per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

4. Guyana

4.1 Case: Design, construction, equipping and operations of a paediatric and maternal hospital in Georgetown, Guyana.

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

B

Product

Direct Lending Facility

ESHR risks profile

Medium potential ESHR risks, including:

  • Air emissions;
  • Climate change;
  • Noise and vibrations;
  • Hazardous materials management;
  • Waste and wastewater management;
  • Water resources;
  • Emergency planning and response;
  • Worker welfare;
  • Management of third-party contractors and suppliers;
  • Grievance mechanisms;
  • Occupational health and safety;
  • Traffic management;
  • Cultural heritage;
  • Community engagement; and
  • Community health, safety and security

International standards applied

  • IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (2012)
  • WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:
    • General EHS Guidelines (2007)
    • EHS Guidelines for Health Care Facilities (2007)
    • EHS Guidelines for Water and Sanitation (2007)

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational project is not expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2equiv per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

5. Jordan

5.1 Case: Development of an integrated garment factory complex in the city of Aqaba, Jordan.

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

B

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee / Direct Lending

ESHR risks profile

Medium potential ESHR risks, including:

  • construction health and safety;
  • workers’ accommodation conditions;
  • worker human rights, including in the supply chain;
  • emissions to air;
  • resource efficiency and wastewater management; and
  • worker engagement and grievance mechanisms.

International standards applied

  • IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (2012)
  • WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:
    • General Guidelines (2007)
  • IFC / EBRD Guidance Note on Workers’ accommodation: processes and standards (2009)

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions for operation phase was calculated to be 66,034.4 tonnes CO2equiv/annum. Scope 3 emissions include all relevant indirect emissions (not included in Scope 2). Reporting of Scope 3 emissions is excluded from the reporting scope under the OECD Common Approaches 2012 (revised 2016) and have not been estimated.

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

6. Togo

6.1 Case: Rehabilitation of the existing road NR14 Sokode-Tchamba-Kambole-Benin border.

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

B

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee / Direct Lending

ESHR risks profile

Medium potential ESHR risks, including:

  • emergency planning and response;
  • occupational health and safety;
  • management of third-party contractors and suppliers;
  • worker welfare;
  • air, noise and vibration emissions;
  • water resources;
  • waste and hazardous material management;
  • community engagement;
  • community health and safety;
  • temporary economic displacement and livelihood restoration;
  • biodiversity; and
  • cultural heritage.

International standards applied

  • IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (2012)
  • WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:
    • General EHS Guidelines (2007);
    • EHS Guidelines for Toll Roads (2007);
    • EHS Guidelines for Construction Material Extractions (2007).

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational project is not expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2equiv per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

7. Turkey

7.1 Case:Engineering (design), licensing procurement (supply equipment and materials) and construction of a new Urea Production Plant in the Gemlik District of Bursa, Turkey.

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

A

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

High potential ESHR risks, including:

  • Labour and working conditions, including occupational health and safety and work; conditions of contract;
  • Wastewater, waste and hazardous material management;
  • Community health and safety;
  • Community engagement;
  • Emergency planning and response; and
  • Emissions to air / climate change

International standards applied

  • IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (2012)
  • WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:
    • General EHS Guidelines (2007)
    • EHS Guidelines for Nitrogenous Fertilizer Production (2007)
  • IFC / EBRD Guidance Note on Workers’ accommodation: processes and standards (2009)

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

A CCRA was conducted for the Project which considered the Project context, host country commitments and policies related to climate change, the Project’s emissions and climate-related factors potentially affecting the Project. Estimated scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions were considered reasonable and in accordance with the GHG Protocol. Scope 1 and 2 annual GHG emissions are estimated to be 100,023 tCO2e/y during operations, while annual Scope 3 emissions are estimated to equal 116,786.39 tCO2e/y during operations.

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

7.2 Case: Construction, rehabilitation and operation of a high speed rail line between Mersin and Gaziantep, passing through Adana, İncirlik, Toprakkale, Bahçe, Nurdağ and Başpınar, in Turkey.

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

A

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

High potential ESHR risks, including:

  • physical displacement;
  • biodiversity and natural habitats;
  • occupational health and safety;
  • emissions to air;
  • noise impacts;
  • wastewater treatment;
  • waste and hazardous material management;
  • emergency planning and response;
  • construction camp conditions;
  • community health and safety; and
  • community engagement.

International standards applied

  • IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 (2012)
  • WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:
    • General EHS Guidelines (2007)
    • EHS Guidelines for Construction Materials Extraction ( (2007)
    • EHS Guidelines for Railways (2007)
  • IFC / EBRD Guidance Note on Workers’ accommodation: processes and standards (2009)

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

A CCRA was conducted for the Project which of physical risks and a quantification of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions during construction and operation of the Project. GHG emissions for the operation phase was calculated to be 69,604 tonnes CO2e/annum for year one (2025) and 118,708 tonnes CO2e/annum for the peak year 2043. Avoided emissions, or emissions for the no Project scenario, have been estimated to be 157,000 tonnes CO2e/annum during the first year of operation and 324,790 tonnes of CO2e/annum for year 2043. It is not anticipated that Scope 3 emissions during operation will exceed 25,000 tonnes of CO2e/annum.

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

8. United Kingdom

8.1 Case: Construction of a new facility for the manufacturing of high voltage subsea cables for offshore wind farms in Port of Blyth, Northumberland, England.

Applicable ESHR risk framework

Equator Principles

Category

B

Product

Export Development Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

Medium potential ESHR risks, including:

  • Occupational health and safety;
  • Management of third-party contractors and suppliers;
  • Noise, vibrations, dust and air emissions;
  • Hazardous materials, waste and drainage management;
  • Water and energy resources;
  • Community engagement;
  • Community health, safety and security;
  • Emergency planning and response;
  • Traffic management;
  • Biodiversity; and
  • Cultural heritage.

International standards applied

  • IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (2012)
  • Word Bank Group EHS Sector Guidelines:
    • General Guidelines (2007)
    • Guidelines for Metal, Plastic, and Rubber Products Manufacturing (2007)

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational project is not expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2equiv per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

Back to top