A stronger export finance market: Growing collaboration between the Berne Union and the Loan Market Association

Two joint initiatives between the Berne Union and the Loan Market Association are helping to make ECA-backed financing more transparent and accessible.

As Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) expand their mandates and support a growing range of transactions – from traditional infrastructure and energy transition to digital infrastructure and defence – more banks, borrowers, and legal advisers are becoming involved in ECA-backed financing. With this comes a greater need for practical guidance on how ECA-supported transactions differ from conventional lending.

Recognising this, the Berne Union (BU) and the Loan Market Association (LMA) have strengthened their collaboration over the past year through two joint task forces, both driven by the same objective: making the market more transparent, efficient, and easier to navigate.

Together, the projects brought ECAs, banks, legal advisers, and exporters around the same table to develop resources the wider market can benefit from.

Understanding the differences between corporate lending and export finance

The first task force focused on a challenge many practitioners encounter when they first become involved in export finance.

ECA-backed transactions contain features that do not exist in traditional corporate lending – additional parties, separate ECA cover documents, OECD Arrangement requirements, exporter obligations and ECA-specific provisions – which shape how financing is structured. As new players encounter ECAs, lack of familiarity with their impact on loan documentation and structure can affect efficiency in the market.

To address this, the task force developed a short guide, Export Credit Agencies Demystified – Navigating Their Impact on Loan Documentation, published by the LMA in January 2026.

The paper explains how ECA involvement shapes loan documentation and why these provisions exist, from buyer credit structures and ECA-specific clauses to the impact of the OECD Arrangement and considerations that arise throughout a transaction’s life. It is intended to help lawyers, lenders, and borrowers better understand the rationale behind ECA-specific documentation, reduce unnecessary complexity for those entering the market, and increase transaction efficiency.

Bringing greater clarity to buyer credit drawdown requirements

The second task force addressed a different, but equally practical, question: buyer credit drawdown requirements.

Although buyer credit is one of the most established ECA products, the documentation required before each drawdown varies between agencies, often reflecting national legislation, policy objectives, and individual risk frameworks. For banks operating across multiple jurisdictions, tracking these variations can add real operational complexity to what should be routine.

To better understand current market practice, the task force designed a survey to provide insights into national content requirements, the timing of content representations, disbursement documentation, reimbursement evidence, verification processes, and opportunities for simplification. The Berne Union then conducted the survey among members of its ECA Committee, with 24 ECAs participating. Rather than seeking to harmonise national approaches, the objective was to better understand why practices differ and identify opportunities to improve transparency and efficiency across the buyer credit market.

One of the first questions asked was whether ECAs apply specific national content requirements prior to each drawdown. 15 said they do, while nine said they do not – a split that set the tone for the rest of the survey. Rather than a single dominant approach, practices differed for reasons that make sense once considered more closely, whether operational, policy-driven, or tied to how a particular ECA’s framework is built. Where national content requirements apply, thresholds typically range between 20% and 30%, with some ECAs verifying compliance before each drawdown and others assessing it cumulatively over the life of the facility.

A similar pattern emerged around verification, a related but separate question. 15 ECAs require formal confirmation from borrowers or exporters prior to drawdown, while eight rely instead on checks carried out at the approval stage, or only where specific concerns arise later on.

Sector treatment was one of the few areas of clear alignment: 17 of 24 respondents, or 71%, apply the same content rules regardless of sector, with exceptions most commonly relating to green and climate-related transactions, followed by differentiation based on export activity type (e.g., goods, construction/installation services, and services exports), and by strategic sectors (AI, biotechnology, quantum computing, and semiconductors).

Figure: Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Yes/No Responses

Three questions in particular show how divided ECAs are, even where the split looks decisive on paper. 14 ECAs said a content representation given at application and again at financial close would be enough on its own, without needing further confirmation later. On reimbursement, the comfort drops away more sharply – only 10 of 23 ECAs said lump-sum payment representations would be acceptable, against 13 who said no, because payments by then need to be traceable back to specific invoices, shipments, or contract terms rather than confirmed in aggregate.

And when asked whether the market would benefit from drawdown requirements being grouped by category, 10 said yes and 11 said no – a near-even split. Those in favour pointed to categories such as EPC contracts or groupings of ECAs with similar frameworks as a starting point; those against felt that transaction-specific assessment and existing legal or institutional constraints leave limited room for standardisation, and that grouping could reduce the flexibility needed to manage risk at the individual transaction level.

Put side by side, these numbers tell their own story. Almost every question splits close to the middle, which is perhaps the headline finding. There is no dominant model, just ECAs working through the same trade-offs in different ways.

The split is not random, however – it shifts depending on where in the transaction you look. ECAs are noticeably more willing to accept simplified, aggregated evidence earlier in the process than later, and willingness to rely on that kind of self-certified evidence declines steadily as the transaction moves closer to the point where money actually changes hands.

Importantly, the findings do not suggest that existing practices are ineffective. Rather, they indicate that there is scope to improve efficiency through greater proportionality, a clearer division of responsibilities between ECAs and financing banks, and targeted simplification where appropriate.

The results of the survey have been presented to both the Berne Union ECA Committee and the LMA’s Export Finance ExCo. The Survey results will next be discussed in the Task Force to decide on potential next steps.

Looking ahead

Both initiatives point to the same conclusion: ECAs, banks, exporters, and advisers have much to gain from working together, sharing experience and better understanding each other’s perspectives, rather than tackling common challenges in isolation.

As ECA-backed financing continues to grow, that kind of collaboration will only become more important. Building on the success of these two initiatives, the Berne Union and the LMA look forward to continuing their partnership and exploring further opportunities to support a more transparent and efficient export finance market.