Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-16-Speech-4-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030116.1.4-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should first like to congratulate Mr Markov on his report on the activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).
In our view, the report gives an accurate account of the nature of the Bank’s mandate and activities by identifying three features peculiar to it alone. Firstly, the Bank has both a political and an economic mandate. Secondly, it has implemented a policy of conditionality. In particular, this has affected the Bank’s involvement in environmental issues, as Mr Markov mentioned. Lastly, there is the commitment to both the additionality and profitability of the funds made available. This requires the Bank to take on risks private operators would decline.
The pragmatic approach the EBRD brings to the interpretation of its mandate also features prominently in the report. This pragmatism has allowed the Bank to resolve a number of potential contradictions by adapting its political and economic framework to suit the stage of economic, cultural and social development attained by each country. It has also made it possible for the Bank to reassess its operational priorities and gradually build the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises or local financial institutions into these priorities. In addition, support for strategic international investors has been enhanced.
This same pragmatic approach has enabled the Bank, with the support of its shareholders, to adjust some of the limits to its mandate. For instance, within its general strategy, more importance is now attached to reform of the regulatory framework and to how efficiently it is implemented by local administrations and judicial authorities.
Mr Markov’s report also rightly suggests placing additional emphasis on certain aspects of this pragmatic approach. One instance is more careful consideration of the social and political aspects of restructuring the productive sector. Another example is the reference to a more active role in the sustainable development of the energy sector. A further example is the reference to strengthening the Bank’s operations at municipal level.
I should now like to say a few words about the relationship between the Union and the Bank. First, this is an entirely innovative relationship at the institutional level, since the EBRD is the only international institution of which the European Commission is a shareholder. This is particularly evident in the Board of Governors. The Member States and the Union’s institutions together represent a majority when a vote is to be taken.
Cooperation between the Community and the Bank is another significant feature, and has developed considerably. I believe it is now extremely close, and takes many different forms. In particular, cooperation was strengthened through the Bank’s active involvement in the pre-accession strategy. A network of working relationships between the services of the Commission and the Bank in now firmly established. This has resulted in a significant increase in that part of the Community budget devoted to supporting or cofinancing the Bank’s projects. In the early 1990s it was estimated that this contribution amounted to approximately EUR 40 million. In recent years, however, it has increased to an average annual sum of EUR 300 million.
Finally, from the point of view of political priorities, cooperation with the Bank is indeed cause for satisfaction. It has allowed us to draw on two fundamental assets for which we are indebted to the Bank, or to make use of them so as to enhance European policies. The first of these is the Bank’s competence in the region. This is due to its extensive knowledge of the current situation in the countries in question. The second is the Bank’s practice of conditionality, which has often made it possible for the Bank’s involvement to serve to promote compliance with European standards. This has been the case with regard to the environment.
In conclusion, I should simply like to emphasise that on the basis of these findings, it appears that the relationship between the Union and the Bank is bound to become even closer in all countries. Clearly, there is scope for further development of the Bank’s activities in Russia, in other CIS States, and in the Balkans. It would also appear that there is scope for further involvement in the candidate countries following accession. In this connection, we endorse the view expressed in Mr Markov’s report. We certainly believe it would be wise to continue active cooperation with the EBRD following enlargement, whilst also working with the obvious partner, namely the European Investment Bank. This will enable us to continue to benefit from the EBRD’s experience after enlargement. It goes without saying that the degree of cooperation and the time periods involved will depend on the EBRD’s capacity to respond to the actual needs identified in this area."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples