Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-16-Speech-4-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030116.1.4-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would first of all like to thank the European Parliament, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and more particularly Mr Markov, for the attention that they have given to the EBRD. As you have said, this is a first and it is very important for the institution that I have the honour to chair.
Similarly, when we work with large enterprises, we look at the structuring effect on the Eastern economies, and particularly on sub-contracting, the development of small enterprises through large enterprises. I think that the best example that I can give is the development of enterprises in the automobile sector, which attracts sub-contractors and enables the development of local sub-contractors.
My last point is that we are currently doing a great deal to develop work with local enterprises, because we consider it to be absolutely essential; this is progressing all over Central Europe, obviously, but also in Russia and Central Asia. In the same way, we are starting to develop funding for municipalities and we plan to develop funding for municipalities in local currency, even if we take on the monetary risk ourselves, due to the development of the financial markets, so that local communities do not have to do so.
My fourth comment is concerning the proposals and comments made by your rapporteur. I would simply like to say that I share them. We agree, we take them on board and we will try to translate them into reality. I would just like to make two specific comments. First of all regarding the social dimension, always a key concern of the EBRD which, while being an institution designed to promote the market economy, considers that social cohesion is an important point. We pay particular attention to employment issues, and also, more specifically, to charging policies. Improving the quality of life of the population, drinking water, transport and municipal services as a whole are part of charging policies. You are aware that the Eastern countries are not used to charging policies. Implementing sound, sustainable charging policies is therefore absolutely necessary, and they must be acceptable to the population. From this point of view, I must thank the European Union for the contribution that it has given us, particularly through Community funds enabling the initial cost of projects to be reduced so that charging policies can be put in place that are acceptable to the populations and can maintain quality of service and of investment.
My second comment concerns the environment. The environment is at the heart of the institution’s mandate. There is a great deal to be done. There is a considerable legacy from the past in the Eastern countries, and I will just mention a particular dimension of our work, which is nuclear decommissioning, on which we are doing a lot of work with the European Union. We manage EUR 1.5 billion in funds allocated to nuclear cleaning-up projects in the countries that are soon going to join the European Union and others that are a little further off. We see this as a fundamental activity.
My last comment concerns relations with the European Union. The European Union is our great partner and our great support, particularly through your contribution, Mr Solbes. Mr Solbes is our governor and monitors us closely with the required level of firmness. We work with the services of the European Union and of all the Member States openly and under excellent conditions. As you said, Mr Solbes, not only do we receive political support, which is essential to us, but also financial support, and that role is currently being extended.
Our second partner is the EIB, which is an important partner for us. We welcome the necessary increase in its contributions, particularly to acceding countries. I work a great deal with Philippe Maystadt and we have a close relationship. You are aware that the EIB is a shareholder of the EBRD, like the Commission and the European Union. We therefore have a close, trusting relationship; our aim is certainly not to be redundant but to ensure that we complement each other as necessary. To be brief, I can simply bear witness to the fact that the quality of the relations that I personally have with Philippe Maystadt and with the EIB are the best guarantee for European taxpayers of the quality of use of the funds that are made available to the two institutions.
I am sorry that my speech was a little long. I felt that it was useful, on the occasion of this first examination of the situation of the EBRD in the European Parliament, to make these few introductory comments.
This leads me to four brief and simple comments, since the report by Mr Markov and the proposals from Mr Solbes Mira have enlightened Parliament.
The first comment relates to the institution itself. The EBRD is an novel institution, first of all because it is recent and young; it has achieved some successes; it has also endured some failures and is always trying to learn. It is an institution in which the European states and the European Union have a large majority among the countries that operate the bank and many non-European countries – the United Sates, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Egypt, Israel and Turkey, among others. We are talking about an institution in which Europe plays a most essential role with many partners. What is the basic element binding them? I think that there are two types.
First of all there is a very firm commitment to ensuring transition in the East. That is a commitment for everyone. We saw this when our strategy was updated for the coming years, with the commitment made by the non-Europeans to support the transition process in the future throughout the region, including in Central Europe. The second element is the principles, which were recalled by Mr Markov: joint financing with the private sector, the capacity to take risks in order to encourage the private sector to move the market economy forward, and at the same time not competing with the private sector. These principles of additionality, conditionality and impact on transition are the real foundations of the institution. I must also mention a third dimension, which Mr Markov referred to just now, which is its political dimension. The EBRD has a political mandate. We are charged with ensuring the progression of the market economy, but also of democracy, which leads us, following internal debates in the Board of Directors, the conclusions of which are made public, to take decisions such as reducing and almost halting our contributions in countries such as Belarus and Turkmenistan.
My second comment concerns experience acquired and strategy, as Mr Markov described. Currently, the bank is achieving high levels of assistance. Last year, we invested EUR 3.9 billion, which is the bank’s highest level of assistance. Over a period of around ten years, we have helped to attract EUR 70 to 80 billion of investment to the East, which represents an extremely high proportion of the flow of investment in the East. We are also implementing the strategy adopted by the Bank’s shareholders, which is development towards the East.
We are maintaining a strong commitment in Central Europe. For obvious reasons, you are aware of the situation in Central Europe, and I had the opportunity to discuss it at length with Commissioner Solbes Mira; there is a considerable need for investment and, in particular, budgetary pressure can only be reduced through a high volume of investment. This is, of course, very important to the EBRD, as it is focused on priority objectives such as financing SMEs, financing medium-sized enterprises, industrial restructuring and regional development. We do of course largely consider ourselves as an agency for implementing projects for the Commission and the European Union, and we are currently developing our activities in the South East – the Balkans, the Caucasus, Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria, and particularly in Russia.
My second comment regarding strategy concerns the importance we attach to the development of small enterprises, micro-enterprises and SMEs.
This was an unknown concept in the East ten years ago and today we are seeing it develop. We are implementing it, I must stress, in particular thanks to the support of our shareholders and of the European Union, who play a most essential role. We act as a lever for implementing these measures and we ensure that we work with the banking sector to improve its competence by training bankers to develop these techniques. If we are not able to do that, we create our own institutions, in order to ensure that the development takes place within the necessary timescale.
In the same way, we are developing our efforts in terms of relations with all businesses in the East and in Japan. Why? First of all because it is taxpayers’ money that is involved and these companies have, through you, invested in the EBRD, so naturally we should at least inform them of what we might do with the Bank. In particular we are currently developing contacts with businesses, not only large businesses but also medium-sized businesses, in Europe, because we think that medium-sized enterprises in Europe could have an extremely significant role to play in the development of the economies of the East."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples