Mr President, the European Investment Bank may be said to be one of the European Union’s unknown powers that be. With loans amounting to EUR 36 billion granted in the year 2000 and total capital of EUR 100 billion, it exercises significant influence through its policy. In spite of its influence, there has been very little discussion of the Bank. This is the second year that we are discussing the annual report in Parliament. What is perhaps most remarkable of all, however, is how little all this is discussed by the Bank’s owners, in the Member States and in the parliaments of the various Member States which, I believe, are in many cases quite unaware of the Bank’s activities. This situation may be compared with that in relation to the World Bank, which has been exposed to extensive examination and debate, or with that regarding the European Development Bank which has also been examined in a different way to the European Investment Bank. A good deal of criticism has been directed against the EIB’s activities and in two areas in particular. First of all, the EIB has been criticised for having supported a series of projects that have increased environmental problems, as well as for shortcomings in terms of environmental impact assessments. Secondly, the EIB has been criticised for a lack of openness and of willingness to engage in dialogue with, for example, environmental movements in different countries. I think that this criticism has been justified. Comparisons show, for example, that the World Bank is in actual fact significantly better than the European Investment Bank at providing environmental impact assessments and at publicising these. It is rare for the to have occasion to praise the World Bank, but it does in this case. For some years now, the European Investment Bank has shown a new attitude to greater openness, which is very welcome. What is important, however, is that this new positive attitude also be followed up by practical measures. Mr Schmidt’s report addresses certain demands for measures with which I agree, referring, for example, to the need for more resources, including more staff working on environmental issues and the question of greater openness. There is a need to go further, however. I believe, for example, that it is reasonable to demand that, if environmental impact assessments are carried out, they should always be published before decisions are taken. The EU’s demand for environmental impact assessments must also be fulfilled when loans are granted to projects outside the European Union, and these assessments must be available in translation in the national languages of the countries to which the loans are granted. The European Investment Bank should also comply with the Århus Convention, entailing an obligation of great openness towards the environmental movement. This should mean a big improvement. The EIB should also have a more evolved policy when it comes to development issues, for example, development in the Developing World as the Bank’s activities there increase. The Gothenburg Summit gave the EIB the task of supporting sustainable development and concentrating on climate issues. This should have far-reaching consequences for the type of transport and energy projects that can be supported. It should imply, hopefully in practice too, a change of focus for the Bank. I believe that increasing the Bank’s capital must be conditional upon reforms being carried out. Only if the Bank is obliged to implement such reforms should it be agreed to increase the capital. I am opposed to the idea of allowing the European Central Bank to act as a supervisory authority. The European Central Bank is a genuinely undemocratic institution which should not be given tasks of this kind.

Political group: GUE-NGL