C 47/222
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
7.2.2023
Thursday 7 July 2022
corruption and other prohibited conduct, especially as part of efforts to increase its presence outside the EU; urges the EIB to expand its cooperation with national authorities in partner countries; recalls that the Nairobi regional headquarters has been in operation since 2019; welcomes the decision of November 2021 to upgrade it into the EIB’s new Nairobi Hub, facilitating cooperation with Kenyan, African, Team Europe and global partners, contributing to a better reflection of private and public investment priorities, and expanding expertise on climate action, innovation and digital investment;
32.
Stresses the importance of coherence, additionality and efficiency of development finance; calls on the EIB, in this regard, to strengthen cooperation with key partners; calls on the EIB to facilitate the participation of smaller development finance actors in its operations; calls on the EIB, furthermore, to place greater emphasis on crowding in private investment and on mobilising domestic resources in less developed countries;
Transparency and governance
33.
Recalls the overall goal of publishing information about projects three weeks before they are approved by the EIB Board; is concerned by the fall in transparency, specifically with regard to making information about projects publicly available in a timely manner; recalls that in 2010, 96,1 % of all projects were published three weeks before Board approval, falling to just 60 % in 2020; notes that according to the EIB, this downward trend is a consequence of the EIB’s greater engagement with companies in the private sector; regrets the increasing use of provisions on business confidentiality; acknowledges, in this context, the particular importance of both provisions on business confidentiality, in particular for SMEs, and transparency as a core element in protecting democratic principles, including human rights, and calls on the EIB to strike a balance between the two, bearing in mind that EIB funds are public money and should always be subject to public scrutiny and accountability; calls for more transparency and accountability, including towards EU institutions and Parliament in particular; highlights, in addition, that some recent projects that have required an environmental impact assessment have only been published after approval; recalls, furthermore, that the best standard with regard to private investors is to publish all projects at least 30 days before approval and that the International Finance Corporation (a member of the World Bank Group), which only finances projects in the private sector, publishes environmental impact assessments 60 days before financing decisions are taken; recalls that companies listed on the stock exchange have to operate under applicable capital market regulations, which include provisions on information sharing; points to the European Ombudsman’s recent recommendations on the need for the EIB to adopt a ‘more ambitious approach to its disclosure practice’, to act in line with EU transparency laws, and to be more transparent with regard to the potential environmental impact of the projects it finances; urges the EIB to implement these recommendations as soon as possible;
34.
Reiterates its request for an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament and the EIB in order to improve access to EIB documents and data and enhance democratic accountability, including the ability to submit questions for written answer to the EIB and the organisation of hearings and economic dialogues;
35.
Calls on the EIB to step up its reporting to Parliament regarding its decisions, progress achieved and the impact of its lending activities, notably through regular structured dialogues;
36.
Considers the new transparency policy a missed opportunity; calls on the EIB to reflect on critical assessments and regrets the fact that the EIB has partly ignored Parliament’s very clear demands to improve its transparency policy in line with other financial institutions’ best practices and standards; welcomes the publication of additionality impact statements for the EIB’s operations as part of its additionality and impact measurement framework; regrets the fact that the new policy makes only minor advances for proactive publication, including for projects of more than EUR 50 million implemented by financial intermediaries, despite the need for the EIB to operate on the basis of ‘presumption of disclosure’ to fulfil its mission as the EU’s public bank; notes that the new policy does not create an obligation for the EIB to proactively publish information on project selection, in particular due diligence information, before the decision by the EIB Board, in line with the practices of international financial institutions; is also concerned about the exceptions for access to documents based on