cooperation to function, institutions must be efficient and accepted by all economic players. this means that they must have clear mandates, appropriate resources and governance that correctly reflects today ’ s multipolar and interdependent economic and financial world. in this area, the g20 also agreed on robust measures aiming in particular to adapt the resources and functioning of the bretton woods institutions. for instance, while we have observed an increasing number of bilateral initiatives, such as swaps offered by major currency issuers, such as the fed and eurosystem, as well as, in a very different context, by china, these mechanisms cannot alone constitute a coherent insurance system. this is why the g20 decided to triple imf resources to usd 750 billion, which is unprecedented. the intervention tools were also reformed. a multilateral instrument for the prevention and early management of crises was also created, the flexible credit line ( fcl ) ; mexico, poland and argentina have already signed up and this has without doubt reduced the risk of contagion. in addition, the poverty reduction and growth fund was established for the poorest countries. this clearly reflects the imf ’ s commitment to reforming its assistance and solidarity framework to help the most vulnerable countries. similarly, the adequacy of the resources of multilateral development banks was reviewed and, for example, the capital of the asian development bank was tripled. in order to enhance the legitimacy and efficiency of key players in the international financial architecture, the bolstering of resources must go hand in hand with a reform of their governance. as a european, i am perhaps not the best person to give my views on the governance of financial institutions, and of the imf in particular because, for emerging countries to be given a fair representation, it is most often the representation of european countries that is called into question. you may therefore be tempted to interpret my suggestions negatively. i would, however, first like to say that the representation of european countries should not be contested : europe is a diverse continent that encompasses small, new, and even emerging countries alongside large and established developed nations. overall, it is somewhat under - represented in a community that is still made up of sovereign states. and, above all, it seems to me that this is the wrong question or solution given our current challenges : while the issue at stake here is improving dialogue with a view to achieving concerted and operationally - applicable solutions, i do not believe that anyone really asserts that the optimal

. let me conclude by mentioning how much we have achieved in europe over the last fifty years. the eu has reached a diversified but, broadly speaking, very ambitious level of integration : it is complex because the degree of integration is largely dependent on which areas are at stake, it is ambitious since, in some areas precisely, the system is completely integrated and relies on one single policy. the euro, in that regard, is both the symbol of our achievements and our best hope for the future of european integration. thank you.