Strasbourg, 17/01/2003 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday, the European Parliament adopted the report by German national Helmut Markov (GUE/NGL) on the activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD): - see summary in EUROPE of 14 January, p.15). This is the first parliamentary review of the EBRD's activities, to be carried out regularly every two years. Except for the Greens/EFA, the Parliament welcomed the work achieved by the EBRD.
The Parliament stressed the political role played by the EBRD, mainly the freezing of funds for projects in countries that do not respect democracy and human rights. It also congratulates the Bank for its involvement in favour of the private sector and small and medium-sized enterprise (SME), the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and nuclear safety. In future, it recommends that the EBRD adopt a different strategy for each country, that it intensify its financing in favour of municipal projects and take more into account the criteria relating to employment in assessing projects to be funded. Furthermore, it considers that the Kaliningrad enclave should benefit from additional aid as soon as the Baltic States become EU members, and calls on the EBRD to strengthen its strategy towards Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, with more support from NGOs. The Parliament adopted three amendments by the Greens/EFA calling for improved EBRD information policy and the compulsory publication of environmental impact assessments. On the other hand, it rejected an amendment by the Greens/EFA demanding that the nuclear sector be excluded from projects financed by the EBRD.
During the debate, Helmut Markov insisted that the EBRD should take more account of national policies and of the specific characteristics of regions when choosing projects to be financed. Commissioner Pedro Solbes stressed that the EBRD took part in pre-accession strategy by making a financial contribution to the joint funding of many projects. EBRD President Jean Lemierre affirmed that the "social dimension is ever present" in assessing projects, and that the EBRD will keep up its effort in favour of SMEs. Speaking on behalf of the Socialists, French national Pervenche Berès was pleased to note that the EBRD is "neither the World Bank nor the International Monetary Fund". She nonetheless hoped that the criteria for employment and the opinion of trade unions would be taken more into account in assessing projects. Speaking for the Liberals, Swedish national Olle Schmidt called for more intervention in Ukraine, Moldova and Russia and supported the nuclear projects. He felt that "one must not neglect nuclear development which, if well managed, can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions". Completely out of step, the Greens/EFA, speaking through German national Elisabeth Schroedter, insisted that the "European Parliament must not praise a bank but should verify whether it respects certain criteria of transparency, and political and environmental criteria". She believes this has not yet been the case, mainly because the EBRD has financed the construction of an oil pipeline in the Caspian Sea, which "does not foster peace in the region". This opinion is shared by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL, Denmark) who also asked the EBRD President whether he would agree to being controlled by external auditors, mainly at the accounting level. Mr Lemierre replied that he was willing for greater transparency, while stressing that his institution was already the subject of external controls