Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-04-07-Speech-4-019-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-04-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EIB annual report for 2009 (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110407.3.4-019-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-04-07-Speech-4-020-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Jürgen Klute2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Mercosur countries (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (2010-06-17--2011-06-30)3 member; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; DIE LINKE. (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; BUDG (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; EUL/NGL (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr Maystadt, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the core task of the European Investment Bank (EIB) is to promote the EU’s objectives through long-term financing of viable investments. This also means that the EIB is bound by the EU’s values; in other words, by social standards, transparency, high environmental standards, the development of a sustainable economy and the creation of jobs. However, we are hearing from NGOs involved in the local implementation of EIB-financed projects that it is by no means consistently ensured that these standards are met. This has already been mentioned by other speakers. The NGOs criticise the lack of transparency as regards the way in which loans are monitored across the EU and worldwide, how they are used and how they are reported on by the EIB’s financial intermediaries. To what extent is the EIB aware of these criticisms, and to what extent is the EIB actually looking into such criticisms? That is what we would like to know. From our point of view, at least some of what NGOs are calling for from the EIB is quite plausible: greater transparency as regards the granting of credit by financial intermediaries and the elaboration of clearer financing terms for financial intermediaries as well as efficiency criteria for the granting of loans. To improve transparency, NGOs further propose that environmental and financial information on EIB-financed projects be published before these are approved. In particular, EIB projects in third countries should be subjected to independent sustainability assessments in order to determine the economic, social and ecological impact of the project in question. However, there also appear to be other problems apart from transparency. Monitoring of compliance with EU environmental, social and procurement standards has also come in for criticism from NGOs. Strict monitoring of the meeting of such standards ought to be a matter of course in all the EIB’s financial operations. Projects that do not meet these standards should be excluded from support. Finally, I would like to make a comment on the subject of energy policy. It is pleasing that the promotion of a sustainable and safe energy supply is already one of the EIB’s current objectives. In view of the disaster involving the Fukushima reactor, the promotion of forward-looking, renewable, CO free and nuclear-free energy production, as well as the promotion of energy efficiency in all areas in which the EIB invests, must be given the highest priority."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))"1 "2"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph