Check against delivery

I would like to thank Thomas Wieser for his presentation and Minister Lintilä for the opportunity to have a first exchange of views on the report.

I strongly believe that the EU must play a stronger role addressing the challenges of our time globally. We need to ensure that the European project can be successful. We need to strengthen EU visibility in the world. Development finance is a crucial component for such a strong EU role.

The Wise Persons’ Group report is a key contribution to the discussion about how to organise EU development financing. It needs to be more efficient. And therefore, we need to reduce fragmentation and move towards a fully joined-up and coherent EU approach.

I agree with the assessment of the report: The EU needs to streamline and consolidate its development financial architecture.

I also agree that the EU needs its own, dedicated development bank. Note, I am saying EU, because we are talking here about the implementation of EU policy. As the EU bank, fully owned by the EU member states, we implement EU policy only.

The report mentions three options for how to get there.

It argues that all of the three options would entail important organizational changes and require significant financial resources.

Yes, if you want to address all the gaps that have been very well identified by the report, we will need to put additional resources behind our ambition. But of the three options presented, politically and financially by far the most feasible option is clearly option 3, having an EU development subsidiary at the EIB.

To create a development subsidiary at the EIB, we do not need significant additional resources nor do we need years.

Our proposal for a European Bank for Sustainable Development, EBSD, as a structure within the EIB, can help to quickly address the most pressing gaps and improve the EU development finance architecture.

Development impact

The EBSD builds on EIB’s already existing development competence acquired over the past 50 years. It builds on our increasing arsenal of banking instruments and technical expertise to support private sector development in fragile economies. The EIB has a mandate to operate in 52 out of the 59 United Nations listed Less Developed Countries or fragile states. The EIB has an active exposure in 42 of them. We do not shy away from the challenge. Since 2008, we have mobilized over EUR 100 billion of investment on the African continent alone.

But, yes! We acknowledge the need for change to strengthen our operations outside the Union.

…We need to further develop new products, policies and risk guidelines for development, and gradually increase our local presence outside the EU.

…We need to strengthen the development focus and culture within the EIB.

… And we need stronger involvement of the European Commission, EEAS, Member States and their Bilateral Institutions and Development agencies in the governance of operations outside the EU, if we are to improve the EU development finance architecture. In doing so, we need to bring EU development policy even closer to the EU bank.

The EBSD proposal entails just that!

We can thus significantly strengthen Europe`s development finance architecture without creating a new institution, and without turning a regional multilateral development bank into an EU body that does universal development banking.

We can build on EIB`s track-record of financing and advising on projects in more than 140 countries.

We can ensure full EU control and full strategic autonomy without undue influence by non-EU players.

And we can set this up immediately. It can be capitalized by the existing EIB own resources for external activity, complemented by the existing funding of the Investment Facility and the foreseen dedicated resources to the EIB from the next MFF.

But this is not a quick fix. It can be set up easily and long-term it is a better solution. If and when Member States so desire, EBSD can be further capitalized to achieve an even higher development impact to further mitigate gaps in an efficient and effective way. In addition, the European Commission, EEAS and European bilaterals and Development Agencies could become shareholders.

I am convinced that this gradual, modular approach for EBSD is the right one.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The EU bank has proven in the past that we are able to change to deliver results. The Juncker Plan and its EFSI is the most prominent example.

With the EBSD proposal we are now ready to deliver again.

Thank you very much.