Bankwatch's submission draws heavily on earlier comments (pdf) provided by Bankwatch and the Global Transparency Initiative during the 2007/2008 PIP review but also includes amendments from our experiences with the current policy's implementation. A particular cause for concern is the lack of transparency in case of global loans given to financial intermediaries.
The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is considering financing the Nabucco gas pipeline project. Should the IFC decide to finance the project, it risks repeating the serious economic, environmental, social and human rights mistakes associated with the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan (BTC) and Chad-Cameroon pipeline projects and involving the World Bank Group in another highly problematic, politicized and economically and environmentally unsustainable project.
The European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development can play a crucial role in a transition of the Polish energy market towards energy efficient energy production based on renewable energies.
Bankwatch welcomes the European Commissions "A resource efficient Europe - flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 Strategy" as an effort to build a holistic approach to resource efficiency. This letter suggests further priority measures that should guide this initiative and proposes an integration of resource efficiency in different EU policies and actions.
While the EBRD has repeatedly expressed its concerns about the project development process for this project, it has so far refrained from making any final decisions on whether to finance the road or not. We believe the time has now come for the bank to clearly and publicly withdraw from the project.
While the EIB has repeatedly assured of its efforts to improve the project's planning and public consultation process, recent developments show that these efforts have not been successful. We believe the time has now come for the bank to clearly and publicly withdraw from the project.
In 2008, the EIB's deployed an additional EUR 15 billion to its 'global loan' lending - as a response to the financial crisis and the difficulty for small and media sized enterprises to access finance. In essence, the package appears to have remained to a large extent in the intermediary banks, the initial recipients of the funding.
In 2007 the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) provided a USD 90 million loan to the second largest supermarket operator in Ukraine - the Furshet Group - for the regional expansion of its chain in Ukraine and Moldova. The aim of this research was to examine labour/gender conditions at supermarkets in respect of employee rights and discrimination at work, resulting in recommendations how Furshet and the EBRD can improve the employees' situation.
The issue paper provides facts about the EIB's performance in the transport sector since the approval of the current transport policy in 2007. While transport investments represent a large share of the EIB's portfolio in the EU 27, transport GHG emissions in the EU are continuously rising.
The document summarises the goals on which, according to Bankwatch, a future EBRD mining sector strategy needs to be based if the EBRD wants to support sustainable development. It includes specific recommendations to help ensure that EBRD investments in the mining sector bring real benefits for communities, avoid environmental and social harm, reduce CO2 emissions and do not increase countries' dependence on commodities.
With these pointers, Bankwatch analyses the EBRD's current Municipal and Environmental Infrastructure (MEI) policy and critically examines its implementation in the sectors of water, waste, transport, district heating and other social services. We offer recommendations that - if included in the revised policy - would help taking into account the inescapable need for a low-carbon development and the lessons from the global economic crisis.
The report presents a new proposal by seven green NGOs including Bankwatch on how to reform the EU funds, analyses different EU policies and suggests concrete solutions to put an end to environmentally harmful subsidies within the EU Budget.
Our key challenges in tackling climate change, biodiversity loss and resource inefficiency need to be prioritised ahead of funding for unnecessary infrastructure projects and the subsidising of intensive agriculture.