The EIB Transparency Policy was last review in 2015. Despite the creation of a Public register of documents and the publication of the minutes of the EIB Board of Directors meetings, the transparency of EIB operations – especially its active dissemination of information – remains limited. This lack of progress on the transparency front is clearly visible in the Aid Transparency Index, currently the only independent measure of aid transparency for the world’s major development agencies, produced by Publish What You Fund. In 2020, the EIB scored “fair” (58/100 points).

The EIB still fails to comply with transparency requirements from its own Transparency Policy and the EU legislation on access to information. It also lags behind the transparency and disclosure practices of other multilateral financial institutions. EIB still fails to disclose all relevant project related documents or fails to disclose them in a timely manner.

Read more:

Step into the light: transparency review at EU bank can end culture of secrecy

Blog post | March 11, 2021

An adequate transparency for the EIB would include publishing all project related documents in a timely manner before project approval and taking stakeholders’ comments into account. Specifically the EIB should:

• improve its Public Register and list all documents held related to its environmental and social assessments, its due diligence, and monitoring of projects. Both those documents that are subject to active dissemination and those that are available upon request should be mentioned, in order to allow the public to access them.
• clarify disclosure obligations for itself and clients and to align it with the best practices of other multilateral financial institutions.
• publish Environmental and Social Data Sheets, ESIAs, and Human Rights Impact Assessments documents on its website prior to project approval by the Board, following the practice of the EBRD or IFC.
• publish other project-related documents such as Additionality and Impact Measurement, other environmental or social assessments, project monitoring reports, and project economic assessment on its website.
• publish allocation lists for each financial intermediary operation and relevant environmental information on final projects.

Read more:

Transparency chapter of Can the EIB become the EU Development Bank?

With a virtual elimination of its coal lending in 2013, not least thanks to Bankwatch’s campaigning, the EIB made an important contribution to limit global warming. But the bank’s energy and climate lending still undermines Europe’s ability to meet its climate targets under the Paris Agreement.

Especially in the new EU Member States where the need for climate action money is highest, only a small percentage of EIB loans support projects intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI), the guarantee mechanism rolled out by Commission President Juncker to attract private capital, failed to reach the 25 per cent climate action threshold set by the EIB. In 2016, 70 per cent of EFSI money for renewable energy projects went to a single country – Belgium – while 80 per cent of money for energy efficiency was earmarked for France, Finland and Germany.

Read more:
How Europe’s bank spends cash for climate undermines Paris commitments
Press release | May 22, 2017

EIB has been involved in some of the most destructive large-scale projects funded by international financial institutions (IFIs) in recent years. The Mopani copper mine in Zambia, the Mombasa-Mariakani road project in Kenya,  Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline, the Lesotho Highlands water project, the Nam Theun II dam and other highly contentious projects have all been made possible through the provision of EIB loans.

The impacts of EIB projects outside of Europe show time and again that the bank is not equipped to safeguard the most vulnerable and uphold human rights against corporate interests.