Sebastian Große-Puppendahl, ECDPM ACP Ambassadors’ & ACP Secretariat meeting 2016 Visit Of The ACP Committee Of Ambassadors & ACP Secretariat “Investing in sustainable prosperity” Friday, 8 July 2016 – EIB Headquarters, Luxembourg

1. The EIB’s innovative role
in the ACP under Cotonou
Sebastian Große-Puppendahl, ECDPM
ACP Ambassadors’ & ACP Secretariat meeting 2016
Visit Of The ACP Committee Of Ambassadors & ACP Secretariat
“Investing in sustainable prosperity”
Friday, 8 July 2016 – EIB Headquarters, Luxembourg
Options beyond 2020

2. Outline
1. EIB operations
2. Key elements of Cotonou for EIB
3. Consideration on EIB operations in practice
4. EIB in ACP post 2020

3. 1. EIB operations: €77.5 bn in 2015
Inside EU: 90%
Incl. ‘Juncker Plan’ (EFSI)
Outside EU: 10%
ELM & ACP/Cotonou
 ACP & OCTs:
€ 1 billion in 2015
(€1.1 billion with SA)
* Interest rate subsidies & technical assistance are the non-revolving part of the IF

4. 2. Key elements of Cotonou for EIB
• Stability and continuity: 20-year, single agreement for large group of
countries, yet flexible (e.g. IFE)
• Partnership institutions and IF Committee
 CPA jointly negotiated and agreed by all parties, incl. all ACP countries
 ACP no formal role in EIB-related decision-making but consulted and
oversight role in ACP-EU partnership
• Investment Facility (IF)  revolving fund, focused on private sector
Impact Financing Envelope (IFE)  higher development impact,
accepting higher risks to address social/environmental challenges
• Combined with subsidies  Technical Assistance & Interest rate subsidies
• Local currency lending: exchange rate risk covered by IF & no restrictions
on currency transfers
• EU MS Guarantee: risk guarantee for all ACP operations
• Single Framework (ACP): no bilateral framework agreements for each
country needed  unlike ELM

5. 3. EIB in practice: challenges and dilemmas
• High-quality management, high standards
= general praise
 EU standards for ACP/DCs? (techn.; risk.; etc.)
• Technical assistance: important but limited
• EIB’s presence on the ground: : important but limited
• Cooperation with other actors: good with DFIs, insufficient with
donors (e.g. TA); higher demand from RDBs
• Country coverage: market & project oriented; not enough in
fragile & poorer countries and in small islands  IFE
• EIB aligned to EU policies: but tension with some at EC on
development
• How EIB aligned to ACP strategies?
• EIB inside & outside EU: synergy and tensions
• EIB financial return and development impact: synergy and
tensions ; risk dimension  Catch 22!
• Transparency: do more

6. 4. EIB options post-2020
• Mandate: ACP focused or ELM or hybrid?
• Depends on future of overarching framework of ACP-EU relations
• Build on CPA acquis in extended ELM
• Why not extend what works well beyond ACP?
• Role of EU Member States?
• Voice, role and involvement of ACP (partners or recipient)?
• CPA: Single agreement / framework, with continuity overtime
• Identify clear priorities, in line with ACP strategies/priorities
• Future of IF/IFE:
• IF framework = fits well 2030 Agenda and SDGs (and current
challenges: migration, climate change,…)
• keep endowment (If it ain’t broken, don’t try to fix it)
• Increase endowment with aid money
• Increase capital with EIB own resources
• Open capital to other financiers  beyond grants
• Merge IFE in IF: risk and development impact continuum
• Open to non-ACP
• Increasing joint funding, funds of funds, with ACP
• Increase capacity of EIB (e.g. staff & field presence) and strategic
synergy (with other financial institutions and donors, including
within EU, with EC!!!)

7. Thank you
www.ecdpm.org
Page 7
Sebastian Große-Puppendahl
Policy Officer, Economic Transformation and Trade Programme
ECDPM- European Centre for Development Policy Management
sgp@ecdpm.org
Twitter: @SebGroPup
http://ecdpm.org/people/sebastiangrossepuppendahl/
Subscribe to ECDPM information: http://ecdpm.org/subscribe/