2007 Annual Meeting press conference

Transcript of EBRD President Jean Lemierre's press conference at the Annual Meeting in Kazan, Monday 21 May 2006

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon and welcome. I may have met some of you in the last few days but certainly not all of you. Welcome.

You have been on many panels and in many discussions so you may know much better than I do what has happened in the various panels and discussions. I should probably be asking you questions rather than you asking me.

I would like to report to you the main points of the discussions, notably at the meeting of the Governors of the Bank held yesterday afternoon and this morning. We had a good discussion and the guidance provided by the Governors on various points is very clear.

The first main point I would like to make is about the Bank’s mission. Of course you know that a year ago the Governors adopted a new strategy for the Bank. That was a strong opportunity for them to take stock of what had been achieved. They have, firstly, very strongly endorsed the strategy and the deliveries of the Bank for the year 2006, the first year of implementation of the five-year strategy. There was a strong endorsement.

Underlying this, if you would like me to go into more detail, was a clear view on support for our increased involvement in the regions of Russia, in the private and municipal sectors, and a very strong view that that was the right strategy to put in place, to move east and south-east. Of course, the same was true for other countries such as Ukraine.

The second point is that the Bank’s activities, moving east and south-east, address in the same way what is happening in the intermediate and early transition countries: the Western Balkans, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia. All these countries deserve support. We are increasing what we do, and a clear point was made about the fact that this is the right trend as we move forward. That is about the where and how much. I must say that the main element is certainly about what you are doing, which is high volume, and that is needed and it is right. It is, of course, up to us to make sure that all the principles of the Bank concerning quality, sound banking, transition impact and additionality are respected. Governors have taken the very clear view during the debate that that was exactly what should be done.

There are interesting developments in the nature of the investments we do. At a time when the Governors are continuing to support what is being done by the Bank in the financial sector in many countries, assisting the real economy and supporting SMEs, supporting the corporate sector, creating jobs and helping the diversification of the economy in the oil and gas rich countries, there are new challenges which have to be addressed. Those were made clear by the Governors. One is concern about global warming and energy efficiency. You may remember that we launched an initiative a year ago and Governors gave very strong and positive encouragement to the Bank’s management to continue and deliver on this trend. Of course, that meets many economic concerns in the region and in the world on energy security and global warming.

The second point I would like to make about new developments is that for many countries one question that is coming to the top of the agenda again is infrastructure and power. Many Governors representing countries of operation have insisted on the fact that growth in the countries could suffer bottlenecks if investment needs in infrastructure – for example roads, highways, ports and airports, and of course municipal infrastructure or power generation in many countries – are not addressed. That was the case a few years ago. It is rising up to the top of the agenda because countries are growing, and growth brings challenges once again, but in a new form, which is very close to what EBRD does, and that is to mix public sector funds with private sector money. This is all about PPPs and concessions in various forms to finance infrastructure needs, but it is very important in countries, as Minister Gref made clear. You can see the same in countries like Ukraine, Azerbaijan and in the Western Balkans. The interesting point in all today’s discussions on the activities of the Bank certainly concerns this.

On the mission, I would say that the clear view is that if you have good projects that meet the Bank’s criteria, do them. On volume, if you can do them, that is all right because you know that we have gone further than was anticipated in the Capital Resources Review. Pay attention to all these concerns. These are your priorities. That is a good discussion.

The second element that was discussed is about the profit of the Bank. I had the opportunity to say yesterday that there is no more pleasant and better question for a president to bring to his board and his governors than to have profits and to discuss what to do about those profits.

The vast majority of Governors made the decision to allocate the income from 2006 to the reserves of the Bank. This proposal was formulated by the Board of Directors of the Bank through many discussions and the Board made a proposal to Governors after those discussions. Governors have taken a clear view, with the vast majority supporting this. Some shareholders have taken a different view and have expressed a negative vote because they may have wanted a different debate and they have said they would have liked consideration to be paid to a dividend for 2006.

For the future, and I raised the point yesterday, hopefully the Bank will continue to make a profit, if the situation stays the same. We shall have internal discussions about that. There are various possibilities. One is to continue to increase reserves. Another is to allocate money to the mission of the Bank through an account to support the preparation of projects, technical assistance funding of projects, and another of course is a dividend. I have indicated that I consider that all the options are on the table. 

There was a debate among Governors about this question.  The debate is very open. You may have some shareholders who today consider that the dividend is good but at the same time do not rule out the possibility of technical assistance. They are very open-minded about this. Some others think that the money should be allocated on a mission basis, which is either the capital of the Bank or technical assistance.

We need to have a good discussion on this. Once more, I see the discussion as being very open. When you listen to all the Governors, they have a very clear view, even if there are nuances on some points, but the common view is that there is strong commitment to the mission of the Bank and certainly the wish that the Bank should have the means to deliver the mission, moving east and south and taking more risks. They have all clearly indicated this, and I am sure that this is a very important point.

I will finish with another point. This Bank is moving east and south probably more quickly than could have been anticipated a year ago, and the Governors have been kind enough to indicate that the Bank was successful in delivering transition. At the same time, we understand very well that we need to test what we do. We need to test ourselves and the deliveries of the Bank. Of course, the Governors’ guidance is important.

We have also tried to understand the challenges of the region. You may have read and taken part in discussions here about life in transition, about the surveys that we have conducted to try to better understand the needs and aspirations of the people. The conclusions are quite clear. They are quite positive and give a clear indication of the way in which we should see the future, which I think has been endorsed by the discussion with Governors.  There is a massive need to improve transition. People are expecting this and are positive about the future. They say that life today is difficult, but life tomorrow will be better because we shall work hard at it. The duty and clear commitment of Governors is to support this, to address this expectation of support for transition, a better life, the creation of jobs and a region that is part of the global economy in an efficient and successful way.

To make it very simple, the discussions held today and yesterday were good.  It is good for the President of the Bank that there is lively, open discussion about many questions. This institution is working for the people and it is usual to have very open discussions in an attempt to improve what we do.

Once more, this has been a very good meeting for the Bank, a very useful meeting for me. We are committed to delivering.

I am sure that you will have some questions.

MS NATALIA BIRKINA (RIA Novosti) (Interpretation): I have a concrete question. What is the number of operations approved by the Board of Governors for the current year, how many of them are allocated to the Russian Federation and to the CIS as a whole, and what is your expectation for profits this year?

THE PRESIDENT: With regard to the volume of activity for this year, we are market driven, so it is very difficult to tell you exactly what we will do.  It depends on the clients and the discussions. The main indication that I have today is that it will be roughly the same as last year. Last year we invested €4.9 billion in the whole region. I would say that in May the Bank’s expectation is in the range 4.5 to 5. In Russia we have many projects in many private and municipal sectors. It is very early to give you a final indication of the volume, but it should be of the same order of magnitude.

We want good projects. We want projects with very good transition impact, which have a very strong impact on the economy and a real input into the building of a stronger economy in Russia. Russia is changing quickly. Today there are many sectors in which we do not act because it is being done on a more commercial basis, so we are moving quite a good deal in terms of what we do. I say this because your question is about amounts, but the main question that we have is about content, what we do, what we try to bring as we progress, and in that respect you see many changes in our activities in Russia. 

It is too early to know the profit. You know the profit at the end of the year, even though you may make a guess about it, and today I want to be careful. I would simply like to give the indication that I believe the discussions we shall have about the income allocation for 2007 will allow for various possibilities.

MR STEFAN WAGSTYL (Financial Times): Can you say how you will approach the profit allocation issue over the coming months, when you will start and how you will prepare for it? For example, will you consider what other multilateral institutions do or will you develop an in-house method? What will you do?

THE PRESIDENT: We shall start to have discussions in September or October before the end of the year, to be able to have a clear view. The Governors will make the decision on the allocation of income for 2007, which will take place in Kiev in May 2008. We shall open the discussions early.

What is the method? When you think about this, you have first to consider what you want to deliver and how much you think can be delivered. The first point concerns the business approach and the assessment that we can make about what we can deliver in the region, whether there is good transition impact, respecting all the criteria of the Bank in an efficient way. That is the first assessment that needs to be done. After the second assessment, there will be a debate about how much will be available for the regions, but that is a secondary debate.

The second point is to look at the capital of the Bank and the trends because the need for capital is based not only on business volume but on questions like re-flows, for instance. You need to make a few assessments, and it is normal to do that and we are used to doing it. The capital must be regarded only in the context of the bank’s portfolio, rather than the annual business volume. The capital is needed to support the portfolio. We always look at the evolution of the portfolio, taking into account what we can do, what the re-flows are, prepayments, disinvestments and the gap. We look at this over time. We should not look at this only in one year but a few years ahead because the portfolio is built year after year and you need to have some visibility. These discussions will take place before the end of the year. 

Then you have a second part to the discussion, which is the technical assistance component. We have not yet done that and this point has been made by many Governors today; they would favour part of the allocation of the Bank’s income going to some technical assistance fund in the way donors provide us with resources to prepare and support projects. That is specific work to be done. There are a few components. The first is: what for?  Clearly, the Bank does not want to create a soft window like other organisations may have. We are not in that business. At the same time, we have received technical assistance resources to fund programmes like TAM/BAS, some in the Western Balkans, the Energy Efficiency Initiative, the Northern Dimension and the ETC Initiative. We shall look at these priorities and have a discussion with the Board about whether these are the right priorities for a new technical assistance part of the income allocation. 

The second question is about the governance of this, because technical assistance is the shareholders’ money. It should not be put into the Bank’s budget but into a separate account. This is an important discussion we need to have on how to put together the generosity of donors. May I remind you that for the last 15 years very generous countries have provided technical support and many of them wish to continue to support their priorities. We have to put in place a mechanism by which we continue not only to receive these funds but we add other funds coming from the institution’s own resources. We need to have that second important discussion.

The third element that I see in the debate is a specific discussion and decision on the notion of a dividend. The notion of a dividend is mainly concerned with two discussions. The first is: is there the financial possibility to do it? That is about the first two questions I have mentioned: what about the capital needed by the Bank to deliver the mission in the way Governors want, which is to do more; and technical assistance, which is also a mission-based approach. In my view, once we have had that discussion, then we will have the discussion on a dividend.

The second part of the discussion on the dividend is about what it means.  What is the sense of this and why? Some Governors have already started a discussion on these questions. That is interesting in a transition bank. At the end of the year or the beginning of next year, you will have three main discussions: the capital needed; technical assistance, what it means and what for and how to manage it; and a dividend, and if yes, what does that mean over time?

MR KASANOV (Tatarstan) (Interpretation):  Could you give us some more detail about the Bank projects that are being implemented specifically in Kazan and in Tatarstan?

THE PRESIDENT: We have a long tradition of working in Tatarstan. A few years ago, the EBRD was a strong supporter of Kamaz. At that time, there were not many investors ready to invest in Kamaz. We are still very close to this company. The second type of project is industrial projects. My discussions here show that we shall be able to engage in discussions with industrial companies willing to buy equipment. They have financial needs but they will have to strengthen their capital bases to be able to access the market from a better situation and funding by the market.

The second element is banking. We have already taken an equity stake in SpurtBank. We are the largest shareholder in SpurtBank. I think we have an equity stake of 28 per cent. This is important too because you may know that this bank now has a rating by Fitch, the rating agency, and so it is in a better situation to raise funding and use this to make loans. We are very happy about the cooperation with this bank. We are a shareholder and we also provide credit lines to help them to make loans to SMEs. We are working on loans with a component for energy efficiency and energy saving, which are important for competitiveness. I am sure that this type of work with Tatar banks will increase.

The third activity we are developing here is the municipal activity. You may know that I have signed a water distribution project for $10 million with the Mayor of Kazan. It is a very good and interesting project. We hope that in the municipal sector this will create a precedent and that we shall be able to do more of these projects. Today, there was an interesting panel where mayors of the region, including mayors from Tatarstan, had discussions with private sector people and EBRD bankers to see how we could do more.

Not only do we know Tatarstan well because we invested many years ago in this region but we are in the process of developing new approaches. This is a very good example of the Bank’s commitment to support the regions.

MR SHEPENSHOVA Russian Telecanal (Interpretation): Please tell us whether any major infrastructure projects were discussed with Minister Gref in which the Bank might be investing – major investment infrastructure projects in Russia.

THE PRESIDENT: We discussed two questions with Minister Gref. The first is on concrete projects, and this is the direct answer to your question. Of course we have spoken about the High-speed Diameter in St Petersburg, which is a new highway that is going to be built. We have spoken about airports and railways. You will know that we have already taken the decision to invest in a subsidiary of the railway company to support and improve container transport, which is an urgent need in Russia. We discussed very concrete projects of this nature.

We have also had another discussion on how to scale this up. That was a very interesting discussion. Today Russia is beginning to mobilise, through the Investment Fund and the Development Bank of Russia, new resources to finance some projects. At the same time, the needs are very great. We have had a discussion about how to combine resources and money coming from the state and the Investment Fund with loans made by the EBRD, also mobilising the private sector in a PPP approach. We have agreed with Minister Gref that we shall strengthen the partnership with the Ministry for Economy and various other ministries to enable us to do more there.

May I add one comment that is important in this context? For projects that have links with Europe, from now on we shall work with the EIB. You may have noticed that last November the European Council decided to allocate new financial possibilities for the EIB for the next seven years to invest in many countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, the Caucuses and Central Asia. We have teamed up with the EIB to prepare and finance in common these kinds of infrastructure projects that have a clear link with Europe. Of course, we have also spoken to Minister Gref about this.

My conclusion on this is that, apart from the concrete projects that I have mentioned, which are very serious, it is clear that we are going to build a flow of very large projects to help Russia.

MR DAN BASES (Reuters): Today the EBRD voted at the Annual Governors’ Meeting and, for the first time in its history, failed to get a unanimous decision.  Do you regard that as a failure on the part of the management of the Bank, and what will you do to make sure that it does not happen again? Do you think that it was just a lack of coordination or communication?

THE PRESIDENT: First, I do not see it as a failure. We must be clear that at the Governors’ meetings both last year and this year there was a very strong consensus about what should be done. In French we say, “Let us avoid looking at the tree, forgetting that there is a forest”. The forest is about consensus, if that is your question.

There is the usual, positive question about income allocation. It is in the nature of the governance of any institution that people may have different views. I can tell you that there is a vast majority in favour of strengthening the reserves of the Bank to support the mission and delivery for transition. 

Therefore, I do not see a serious problem behind what is happening. On the contrary, it is approved that there should be open debates, that governance principles are respected, that people make their views known, and the Bank is stronger when there is lively debate which is made transparent. As the President of the Bank, I think that this kind of debate makes the institution stronger, and the only way to make good decisions, looking ahead and working for people, is to confront views and make decisions.

Decisions have been made today in a very clear way and they will be made next year on the basis of work done by the Board and Governors, who will take a view next year about what they want to do. It is a new situation to have profits, and once more the Bank is stronger because it has profits, good governance principles and lively debate. If you see this as a failure, I do not know what you would see as a success.

MR BASES:  I do not necessarily see it as a failure but just a failure of the management to communicate with its Board members. It was the Board members who were upset about the way in which the Bank handled the situation. That is what I meant.

THE PRESIDENT: Not at all. If that were the case, do you think that the decision would have been taken by an overwhelming majority of Governors? In governance, the proof is in the vote, and I think that it is quite clear.  There was a very strong engagement with members of the Board, many discussions took place, and today you can see the result of the decision.

It is perfectly normal in institutions to have some governors or countries that hold different views. It would be a weakness not to acknowledge this and a strength to accept it. I have absolutely no difficulty in telling you that there is no failure.

MR RAYMOND LLOYD (Editor, Parity Democrat Westminster): I have two questions. In two weeks, 5 June will mark the 60th anniversary of the address in Harvard by the US Secretary of State, George Marshall, which effectively launched the Marshall plan and the delivery of $13 billion-worth of aid for the recovery of western Europe. Stalin stopped central European countries taking part in the Marshall plan. Happily, however, this tragedy has now been corrected by the European Bank. As the moral, economic and political heir of the Marshall plan, does the Bank plan to celebrate, either this year or next, the anniversary of the European Recovery Act?

THE PRESIDENT: As usual, you always raise good questions. Can you let me think about your question? 

MR LLOYD: I have a second question. In May 2008, the Bank will hold its Annual Meeting in Kiev on the theme “Ten years on from the 1998 meeting in Ukraine”. Next May will mark another anniversary – the 75th and first major anniversary since the Orange Revolution in Ukraine of the end of the eight-month famine from 1932 to 1933, the worst genocidal famine in European and human history when, according to Soviet demographic statistics, six million Ukrainians were starved or beaten to death. Genuine democracy, like moral redemption, depends on remembrance. May I therefore express the hope that, in its work, the Bank will encourage the new Ukrainian Memory Committee, which plans to both honour the victims and help the 80 and 90 year-old survivors?

THE PRESIDENT: You give a timely and useful reminder of the tragedy of the history of the region. I do take these questions very seriously. I used to say that probably 15 years ago we thought that political transition was easy and economic transition was difficult. I do not say that economic and social transition is easy; it is not. We know that political transition is not easy. One dimension of this is history. Recent events over the last weeks have reminded us of this. I welcome your comment – we will think about it for Annual Meeting in Kiev and engage with the Ukrainian authorities. We need to bear this in mind.

A SPEAKER (Interpretation): I have one more question, if I may, about your work over the four days in Kazan and how effective that was. Today an agreement was signed with the LUKoil company in the amount of $600 million, if I am not mistaken. How many such agreements were signed, in how many regions and for what amounts?

THE PRESIDENT: To my knowledge, two agreements were signed in Kazan – one with the Municipality of Kazan, and I have spoken already about this water distribution project, and another project with LUKoil, which is not $600 million but $300 million. In fact, for EBRD it is $150 million because $150 million has been syndicated. It is a project about the environment and gas flaring. These are very important challenges because they concern questions like energy security and the waste in gas flaring and the cleaning up of the environment in some parts of Russia, especially Siberia. It is important that companies like LUKoil agree to implement high standards for the environment.  We have taken part in support of this operation notably to make sure that high standards for the environment are respected. We are happy that the market has joined us to support this.

A SPEAKER (Interpretation): May I add a second question, a sort of supplementary question about dividends? That is quite a complex issue and I am not sure I have understood your position. If I have it right, most Governors supported your position that if dividends are to be paid out, it would be sort of on a “what is left” basis. First of all, you would increase the reserves and, secondly, you would use money for technical assistance and then, only if something is left over, would dividends be paid out. That seems to be your position, supported by the majority of Governors. Is that correct?

THE PRESIDENT: This may be my own position but it is common sense. Any kind of institution, in thinking about profit, first looks at the level of risk that the institution wants to take. We consider volume, type of operation and where the operations of the Bank are to be conducted. The first decision to be made in any company is about business activity, the business plan, what you want to do.

The second element, and it was strongly made by most of the Governors, including some that have said they want a dividend, is technical assistance.  They have said that we need to consider it. Some of them have said that they do not want a dividend. Some have said that they may consider it. Many have been more in favour of a mission-driven approach. I am not telling you that this is my position but that I will report back to you on the discussions that have taken place. 

It is reasonable in the way we look at it, and this question was asked by Stefan Wagstyl: what are you going to do to consider this? First, you look at what you want to do, and that is the mission. Secondly, you look at the way you support the mission with technical assistance. Thirdly, you look at whether you will pay a dividend or not. That is the normal way to do it. It is the normal process but it does not prejudge the decision that is going to be made on the mix and the way this will be structured. What I have described is simply what we are going to work on.

MR WAGSTYL: I have a question about the surveys of public opinion, which in some ways were quite depressing in showing how many people still feel that they are worse off. Clearly, they would direct their complaints to the government, to the authorities and to politicians in some way. However, are there also opportunities here for the private sector to fill because the problems also reflect a lack of necessities and lack of comfort in their daily lives? Is there then something the Bank could do to encourage private companies perhaps to direct more effort into making products and services for lower income people, particularly outside the big urban centres?

THE PRESIDENT: I agree with you. My first remark is about many people seeing their life as worse. We need to understand that that is not because a mistake was made 15 years ago because the previous system collapsed. Some people may think it was better then, but the system collapsed. That is not the debate; it is about the fact that transition is first about hardship. Once again, this is a very strong reminder that even if many people say that money is flowing, foreign investment is flowing, life is still very difficult for some people. We should not forget this. We should avoid simply looking at a few macroeconomic parameters that are important for the future, but at the same time we need to look at it and understand that life is difficult for the vast majority of the people. This is the main lesson of the survey.

At the same time, may I return to the comment I made previously: these people see very strong reasons to be optimistic for the future. They understand well what is happening. It is a process of destruction and reconstruction which is certainly painful but they think it is taking place because they are more positive and they understand what is happening.

There are lessons to be learnt from this, I agree with you, both for policymakers and for the private sector. One clear indication of the surveys, especially that of the focus group that was discussing these results for Russia, is about the emergence of a middle class, and not only a middle class with a high income but also a new middle class with a rather low income for the time being. It is clear that this new middle class has a desire to gain access to better and not too expensive consumer goods, to better and not too expensive services, and clearly one of those is health, which is very important both for the public sector and the private sector. They want to gain access to services such as better and not too expensive transport.

The clear point is that income is slightly increasing in this middle class.  The people do not have much money but they wish to use it efficiently. I think this is an important lesson for investors. There is certainly a vast possibility to invest in these types of markets to address these needs. Once again, it is about goods, services, health, and maybe education. There is a growing market for this and not just at the upper end of the market.

I will take one obvious example. Investment in five star hotels in Russia has been quite impressive over the years, but there is very little investment in two star hotels. People want to travel more and there is a desire to develop tourism. This is a good example but the position is the same for white goods, for cars and many other things.

We are beginning to see new investors looking at this. We have a clear view that this is the best way to support the private sector today to address the needs of the country.

MS LYDIA KELLY (Dow Jones): You said a few minutes ago that there is a need to monitor the Bank’s delivery. Could you elaborate a little on that? Where is that pressure coming from and through what mechanisms are you going to do that?

THE PRESIDENT:  I say this because all the Governors firmly said this morning that the Bank is successful. It is nice to hear that, but at the same time we must not be complacent. The region is changing quite a lot in many countries. We need constantly to be adapting what we are doing to address the needs at the cutting edge of what should be done and what the private sector alone does not do.

The question that was raised about the middle classes is a good one. This is exactly the type of question we are trying to deal with, and not simply to repeat what we have already done but to challenge what we have done and to move to other issues.

To give you another example, the banking sector in Russia is growing fast to address the needs of the people for mortgage finance, consumer loans and SME lending, and all of this is good. At the same time, there is a need to increase the capital of the banks. There is also a need to develop the capital markets. We have moved to questions like securitisation so that we will be able to support the banking sector to continue to deliver subordinated loans. All these issues are changing in many countries. We did not have these issues three or four years ago but we have moved to them today. 

This is what I mean. The Bank is a very simple model. We have to be at the forefront of the markets. We have constantly to test what we are doing to make sure that we bring in the best. We do not do what other people would do very well without us.

MR RAYMOND LLOYD (Editor, Parity Democrat Westminster): I congratulate you on reversing the practice of the World Bank by holding two, rather than one, out of three Annual Meetings in countries of operation, not least because we may not have a good conference facility in London before the 2012 Olympic Games.

May I therefore ask whether you will soon hold an Annual Meeting in Georgia or elsewhere in the Caucasus, also whether you will consider holding a meeting in Vienna, where the two principal Austrian banks have been the main operators in many EBRD countries supporting the Annual Meetings?

THE PRESIDENT: You have raised very sensitive questions. I am not so sure that it is within my capacity to deal with them. 

I can tell you that it has already been decided that next year’s Annual Meeting will be held in Kiev. In 2009 it will be held in London. We are therefore open to ideas for 2010. It is clear that there are many possibilities in the region. It would be possible to consider the Caucasus.  There could be many candidates from others, but we shall have to think about this.

On your second question, the Bank has never taken the view that we should have an Annual Meeting outside London or the region. I am sorry to disappoint my Austrian friends, but Vienna is not on the agenda.

I agree with your welcome for the Governors’ decision to hold two meetings in the region and one meeting in London. Notably, this very gracious view has been taken by the UK.

AFP: You said that you are a strong supporter of Russia joining the WTO and the OECD. How do you evaluate its chances in the context of the strong tensions between Russia and its partners?

THE PRESIDENT: It is important that Russia and a few other countries should join the WTO. The trend of their progress will be a part of the global economy, a crucial step towards which will be membership of the WTO. The decision by Russia to join implies a clear acceptance of the standards and processes of the international trade community. It is a positive policy and we support it.

With regard to the negotiations, you can mention these political questions but I am not involved in the negotiations. There are trade-related negotiations but I am certainly not the best person to give you an update on that. You probably asked the same question of Minister Gref yesterday. He is a better specialist on that question than I, because he is in charge of the negotiations. However, I hope that it will be done soon.