Pełne sprawozdanie z obrad

Środa, 8 czerwca 2016 r. - Strasburg

8. Przegląd śródokresowy planu inwestycyjnego (debata)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the Mid-term review of the Investment Plan (2016/2732(RSP)).

  Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members of the European Parliament for joining us in this debate. Hopefully there are a few more MEPs around because the topic is so important, boosting investments and by doing so strengthening job creation in Europe.

I will not go to the root causes as to why we are lacking investments. Everybody knows many of the reasons, but I would just like to raise some points on what we have already done in order to promote investments and strengthen job creation in Europe.

As everybody remembers, in the investment plan for Europe we had three different parts which are mutually reinforcing. The most important part of the plan is the removal of barriers to investments. There we have national barriers but also European-wide barriers. The Commission has paid more attention than before to investment barriers at national levels. For instance, in annual growth surveys and when analysing Member States’ economies, we have identified national barriers for investments and some of those findings ended up in the country-specific recommendations.

So we are encouraging Member States to carry out structural reforms which will boost an investment environment at national and local level. At the same time, we are putting more focus and emphasis on deepening and widening the internal market. The internal market and the whole third pillar of the investment plan, in my mind, is the most influential part in terms of job creation. We have some major projects like the Digital Single Market, the Energy Union, and the Capital Market Union but one should add to this list also the circular economy package which the Commission proposed last year and also decarbonisation of transport. They will all reshape the internal market in Europe.

Just to give you some ideas of what we have already done in terms of creating a better investment environment, we are lowering capital charges for insurance companies investing in long-term infrastructure. We are also making it more possible to find venture capital in Europe for small and medium-sized enterprises by launching a new venture capital fund of funds later this year.

We are giving guidance on what constitutes state aid. We are making it easier for service providers to expand to the other Member States and creating a digital single market. So lots of things are happening on this front and I hope Parliament will support these projects. The faster we can deliver on the internal market side, the faster we can get a better business environment and a better investment environment.

A second pillar of the investment plan consists of two major initiatives. The first one is an investment advisory hub which is providing technical assistance and advice to private investors, but also to public entities. This is functioning quite well. We already have more than 100 requests, mostly from private companies. They are asking for advice and technical assistance to improve the quality of the projects. For instance, some of the investors are asking for technical assistance on how to benefit from various EU funds.

So this is a very elementary and important part of the investment plan because it makes it easier for Member States to use the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) but also the other funds and also to create investment platforms collecting together smaller investments, and by doing so it is easier to get financing for smaller projects.

The newest creation under the second pillar is the European Investment Project Portal. The idea came from the UK. I visited London and the financiers, for instance investment banks, said that they are able and willing to invest more in European infrastructure but it is sometimes very difficult to find good projects from different countries. Their idea was to create a transparent open portal to which both public and private project promoters could send their projects, and the promoters could get better visibility for their projects.

So it is some sort of dating service for project promoters and financiers, and it is up and running now. We disclosed it at the beginning of June and I am quite excited to see how well it functions. We have designed the portal together with the private sector in order to make it as pragmatic and practical as possible. So over time there should be thousands of investment projects, and hopefully it functions as we have planned.

Finally, the first pillar of the EFSI plan is also up and running. So far we have used EFSI to the tune of EUR 12.8 billion for the infrastructure and innovation window but also for SME financing. This EUR 12.8 billion is expected to trigger mostly private investment, or public-private partnership investments worth EUR 100 billion. Of this, 80%, in other words, EUR 80 billion out of EUR 100 billion, comes from the private sector, so EFSI seems to function as planned. It provides risk financing mostly to private investors and by doing so it crowds in private money, which is currently peacefully resting in bank accounts.

So there seems to be a lack of risk financing in Europe. There is plenty of liquidity everywhere, this is not a problem at the moment, but because we have changed banking regulations this is one of the reasons the banks cannot take as much risk as they did a few years ago. That is why EFSI is providing something which is lacking, at least to a large extent, in the market.

We have around 65 projects, I mean infrastructure or industrial investment projects, which have got financing from EFSI. In addition to this, and I would say more importantly, we have 185 agreements between the European Investment Fund (EIF) and intermediary banks, between the fund and private banks, on SME financing.

These 185 agreements between the EIF, which has support from EFSI, and banks, will provide financing to approximately 150 000 European SMEs. In Italy alone we have 28 banks which have made an agreement with the EIF, and 44 000 Italian SMEs will get financing because of these agreements. This is sometimes the fastest way to stimulate the economy. There seems to be a lack of SME financing, especially equity financing, everywhere in Europe, even in the most developed markets. That is why I think in the future we have to pay special attention to this SME window, especially in equity financing, because this is something which the market does not offer that much at the moment.

Of course, we are developing the Capital Market Union in order to improve the capital market environment in Europe, but it will always take some time and meanwhile we have to address the market gap by providing EFSI financing. The UK has been very active on this issue. The UK is a country which is familiar with financial instruments and that is why British banks have been actively contacting the EIF and providing more financing to British businesses.

The Commission will present a new proposal to prolong EFSI later this year. We have to analyse EFSI, its achievements and possible weaknesses, and once we have done the analysis we will make a new proposal, which will continue EFSI beyond the expiry date which we have at the moment.

The main issue in this is to focus on addressing market failure. The main issue is not to make it larger. The main thing is to focus EFSI financing on the areas where market does not function properly. Also one thing on which we have to be very careful is to provide financing for new innovations which will strengthen the sustainable development of our economies in social terms, in environmental terms, and for instance provide financing to the investments which will promote the circular economy.

We are also going to propose some kind of external investment plan. EFSI has functioned very well in Europe, but we could use the same model also for external financing, especially when trying to achieve development goals.

So the Commission is looking at the opportunities, how we could use existing development resources in a more efficient way by establishing a new fund which could function in a similar way as the EFSI functions but in third countries. The aim is to address the root causes of migration.

Having said this I do not want to oversell the idea; we cannot address the root causes for migration overnight, or very fast, but anyway we could use our development resources more efficiently and by establishing a new external investment fund we could encourage private investment in third countries and by doing so strengthen economic structures and address the root causes of migration. This idea is at the initial stage but we will come with a proposal hopefully later this year.

Honourable Members, I will stop here and I am very interested to hear your views, how you have seen the investment plan as a whole and maybe the final word here is that we need to cooperate very closely, because MEPs are representing the European people. You are representing our regions, and the more you are raising awareness amongst investors about the opportunities that EFSI can offer, the better. Even though we are working very hard every single day advertising EFSI opportunities, we are never as efficient as you are if you are meeting local investors, local entrepreneurs and bankers explaining how EFSI can help the situation in the regions.

  Othmar Karas, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident, meine Damen und Herren! Wir haben strukturelle Probleme, wir haben hohe Defizite, zu wenig Investitionen, zu wenig Innovation, zu wenig Wachstum und Beschäftigung. Der Europäische Fonds für strategische Investitionen, der sogenannte Juncker-Fonds, ist eine unserer Antworten darauf.

Und man kann heute sagen: Der Start ist gelungen! 249 Projekte in 26 Mitgliedstaaten mit einem Investitionsvolumen von 100 Milliarden Euro wurden angestoßen. In 185 Vereinbarungen, vor allem in Kooperation mit den nationalen Förderbanken, konnten 140 000 europäische KMU mit Finanzierung versorgt werden. Daher begrüße ich auch, dass das KMU-Fenster vergrößert werden soll. Aber wir sind noch lange nicht am Ziel.

Wir brauchen Großprojekte, mehr Nachhaltigkeit, mehr Investitionen in die digitale Zukunft, wir brauchen höhere Risikoprofile. Ja, wir brauchen eine Verlängerung, wir brauchen eine Erweiterung um Staaten außerhalb der Europäischen Union, die wir beteiligen, wir benötigen eine strategische Verknüpfung der parallelen Aktivitäten von EIT und EFSI, wir brauchen eine Ergänzung um einen EFSI in den Nachbarstaaten und einen Afrika-EFSI, und wir brauchen eine Vergrößerung unserer Projekte und eine Beschleunigung.

Daher kann ich die Zwischenbilanz nur begrüßen. Wir sind aber nicht am Ziel. Investitionen anzustoßen, ist kein Sprint, sondern benötigt einen Marathon, und daher sollten wir den Weg konsequent weitergehen.

  Gianni Pittella, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Vicepresidente, crescita economica, coesione sociale, transizione verso un'economia sostenibile, transizione energetica, ambiente, riduzione del deficit e del debito attraverso la crescita: questo serve all'Europa. Non rigore cieco, non asfissia, ma ossigeno alle piccole e medie imprese, risposte ai giovani disoccupati, maggiore competitività delle nostre imprese nel mondo. Per questo motivo, noi Socialisti e Democratici chiedemmo al Presidente Juncker di prevedere un piano di investimenti europeo e votammo questa Commissione sulla base anche e soprattutto di questo impegno. Ci sono stati risultati importanti, perché negarlo? Ma si può e si deve fare di più!

Ci sono tre criticità che vanno affrontate. Primo: addizionalità. Questi finanziamenti devono essere aggiuntivi, non sostitutivi. Non può essere business as usual, lavoro normale che fa la BEI, altrimenti non avremmo avuto bisogno di un piano di investimenti e di un fondo speciale. Secondo: bisogna accettare rischi più alti. Alla BEI dico che bisogna che la tripla A non sia un dogma, altrimenti non avremmo avuto bisogno di un piano di investimenti se i progetti a più alto rischio non possono essere finanziari. Terzo: rapporto con il Parlamento. Lei lo ha riconosciuto poc'anzi, Vicepresidente Katainen. Noi siamo gli eletti dei cittadini, e questo piano viene da una nostra intuizione e da una nostra richiesta.

Abbiamo bisogno di un rapporto costante con la Commissione e con la Banca europea per gli investimenti. C'è bisogno di più ascolto. C'è bisogno che insieme lavoriamo ai punti di sofferenza, ai punti di maggiore necessità di cambiamento. C'è bisogno che lavoriamo insieme a una maggiore informazione rispetto alle realtà locali, che devono conoscere e devono saper candidarsi a queste opportunità. Serve, in conclusione, far diventare questo piano, attraverso una proroga, ma non deve essere una proroga fine a se stessa, deve essere una proroga finalizzata a far diventare questo piano una risposta seria, convincente e concreta alla crisi economica e sociale che vive profondamente l'Europa.

  President. – There are already Members of Parliament who have asked to put blue card questions, but I want to inform you that I will open it up after the Group speeches, so if you still want to put a blue card question after that, please ask again.

  Sander Loones, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Ik begrijp volledig dat de Europese Commissie positief wil communiceren over haar projecten, dat lijkt me logisch. Maar men kan zich toch de vraag stellen of deze hoera-communicatie vandaag niet net iets te vroeg komt.

Ten eerste merk ik dat de Commissie vandaag al meedeelt dat het plan verlengd zal worden. Ik heb eens gekeken naar de stand van zaken. Ik zie vooral een hele reeks projecten die pas opgesteld zijn of zelfs nog niet opgesteld zijn. Ik zie cijfers over investeringen en jobs die vooral nog schattingen zijn en ik zie dat er ook nog bijna geen onafhankelijke analyses zijn gemaakt. Dus het is misschien nog net iets te vroeg om al die schijnbaar definitieve conclusies te trekken.

We hebben trouwens afgesproken dat de Europese investeringsbank het plan zal evalueren en dat dat moet gebeuren binnen 18 maanden. Ook die analyse heb ik, tenzij ik iets heb gemist, nog niet gezien. We moeten in elk geval daarop wachten. Pas wanneer die analyse positief is, wanneer daaruit blijkt dat de doelstellingen van het plan worden gehaald, kan de Europese Commissie eventueel een verlenging voorstellen. Maar ik stel voor dat we hierover dan in dit Parlement, en ook in de Raad trouwens, nog eens goed doorpraten over hoe dat dan best al dan niet wordt opgezet.

Ten tweede, het thema van de dag: moeten we het investeringsplan uitbreiden naar derde landen, naar ontwikkelingslanden? Ja, we moeten die economie versterken en de Europese Unie kan daarin een rol spelen. Maar ik wil ook oproepen om niet naïef te zijn. We beseffen allemaal dat niet alle betrokken landen een even stabiele en loyale partner zullen zijn. We zullen dus moeten inzetten op extra controle om corruptie en slechte investeringen te vermijden. Ik ben niet per definitie tegen, maar wil wel oproepen om niet overhaast te werk te gaan.

En laten we ten slotte de essentie niet uit het oog verliezen. EFSI kan een zeer positieve invloed hebben op onze economie, op het investeringsklimaat. Maar als we echt verandering willen bewerkstellingen, dan zullen de lidstaten moeten hervormen. Ik was dan ook zeer tevreden, mijnheer de commissaris, dat precies dat uw eerste en sterk uitgewerkte punt was in uw betoog, namelijk dat we naar die structurele hervormingen toe moeten werken.

  Pavel Telička, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to underline firstly that ALDE gave its support to the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and we remain supportive with maybe some question marks. I would especially give credit to the Commission for having had the courage to launch something that we have not seen from the Commission before.

Commissioner, let me follow a little the structure of your introduction. You spoke, among other things, of widening and deepening of the internal market. I agree, but there is more to it. I think that if we speak of the investment environment, of the climate, of the conditions, then we should also look at the existing legislation, without lowering standards – this is not the point that I would like to raise – but still cutting significantly the administrative burden for businesses, especially for SMEs. This is where I would expect a serious initiative from the Commission with a serious and thorough review of the existing legislation in this respect.

In terms of the financial means that have already been invested, we were aiming for EUR 60 billion – so let us say EUR 20 billion a year – and we were around EUR 12 billion for the first year. I do not think that this is a major problem. Every programme has a slow start, but it means that in the second year we have to have more than EUR 20 billion and, in the third year, most likely around EUR 30 billion if we are to meet it.

More of a concern is what kind of projects are we really financing? That is where, so far, I see the weakness of EFSI. If we look at the projects – and I have not seen any information about the last ten or so, maybe we are seeing a positive curve – but 90% of these projects are very similar to those that we would be financing from cohesion funding – let us say, low—risk EIB funding, CEF, Horizon whatever – so I am not sure that we are really meeting the objective of the added value, the additional financing and the risky projects.

I think this is something that we should focus on – or maybe I am ill informed and maybe the EIB could do better, as well as the Commissioner, in really portraying the difference between the projects that we finance from other instruments and the high-risk projects. All this is against the background that we have taken resources from Horizon 2020, as well as CEF, so we also need to balance the positive value against the background that we have reduced that sum somewhere else.

So regarding the expectations – without at the moment discussing prolongation or not – we need to review the quality of the projects and we should also maybe have a look, in terms of the review, at whether the EIB in the future should not rather be financing the lower—risk projects with a lower share, but with a higher share on the high-risk projects. I think that then we can really deliver.

One final remark: you have spoken about the innovative, the creative and also the high—risk circular economy. It is absolutely clear that this has to be a key priority, which in fact could create a whole new industry. Am I wrong in saying that so far one single project has been financed? That is completely insufficient. So let us have a look at the weaknesses. We are happy to work with you on that.

  Miguel Viegas, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Senhora Presidente, os últimos dados sobre a execução do Fundo Europeu de Investimentos Estratégicos confirmam as críticas que fizemos no seu lançamento. Dissemos então que os rácios eram irrealistas, dissemos que este plano não correspondia às necessidades de relançamento da economia, dissemos, finalmente, que este plano não era neutro porque não tem critérios de repartição geográfica, favorece os países mais ricos e representa um autêntico banquete para as grandes empresas através das parcerias público-privadas.

Os números atuais mostram que a maior parte do investimento na realidade se concentra nas regiões mais ricas e desenvolvidas do centro da Europa, confirmam um quadro de gestão privada de infraestruturas de transporte de energias, que deveriam ser públicas e colocadas ao serviço do desenvolvimento e não ao serviço da acumulação de lucros para as grandes empresas multinacionais.

Portugal está neste momento a zero no que toca à execução deste plano e isto apesar das políticas de austeridade terem reduzido drasticamente o investimento, ao ponto de não cobrirem já sequer a depreciação de capital, comprometendo desde já o crescimento futuro.

Em vez de nos congratularmos com resultados fictícios, designadamente em relação às PME, é tempo de pensar num verdadeiro plano de investimento público feito à escala de cada Estado-Membro, garantindo assim a coesão social e territorial.

  Philippe Lamberts, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, c'est à juste titre que le plan Juncker devrait constituer la grande affaire de cette législature, parce que l'économie européenne est profondément malade d'un manque d'investissement chronique, à la fois public et privé. Mais que dire du remède? Les moyens de ce plan sont, à la fois, à ce point modestes – on parle de bien moins que 1 % du PIB européen – et à ce point dispersés, à la fois sur le plan géographique et sur le plan thématique, que ce saupoudrage me semble relever plus de l'homéopathie que du remède de cheval dont notre économie a besoin.

Concrètement, si vous voulez que ce plan ait la moindre chance de réussir et d'avoir un impact macroéconomique, il faut qu'il soit substantiellement renforcé par les États membres qui en ont la capacité, mais surtout concentré. Concentré à la fois dans les pays qui souffrent d'un manque d'investissement et d'un manque de capacités d'investissement – il est quand même incroyable qu'on finance des pays comme l'Allemagne, qui a toutes les capacités du monde d'investir –, mais concentré aussi thématiquement sur le grand projet à valeur ajoutée européenne, je veux parler de la transition énergétique.

L'énergie, c'est le cœur de l'économie, et la transition énergétique, l'indépendance énergétique, est un impératif à la fois stratégique, économique et écologique pour l'Union. Cela tombe bien puisque les pays de la périphérie sont ceux qui ont le plus besoin d'investissement, mais aussi ceux qui offrent le plus grand potentiel d'énergies renouvelables.

Mais la grande contradiction de votre politique, Monsieur le Vice-président Katainen, c'est le fait qu'alors que vous appuyez modestement sur l'accélérateur avec ce plan d'investissement, vous pilez à toute force sur le frein, à la fois par l'application de règles budgétaires et comptables qui handicapent l'investissement public, par une obsession pour des réformes structurelles qui poussent chaque jour plus d'Européens dans la pauvreté et l'exclusion, réduisant ainsi la demande agrégée et, plus encore, par le refus de mettre devant leurs responsabilités ces États qui entretiennent délibérément des déficits massifs – et je pense évidemment à l'Allemagne – de leur demande intérieure.

Si vous voulez vraiment sortir l'économie européenne du trou, Monsieur le Vice- président, il faudra sortir de cette schizophrénie.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, I do not think we can call the Juncker investment plan a rip-roaring success. Just have a look around at the empty seats this morning. And the idea that tens of billions of private capital are going to arrive for joint projects with you guys frankly I think is pie in the sky. Though happily Mr Cameron, of course, has committed GBP 6 billion of our money to this project and if ever you are short of money just ask Mr Cameron because he always pays up.

But it is I think these grand projects that in many ways, I think, are sowing the seeds of the end of this political project. I came in here in 1999 and sat at the back and there were only three of us in the whole building who thought our Member State should leave the European Union. But it is grand projects that have turned the tide of public opinion, in particular the introduction of the euro. You know I warned you, we all warned you, that it would not work for the Mediterranean countries. It could comfortably work for the optimal currency zone in the north. But no, through massive ambition and hubris you ploughed on and you allowed countries like Greece to join a currency that they were never fit for. And what is happening to Greece now? Well they are facing the next bailout, in probably July of this year, and because you want to hold your project together you are forcing them, bit by bit, to become a third-world country. And all I can say, frankly, is shame on you.

The other big grand project was to allow into this Union first eight, and then ten, former communist countries, some of them with human rights records that are frankly shocking and abysmal, and others in which corruption is so rife that these countries have not made the transition to being full Western democracies. When I was first elected here the word immigration did not even appear on my election address. We did not use that word once when the first three of us got elected here. But now, as we have allowed much poorer countries to have the free movement of peoples, we see considerable anger in Britain and in many countries across the north of Europe. And yes, it has led to the rise of parties that some may consider to be deeply unpleasant, but that is what happens when you take control out of people’s lives.

And the other feature I have noticed here is the growth of what I can only describe as authoritarianism. You know, we actually saw the Prime Minister of Greece removed effectively by a coup d’état and we saw Mr Berlusconi removed by a coup d’état and in both cases represented by appointees who were former directors of Goldman Sachs. So I think you have sowed the seeds of your own destruction.

We have, in two weeks’ time, what is to be the biggest event in the history of this project. It is the British referendum and it is not just about whether Britain leaves the European Union, because if we make that choice I am confident many other countries will make that choice too. I did originally believe that we should leave because we were a square peg in a round hole. When I saw what happened here in 2005, when the French and Dutch rejected the constitution and yet sneakily it was brought in through the back door as the Lisbon Treaty, I realised then that this is not just bad for Britain; it is bad for the whole of Europe.

And I hope that on 23 June it is not just Independence Day for the United Kingdom. I hope it brings an end to this entire project and in a few years’ time we could be sovereign, democratic nation states that work and trade together. I hope this is the last time I will be speaking in this Parliament from a Member State. I hope that we are going to leave this Union on 23 June. And so I am going out now; I may be some time.

  Steeve Briois, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, il y a un an, vous adoptiez à la quasi-unanimité le plan Juncker, présenté comme le plus important plan de sauvetage de l'histoire, censé relancer l'investissement public et la croissance économique en Europe.

Admettez quand même qu'un an après, votre plan de sauvetage s'est transformé en plan d'enfumage; en un mot, c'est l'échec total.

Échec, car le fonds européen pour les investissements stratégiques, doté d'un budget de 21 milliards d'euros, n'est pas parvenu à drainer suffisamment de capitaux privés, la rentabilité des investissements publics étant par définition plus faible.

Échec, car les investissements financés au titre de ce fonds européen se sont concentrés sur des projets de grande envergure dans les centres-villes, négligeant au passage de nombreux projets locaux, avec comme conséquence un accroissement des disparités régionales.

Échec, enfin, car les chiffres parlent d'eux-mêmes: une croissance économique au point mort, un taux de chômage des jeunes historiquement élevé et une pauvreté qui s'installe partout en Europe.

En réalité, le plan Juncker vise à créer une dépendance aux fonds européens tout en imposant une diète budgétaire aux États membres, et cela dans l'unique but de fédérer nos peuples autour de votre projet funeste, destructeur des identités nationales. Mais les peuples européens ne sont pas dupes, ils se réveillent en ce moment, j'en veux pour preuve les résultats du FPÖ en Autriche ou encore les sondages du Royaume-Uni, où le camp du Brexit est annoncé vainqueur. Que vous le vouliez ou non, une Europe des nations et des libertés est en marche.

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός ( NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, μόνο φαντασιόπληκτος μπορεί να χαρακτηριστεί αυτός που πιστεύει ότι το Επενδυτικό Σχέδιο του Juncker μέχρι τώρα έχει πετύχει αυτά που υποσχέθηκε όταν το πρωτοδιαφήμισε το 2014, ώστε να εκλεγεί Πρόεδρος της Επιτροπής. Δεν μπορεί να θεωρηθεί επιτυχία, όταν η επενδυτική τάση στην Ένωση παραμένει κάτω από το ιστορικό χαμηλό και συνεχίζει με τον ίδιο ρυθμό από το 2013 χωρίς μεταβολή κατά την εφαρμογή του συγκεκριμένου Σχεδίου. Δεν θεωρώ επιτυχία όταν αυτά τα χρήματα κατευθύνονται κυρίως σε ανεπτυγμένα κράτη της Ένωσης και όχι στα κράτη που συνεχίζουν να βρίσκονται σε οικονομική κρίση, όπως είναι η Ελλάδα και η Κύπρος. Δεν είναι επιτυχία, όταν στις 140.000 μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις και επιχειρήσεις μεσαίας κεφαλαιοποίησης που αναμένεται να επωφεληθούν από το Σχέδιο υπάρχει μόνο μία ελληνική και καμία κυπριακή.

Οι επιχειρήσεις στην Ελλάδα δεν κλείνουν μόνο διότι δεν έχουν πρόσβαση στη χρηματοδότηση. Κλείνουν διότι δεν μπορούν να ανταποκριθούν στα χρέη που προκύπτουν από τις πολιτικές λιτότητας που επιβλήθηκαν, μόνο δε τα σχέδια αυτά δεν φτάνουν. Αλλάξτε πολιτικές! Αν καταφέρατε κάτι είναι ότι πετύχατε να καταστρέψετε ολοκληρωτικά τη χώρα μου, εκμεταλλευόμενοι την ανεκδιήγητη κυβέρνηση της Αριστεράς και τις δωσίλογες τέως συγκυβερνήσεις του Κέντρου. Γι’ αυτό μπορώ να σας δώσω συγχαρητήρια.

  Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you very much for allowing me to intervene in the debate. I think it is better to be more interactive in this way.

I have just a few comments on the interventions we have heard so far. It is very important for the EIB to remain a triple-A bank, because triple-A status has a direct connection to the financing power the EIB has. But I fully agree with Members who have said that the EIB should take more risk, and for this reason we have established the EFSI. It enables the EIB to finance projects which are seen as more risky and is worth EUR 63 billion. This is what the EIB is doing at the moment. The EIB has done an excellent job. Apart from adding finance to risky projects, it has upgraded its presence in many of our Member States, including Greece, in order to help the Greek authorities, and the private sector especially, to benefit from EFSI and benefit from other financial instruments of the EIB. The EIB has done its share very, very well.

One issue I want to raise in the debate – and I want to raise awareness amongst MEPs on this issue – is that it is also possible to combine structural funds with EFSI. We already have a very good example of this kind of financing in northern France where the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region has organised an investment platform which aims to gather together a large number of SMEs and start—ups, especially in the digital field. They will use private capital, regional money and EFSI funds in order to provide risk financing for those companies. You can find this example on the website. This is a model which could be copied in the other countries, especially the cohesion countries. There we need the help of MEPs, because you know EFSI funds and you know the regions.

EFSI is a demand—driven fund. I am happy that we have one genuine circular economic project which has got financing from EFSI, but I am dissatisfied that there is only one. So, again, we have to raise awareness amongst circular economy players and investors that EFSI can really provide something which the market cannot provide, or does not provide, at the moment. EFSI is a perfect instrument for the circular economy, for new innovation and new technology investments, which for some reason cannot get full financing from the market. There again, the role of MEPs is crucial. The EIB does not create projects, it only finances them, and that is why we have to raise awareness amongst investors, and also amongst the regions and cities to use EFSI for new innovations.

I want to raise one issue. We are following very closely what is going on in our Member States in terms of EFSI activities and related things. I have very good information on the activities of MEPs. So far only a handful of MEPs have organised EFSI events in their regions or Member States. A very good example of these kinds of activities was last week, when I had a chance to visit Mr Pittella’s and Mr Gualtieri’s event, where southern Italian regional leaders came together. We were talking about opportunities to use EFSI for southern Italian purposes. Also, Ms Spyraki has organised events in Greece, Ms Paunova in Bulgaria, and Mr Guoga in Lithuania. This is exactly what we need at the moment. We need to raise awareness of what EFSI can do and what EFSI has done in other countries in order to make it possible to use EFSI in a more efficient way. If you want to see the projects which have already been signed, you can find all the projects on the internet. It is very good to look at them and pass the message on to the other regions about what the others have already done.

EFSI will not solve all the problems in Europe. In the best case, it can provide financing or it can help to get investments worth EUR 315 billion euros. This is only one third of what is needed. That is why the other parts of the investment plans are even more important than EFSI. It is easier to talk about money when we are talking about EUR 315 billion, or what EFSI has already financed, but the rest of the plan is even more important. That is why I expect co—legislators to be as fast when implementing, or when approving, single market—related proposals as we were when we approved EFSI legislation. It took only six months to push EFSI through the Parliament and the Council. Why should we wait longer when dealing with, for instance, a waste legislation proposal or digital single market-related proposals? So the internal market-side of the plan is even more important than EFSI, even though EFSI is very much needed.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, o Fundo Europeu para Investimentos Estratégicos provou neste primeiro ano de funcionamento que incentiva fortemente o investimento na União Europeia. Está a reforçar a confiança, o crescimento e o emprego. Já mobilizou 100 mil milhões de euros, o que não é pouco, em 26 Estados—Membros.

Mais: dos 75 mil milhões de euros para a janela das PME já foram mobilizados mais de 50 mil milhões de euros, o que supera todas as expectativas e as melhores expectativas. Portugal, por exemplo, já utilizou este plano para as PME, o que permite apoiar mais de 590 PME e a mobilização de mais de 588 milhões de euros.

Face a estes dados, é fácil prever e defender que este fundo deve continuar para além dos três anos inicialmente previstos. Também é importante, desde já, que o BEI cumpra o regulamento no que diz respeito à adicionalidade, no que diz respeito à seleção dos projetos, que deve ter em conta a coesão territorial, a criação de emprego.

Insisto em que no regulamento não estão definidos montantes mínimos para a elegibilidade dos projetos. Ninguém é obrigado a candidatar-se a este fundo, mas é preciso incentivar os Estados-Membros e as autoridades locais a fazê-lo, a criarem plataformas de investimento regionais, nacionais e transnacionais para se promover ao máximo a dispersão geográfica dos investimentos.

Para além disso, é necessário divulgar a plataforma de apoio ao aconselhamento, o adviser IAP, para que o investimento seja conhecido e seja mobilizado em toda a União Europeia.

  President. – I will now give the floor to Mr Bullmann, whose birthday it is today, so congratulations.

  Udo Bullmann (S&D). – Thank you Mrs. President, thank you very much.

Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident Katainen! EFSI könnte ein Geschenk sein – in der Tat –, und deswegen hat das Europäische Parlament es auch mit sehr viel Hoffnungen belegt. Eine Zwischenbilanz ist aber auch eine gute Gelegenheit, Fehler zu korrigieren. Und ich glaube, wir haben Anlass, das zu tun.

Fehler Nummer eins – und ich bitte Sie, auch als Leitungsgremium von EFSI dort genauer hinzusehen: Wir haben den Eindruck, dass die Europäische Investitionsbank die Mittel, die das Parlament zur Verfügung gestellt hat, unter anderem dazu nutzt, eigene Aktivitäten zurückzufahren. Das ist nicht Sinn von EFSI. Wir sind in Nöten in der Europäischen Union, es muss mehr investiert werden. Also: Bitte auch mal hinschauen, was die Europäische Investitionsbank in ihrem normalen Programm macht.

Wir glauben, dass die Zusammenarbeit mit den Regionen, mit den Akteuren dort vernachlässigt wird. Wo sind die Plattformen, die wir als Möglichkeiten extra eingerichtet haben? Es gibt nicht eine einzige, die in Ihrem Zwischenbericht erwähnt wird.

Und zuletzt ein dritter wichtiger Punkt: Sie nutzen die Instrumente, die in der Gesetzgebung vorgesehen sind, nicht. Wir haben Ihnen eine Messlatte mitgegeben, um Prioritäten auszuzeichnen. Sie finanzieren eine Autobahn in Baden-Württemberg, dem reichsten Teil der Bundesrepublik. Da fragt sich der Beobachter doch, ob wir in Europa sonst keine Probleme haben. Ist das wirklich zusätzlich? Sagen Sie uns doch mal, an welcher Stelle im Ranking des Scoreboards dieses Projekt mit Priorität vor anderen belegt worden ist.

Wenn diese Fragen beantwortet werden, dann reden wir hier auch über eine notwendige Verlängerung. Aber vorher muss reiner Tisch gemacht werden.

  Bernd Lucke (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Die Dörfer des Fürsten Potemkin waren ja bekanntlich reale Erfolge. Anders, als es im Sprichwort heißt. Aber die Erfolge des EFSI stehen bislang auf dem Papier. Auch wenn sich die Christdemokraten, zum Teil die Sozialdemokraten, angesichts der papierenen Erfolge vor Begeisterung überschlagen, sind es bislang bloße Hoffnungen, die dort auf diesem Papier stehen.

Was mich besorgt, offen gestanden, Herr Kommissar, ist, dass Sie gesagt haben, die Investitionsschwäche in Europa sei darauf zurückzuführen, dass die Banken keine Risiken mehr in dem Ausmaß übernehmen können, in dem sie es früher getan haben, weil wir sie neu reguliert haben. Herr Katainen, wenn das der Grund ist, dass wir keine Investitionen haben, dann ist es nicht richtig, den EFSI als Instrument der staatlichen Risikoübernahme zu verlängern, dann müssen wir an diese Regulierung heran, dann müssen wir die überarbeiten. Dann ist es nicht richtig zu sagen, dass EFSI Milliarden an privaten Investitionen hineincrowded, sondern dann müssen wir feststellen, dass unsere Regulierung ausgecrowded hat, dass unsere Regulierung die Risikoübernahme durch die Banken verhindert hat.

Und das, Herr Präsident, das müssen wir in diesem Haus dann erarbeiten und müssen die Fehler, die wir möglicherweise im Rahmen der Regulierung gemacht haben, korrigieren. Es ist wichtig, dass wir hier die Ordnungspolitik nicht auf den Kopf stellen. Es ist nicht so, dass die Banken die sicheren Seiten der Investitionen finanzieren sollen und der Staat übernimmt das Risiko. Nein, andersrum muss es sein, Herr Katainen. Die Banken sind die Risikoträger, und die Banken sind diejenigen, die Risiko überprüfen müssen. Die Banken sind diejenigen, die das Assessment machen müssen. Wenn das nicht funktioniert, Herr Katainen, dann ist in der Europäischen Union etwas fundamental nicht in Ordnung.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου ( PPE), ερώτηση με γαλάζια κάρτα. – Εγώ δεν είμαι εξ εκείνων που θα υποστηρίξουν ότι το Ευρωπαϊκό Σχέδιο Στρατηγικών Επενδύσεων θα λύσει όλα τα προβλήματα. Όμως αυτή η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, αυτός ο Επίτροπος, αυτό το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο ψηφίσαμε και στηρίξαμε το Ευρωπαϊκό Σχέδιο Στρατηγικών Επενδύσεων το οποίο δεν είναι κάτι στα χαρτιά. Ήδη έδωσαν 100 δισεκατομμύρια και υπάρχει προοπτική μέχρι 315 δισεκατομμύρια να κινητοποιηθούν στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Δεν λέμε ότι είναι τέλειο αλλά είναι πολύ εύκολο να μηδενίζεις και να ισοπεδώνεις χωρίς να υποβάλεις καμιά πρόταση εναλλακτική. Αναμένουμε προτάσεις εμπλουτισμού, εναλλακτικές προτάσεις που θα βοηθήσουν αυτό το Σχέδιο να είναι αποτελεσματικό και όχι να υπάρχει μια πλήρης άρνηση, πιθανώς γιατί θα βολεύει κάποιους, αν αποτύχει το Σχέδιο, να ασκούν περαιτέρω κριτική για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, ότι δεν έκανε τίποτε. Βοηθήστε να το στηρίξουμε να πετύχει και να πετύχει μαζί και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

  Bernd Lucke (ECR), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Kollege, vielen Dank für die Frage. Aber die Alternativen haben wir seit langer Zeit benannt. Die Alternativen bestehen darin, dass wir Länder wieder wettbewerbsfähig machen, und dafür müssen wir den Euro als eine gemeinsame Währung auflösen und denjenigen Ländern, die eine Abwertung benötigen, diese Abwertung auch ermöglichen. Dann werden wir die wirtschaftliche Aktivität in Europa in der Tat wieder anregen können. Tun Sie bitte nicht so, als seien die Alternativen nicht benannt worden. Sie hören nicht zu, oder Sie wollen sie nicht hören, oder Sie wollen sie nicht wahrnehmen. In diesem Haus wird über alles Mögliche geredet, aber es wird nicht darüber geredet, dass der Euro eine ungeeignete Währung für Europa ist.

  Jean Arthuis (ALDE). – Madame la Présidente, le fonds Juncker est sans doute l'initiative phare de la Commission européenne. Elle vise à combler le déficit d'investissement dont souffre l'Europe depuis une décennie. Les premiers projets financés sont nombreux et encourageants, mais il est encore trop tôt pour dresser un bilan fiable et, à cet égard, Monsieur le Vice-président Katainen, vous allez devoir dissiper trois doutes.

Le premier doute concerne l'exigence d'additionnalité du fonds, autrement dit sa valeur ajoutée. Nous devrons démontrer que, sans l'intervention du fonds Juncker, les projets en question n'auraient pas été financés. Le deuxième doute porte sur la tentation à laquelle pourraient céder certains investisseurs publics de déconsolider des dépenses d'investissement et l'endettement correspondant, et ce pour alléger optiquement la présentation des comptes publics. Le troisième doute porte sur le risque de substituer aux opérateurs du marché la Banque européenne d'investissement, dotée de l'avantage compétitif que constitue la garantie du fonds.

Pour stimulant que soit ce fonds, ayons à l'esprit que les freins à l'investissement sont encore bien présents. D'abord dans le secteur marchand, l'investissement est conditionné par la compétitivité. C'est dire si les pays qui tardent à se réformer ne peuvent attendre de miracle. Au-delà des États membres, l'Union a ses propres freins, notamment lorsque l'environnement monétaire est l'objet d'interrogations. Les investisseurs ont la hantise de l'incertitude. Il y a urgence à trancher le référendum britannique, à en tirer les conséquences et à réformer la gouvernance de la zone euro pour la rendre plus efficace et plus démocratique.

Enfin, l'engagement des opérateurs dépend de la prévisibilité et de la stabilité des règles du marché. Dans de nombreux domaines, le marché unique est fragmenté par des réglementations nationales, par les autorités locales de la concurrence. Il y a également urgence à achever le marché unique, à accélérer la convergence des réglementations fiscales, sociales, bref, à faire de la zone euro et de l'Union européenne une zone économique optimale.

Manifestement heureuse des premiers résultats du fonds Juncker, la Commission envisage de le pérenniser. L'ingénierie financière permet de décupler les volumes. Il demeure que la garantie doit être mobilisée en espèces sonnantes et trébuchantes. Mais avant d'en décider, puisque nous sommes au terme de la première des trois années prévues, veillons à dissiper les doutes que je viens d'exprimer et à lever sans délai les freins qui contrarient l'investissement, la croissance et l'emploi.

  Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NGL). – A Uachtaráin, bliain tar éis plean infheistíochta an EFSI táimid anseo chun éisteacht leis an athbhreithniú faoi. Is é seo an plean mór, gan dabht, a bhí chun an tAontas Eorpach a tharrtháil. Is baolach go bhfuil sé soiléir, faoi mar a dúras cheana féin, nach bhfuil an plean seo ag obair.

Bhí an EFSI chun infheistíocht réadúil a chruthú go háirithe sna tíortha sin a bhí i gcruachás de dheasca polasaithe déine. Bhí an EFSI chun infheistíocht a dhéanamh ar thaighde nuálaíoch, tionscail inbhuanaithe agus glas, fiontair shóisialta, SMEs, comharchumainn; is iad seo an chnámh droma d’aon fhíorgheilleagar. Ach níl fiú an t-eolas búnusach acu seo ar conas éileamh a dhéanamh ar an EFSI.

Tá iasachtaí an BEI ag titim go mór ar an breisíochtaí a bhí geallta. Cruthaíodh formhór den infheistíocht i SMEs i lár agus in oirthear na hEorpa. Bhí infheistíocht de EUR 2 bhilliún as an EUR 3.5 billiún caite anseo. Ach cé mhéad post a cruthaíodh? Cad iad na tíortha a bhain tairbhe as? Cad iad na tíortha go bhfuil an gá is mó acu le hinfheistíocht?

Do luadh, ó na hoibríochtaí EFSI atá ceadaithe go dtí seo go bhfuil timpeall 85% den infheistíocht iomlán le teacht ó infheisteoirí príobháideacha agus poiblí eile lasmuigh den ghrúpa BEI. Ach abair liom: cad é an céatadán d’infheistíocht phríobháideach atá i gceist? Cad atá i gceist le hinfheistíocht eile poiblí? An infheistíochtaí áitiúla agus infheistíochtaí údarás réigiúnach iad; an infheistíocht ár mBallstát, ár gcánacha atá i gceist? Faoi mar atá feicthe againn in Éirinn, tá EUR 200 milliún infheistithe cheana féin in Uisce Éireann, agus is iad na gnáthdhaoine a bheidh ag díol go daor as seo; an cáiníocóir atá ag díol as uisce cheana féin.

Ní mór na botúin a deineadh lenár n-airgead, a íocadh trí cháin, a cheartú, agus deirtear linn nach gá athruithe a dhéanamh ar an MFF chun saol an EFSI a leathnú níos faide ná 2018. Ach tá deontais airgeadais agus maoiniú ón AE laghdaithe go mór agus caithfimid aghaidh a thabhairt ar seo.

(Aontaíonn an cainteoir freagra a thabhairt ar cheist ó "chárta gorm" (Riail 162(8) de na Rialacha Nós Imeachta)).

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), sinisen kortin kysymys. – Tämä suunnitelma ei toimi. Miten on mahdollista sanoa noin, koska aikaa on ollut tosi vähän ja esimerkiksi Italiassa, kuten komission jäsen Katainen sanoi, neljäkymmentäneljätuhatta pk-yritystä on jo saanut rahoitusta? Se toimii.

Mitä mieltä olette ajatuksesta, että tätä rahoitusta käytettäisiin esimerkiksi Euroopan tämän hetken suurimman ongelman ratkaisemiseen: maahanmuuttajien kotouttamiseen esimerkiksi korjaamalla lohduttomia eurooppalaisia lähiöitä tai estämällä uusien lohduttomien lähiöiden synty? Me ajattelemme vähän liikaa sitä, että tämä on vain moottoriteitä tai rautateitä, myös ihmisten osaamisen korottamiseen täytyy panostaa.

  Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NGL), freagra ar ‘chárta gorm’. – Is léir nach bhfuil sé ag obair i bhformhór na dtíortha imeallacha ach go háirithe. B’fhéidir go bhfuil an plean seo ag obair sna tíortha móra a bhfuil na pócaí doimhne acu agus go bhfuil infheistíocht phríobháideach ar siúl. Ach is baolach i mo thírse ach go háirithe, níl an t-eolas ag na daoine ar conas éileamh a dhéanamh air seo. Níl an struchtúr ann chun éileamh a dhéanamh air seo agus is léir go bhfuil an t-airgead ar fad ag dul isteach in infheistíocht phríobháideach seachas in infheistíocht phoiblí. Agus mar sin, ní dóigh liomsa go bhfuil sé ag obair ar chor ar bith. Caithfear aghaidh réadúil a thabhairt air seo chun an geilleagar a chur i gceart.

  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Vice-President Katainen, last week there was a pretty self-congratulatory press statement by the Commission on how successful the Juncker plan is, but I think we really first need to have a good couple of questions answered before we can be so satisfied with it. First of all, EFSI should be additional; it should fund projects where no money would otherwise go. Can you explain the widening of motorways in Germany and Netherlands? Where is the additionality there?

Secondly, this one should also be for the countries mostly affected by the crisis. How can you explain that Greece only has one project on infrastructure and one SME project? That is really one of the regions most affected by the crisis, yet it is not benefiting from EFSI at all. That is also a genuine problem.

Thirdly, this should be a transition of the economy. Bank Watch concluded that, without EFSI, the EIB is subsidising 25% of the projects related to climate. With EFSI it is 27%. It seems like business as usual. These things need to be answered properly before we make self-congratulatory statements on what a big success this plan is.

  Marco Valli (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, quello a cui ho assistito io stamattina è un'assoluta autocelebrazione da parte della Commissione. Ha detto che 44 000 piccole e medie imprese sono state finanziate in Italia. Sono andato a vedere sul sito della Commissione e ci sono otto progetti, tra cui molti insostenibili dal punto di vista ambientale e anche sociale. Posso dirvi che ci sono l'allargamento di un'autostrada, la A4, e mi spieghi com'è sostenibile dal punto vista ambientale puntare ancora sull'automotive, la raffineria di Milazzo, quindi petrolio, poi le acciaierie Arvedi, acciaio, e la rete gas. Il gas non mi sembra che sia una fonte rinnovabile e quindi non mi spiego come mai anche i Verdi si spellino le mani ad applaudirla. Intanto, anche il concetto di PMI della Commissione, se andiamo a vedere nella definizione di quella che è la PMI finanziabile da EFSI, riguarda le imprese fino a 3 000 dipendenti. Voglio vedere in Italia quante imprese ci sono di questo tipo.

Quindi un'autocelebrazione totale per un progetto che è un fallimento. Adesso volete anche farne uno simile per i paesi in via di sviluppo. Bene, però voglio vedere la trasparenza su questo tipo di sistema, perché lì pecchiamo sempre: andiamo a finanziare dei progetti e poi vediamo che i subappalti se li spartiscono sempre i soliti noti. Trasparenza è la prima parola d'ordine.

  Barbara Kappel (ENF). – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Kommissar Katainen, Sie haben heute gesagt, dass der Binnenmarktteil im Bereich der Investitionsankurbelung sicherlich der wichtigste ist. Ich stimme Ihnen hier vollumfänglich zu. Die Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union müssen ihre Strukturreformen umsetzen. Nur so können nachhaltig Wachstum und Beschäftigung in Europa geschaffen werden. Das Vertrauen der Investoren muss wiederhergestellt werden. Jetzt frage ich mich, wo denn dann tatsächlich – und der wurde heute schon mehrfach angesprochen – der Mehrwert des EFSI liegt.

Ich würde dazu gerne ein Beispiel nennen. Erst letzte Woche wurde das erste österreichische Projekt umgesetzt, nämlich ein EFSI-Projekt, ein Windparkprojekt in Hof-Seibersdorf, zwölf Windräder zu je drei Megawatt Leistung, 70 Millionen Euro Projektvolumen, 40 Millionen davon hat der EFSI als Garantie übernommen, 20 % die Hausbank. Ich sehe nicht, dass dieses Projekt ein besonderes Risikoprofil aufweisen würde, das die Additionalität des EFSI rechtfertigen würde. Dieser Windparkbetreiber arbeitet seit drei Jahren mit der EIB zusammen, die Hausbank finanziert von Anfang an. Also: Ich sehe den Mehrwert nicht. Vielleicht sollte man diesen Mehrwert klarer darstellen. Es wurden auch schon einige andere Projekte in anderen Ländern erwähnt, wo die Additionalität nicht gegeben ist.

Ein zweites Momentum für das Nichterfüllen des Kerngeschäftes, nämlich die risikoreichen Projekte zu übernehmen, ist der Hebel 1:23. 249 EFSI-Projekte wurden gefördert, vier Milliarden Euro haben Sie benötigt, um 100 Milliarden anzustoßen. Das zeigt, dass Sie hier nicht in risikoreiche Projekte gehen.

Vielleicht sollte man besser eine Kapitalerhöhung bei der EIB vornehmen, um tatsächlich Geld verstärkt in die Wirtschaft und in die Entwicklung zu investieren. Denn die Investitionslücke muss geschlossen werden, und die 16 Milliarden Euro aus dem Budget des europäischen Haushalts müssen verstärkt in Horizont 2020 fließen, um zusätzlich zu den Investitionen auch Innovationen zu fördern. Dann kann das Investieren in Europa wieder bergauf gehen.

  Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος ( NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, μετά από τόσα χρηματοδοτικά εργαλεία, ΕΣΠΑ, Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων, πακτωλό δισεκατομμυρίων, πακέτα τύπου Juncker, ακόμα ψεύδεσθε. Στην Ελλάδα, όπου κάθε κυβέρνηση με τον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ στον πιο βρόμικο ρόλο, θεωρεί υποχρέωσή της να ξανακόψει μισθούς και συντάξεις, όπου πληρώνεις από την τσέπη σου, αν έχεις, τα ιατρικά υλικά αν θέλεις να χειρουργηθείς σε ένα νοσοκομείο, είναι πρόκληση να μιλάτε για δίκαιη ανάπτυξη για όλους. Ποιος πληρώνει τα πακέτα; Οι εργαζόμενοι βέβαια με τα μνημόνια, με τη φορολογία τους, με τον διαρκώς αυξανόμενο ΦΠΑ για την εθνική εισφορά στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, τις επιδοτήσεις και φοροαπαλλαγές στους επενδυτές, την τραπεζική χρηματοδότησή τους, αφού τις ανακεφαλαιοποιήσεις των τραπεζών πληρώνει ο λαός.

Ποιος ωφελείται; Όχι βέβαια οι μικροί αλλά μόνο μεγάλες επιχειρήσεις σε τομείς προτεραιότητας όχι του λαού αλλά του κεφαλαίου, όπως στην ενέργεια, τις μεταφορές, τον τουρισμό, εξασφαλίζοντας στους επενδυτές εγγυημένη κερδοφορία με ελάχιστες προσωρινές θέσεις εργασίας, άθλια πληρωμένες, καθώς μεθοδεύεται και άλλη μείωση μισθών. Η αλήθεια είναι μία: Ανάκαμψη κερδών του κεφαλαίου σημαίνει πιο βαθιά φτώχεια για τους λαούς. Καιρός να το αντιστρέψουν! Καιρός να το ανατρέψουν!

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, este mare nevoie de investiții în Europa. Este motivul pentru care Grupul PPE a sprijinit acest plan și îl va sprijini în continuare. A fost un start bun. Cifrele arată că lucrurile merg bine, însă cred că trebuie să veniți în fața Parlamentului și cu o altfel de analiză: o analiză calitativă. Să vedem dacă acest fond a umplut un gol, deci a înlocuit ceea ce nu se putea face prin alte instrumente. Să vedem dacă această dorință pe care ați exprimat-o aici, ca BEI să-și păstreze triplul-A, este – bun, este o dorință îndreptățită – însă acest lucru înseamnă că nu va finanța proiecte cu grad ridicat de risc, ceea ce este primul scop al acestui fond.

Cred că trebuie să fie făcută o analiză comparativă cu instrumentele financiare care sunt prevăzute în absolut toate fondurile europene. A înlocuit acest fond instrumentele financiare? S-au utilizat instrumentele financiare? Dacă nu, să mutăm banii de la instrumentele financiare către fond și, în felul acesta, poate recuperăm și banii pentru Orizont 2020 și pentru Mecanismul pentru interconectarea Europei.

Cred că această analiză este absolut necesară. Informarea trebuie făcută. Aveți nevoie de birouri peste tot, astfel încât oamenii și instituțiile să afle ce poate face FEIS. Noi, parlamentarii, putem face acest lucru, dar cred că dumneavoastră și BEI trebuie să faceți în primul rând acest lucru.

(Vorbitorul a acceptat să răspundă unei întrebări adresate în conformitate cu procedura „cartonașului albastru” (articolul 162 alineatul (8) din Regulamentul de procedură))

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE), pitanje koje je podizanjem plave kartice postavio. – Želim Vam se zahvaliti, gospodine zastupniče, što ste prihvatili moje pitanje. Pažljivo Vas slušajući sam došao do jednog zaključka, ali bih volio čuti Vašu potvrdu. Da li Vam se čini da EFSI, koji je naravno odličan instrument i kojega jako podržavam, ipak ima tendenciju da financira projekte u tzv. starim zemljama članicama Europske unije, a prvenstveno u novim zemljama, odnosno u zemljama istočne Europe, gotovo da i nemamo ozbiljnog financiranja i gotovo da ne postoji veće saznanje o mogućnostima financiranja preko EFSI-a? I da li mislite da bi Komisija u tom pravcu trebala nešto učiniti kako bi upravo pomogla tim zemljama koje su naravno manje razvijene od starih zemalja članica?

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), răspuns la o întrebare adresată în conformitate cu procedura „cartonașului albastru”. – Da, este adevărat. Cifrele arată că, în țările din est, nu sunt foarte multe proiecte. Nu sunt, însă, foarte sigur dacă este din cauza BEI sau a Comisiei sau din cauza lipsei, poate, de interes și a lipsei de informații în aceste țări. Este motivul pentru care spuneam, la sfârșitul intervenției mele, că este nevoie de birouri de informare, mai ales în aceste zone. Este nevoie de o acțiune agresivă, să spunem, către aceste zone, astfel încât să se poată prezenta proiecte de acolo. Sunt absolut convins că aceste proiecte există.

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D). – Señora Presidenta, Vicepresidente Katainen, hoy evaluamos los aciertos y los fallos, los cumplimientos y las desviaciones de lo que aquí aprobamos hace un año. Y, como todo en esta vida, nada es blanco o negro. Es innegable que se han conseguido inyectar en la economía 100 000 millones de euros y que se ha permitido que muchos proyectos consigan esa financiación gracias a la movilización pública y privada, pero no podemos caer en la complacencia, ni tampoco en el error de dejarnos deslumbrar por la cantidad, porque la calidad y la adicionalidad son más importantes que la cantidad. Y en este aspecto no se están cumpliendo del todo los objetivos.

El impacto en el empleo y el impacto social de los proyectos no se están teniendo en cuenta, por no hablar de la cobertura geográfica o temática. Y por eso, espero que la Comisión y el BEI estén trabajando más por mejorar estos parámetros que por conseguir llegar a la cifra mágica de 315 000 millones de euros. Seguramente, el mayor éxito de este plan tiene que ver con las pymes. Pero nada nuevo, nada diferente de lo que ya se estaba haciendo con iniciativas tan exitosas como COSME o InnovFin. Y para finalizar, me gustaría hablar del centro de asesoramiento y de las plataformas. Hay que dar un impulso a estas dos herramientas, para que tanto las entidades locales y regionales como los proyectos más pequeños tengan acceso a ellos, porque ahí será donde de verdad podamos hacer la diferencia. Porque, sinceramente, hasta ahora, de todo lo que se ha hecho, ¿qué es lo que no se podría haber hecho con una simple ampliación del capital del BEI?

  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Oświadczenie Komisji w sprawie realizacji tzw. planu Junckera, informujące, że wydatkowano z EFIS już 13 miliardów euro – co powinno wygenerować inwestycje rzędu 100 miliardów euro – wsparto 64 projekty infrastrukturalne i zawarto 185 umów dofinansowujących małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa, brzmi zachęcająco. Niestety wyraźnie brakuje równowagi w rozkładzie terytorialnym wspieranych projektów. Zdecydowana większość z nich pochodzi z Europy Zachodniej, w tym projekty, które – jak się wydaje – mogłyby być finansowane przez rynek, jak projekty autostradowe w Bawarii czy Holandii.

Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia jest niestety pod tym względem swoistą białą plamą, mimo swojego zapóźnienia inwestycyjnego i ogromnych potrzeb w zakresie infrastruktury, energetyki czy innowacji. W moim kraju, w Polsce, wsparto zaledwie jeden projekt w przemyśle mleczarskim, na kwotę 46 milionów euro. Natomiast żaden z wielu projektów dotyczących sektora energetycznego niestety wsparcia nie uzyskał. Chciałbym więc wyrazić nadzieję, że w ciągu kolejnych dwóch lat realizacji planu Junckera problem równowagi w rozmieszczeniu terytorialnym inwestycji wspieranych przez EFIS znajdzie się w centrum zainteresowania Komisji.

  Искра Михайлова (ALDE). – Бих искала да напомня на колегите още в самото начало, че EFSI e нов инструмент – нов като дизайн, нов като цели и нов като възможности, както за страните членки, така и за отделните региони. EFSI е инструмент, който разполага с тройна структура. Включва както специалния хъб за съвети, така и възможностите за финансиране, потенциала на опита на Европейската инвестиционна банка и потенциала на Европейската комисия в съуправлението на фонда.

Не на последно място, EFSI започна своята работа със специални насоки за добра координация със съществуващите вече европейски фондове, включително и с кохезионните фондове. Тук се крие един от потенциалите за развитие на EFSI в бъдеще. Добрата координация между различните финансови инструменти на Европейския съюз дава възможност за по-добри инвестиции. Ние не можем да търсим противопоставянето на отделните инструменти, ние можем да използваме опростяването, гъвкавостта и потенциала на различните инструменти, за да постигнем целите, към които се стремим – т.е. растеж и заетост.

И не на последно място искам да отбележа, че EFSI не е разгърнал още потенциала си за достатъчна информираност на страните членки. Хъбът за съвети работи, но е необходимо да се работи със съвети и техническа помощ на национално и регионално ниво, както и за обмяна на добри практики. Пожелавам успех в удължаването на работата на фонда.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, quando o Presidente Juncker veio a este plenário anunciar o seu plano de investimentos, disse-nos que o Natal tinha chegado mais cedo. Claramente foi exagero de otimismo, mas também, com a idade que temos, já só acredita no Pai Natal quem quer e basta passar um ano do plano de investimentos para perceber que ele ficou muito aquém do que foi anunciado.

Nós precisamos efetivamente de investimento na União Europeia, mas não deste tipo de investimento. Tem de se acabar com o tabu em relação ao investimento público, tem de ser em sectores estratégicos que criem valor acrescentado, como por exemplo o sector da energia. Eu não percebo o valor acrescentado das autoestradas na Alemanha ou nos Países-Baixos. Tem de haver distribuição regional, não pode ser concentrado nos mesmos países de sempre e que mais investimentos têm. Não se pode apagar do mapa a Europa do Sul ou a Europa de Leste. Tem de ser direcionado para o verdadeiro tecido industrial europeu e não apenas para as multinacionais.

Dizer que pequenas e médias empresas são empresas de 3000 trabalhadores, Sr. Katainen, a sério? Enfim, o milagre da multiplicação não aconteceu, Sr. Katainen, e a Comissão Europeia continua em estado de negação, alheada da realidade e autodeslumbrada. Portanto, nada de novo.

  Ernest Maragall (Verts/ALE). – Señora Presidenta, «dime de qué presumes y te diré de qué careces», decimos en castellano. Nuestras precauciones de hace un año se han convertido en inquietudes ahora. El FEIE no es, de momento, el plan de inversiones que Europa espera y necesita. Es simplemente un nuevo instrumento financiero para que el Banco Europeo de Inversiones amplíe su actividad. El Plan Juncker ha pasado de ser la gran estrella del mandato a una irrelevante normalidad financiera. Parece que estemos compitiendo con Draghi. Añadimos dinero, poco y sin mucho criterio selectivo, pero no arrancamos el motor del crecimiento.

¿Dónde ha ido a parar la adicionalidad? ¿Cuál es el nivel de riesgo real de los proyectos con presupuesto europeo como garantía? ¿Cómo se utilizó el scoreboard que tanto nos costó aceptar? ¿Cuál es la implicación real de los Estados y qué rol juegan las partes en cuanto a los problemas de inversiones regionales o temáticas?

Seguimos instalados en políticas de oferta cuando tenemos un grave problema de demanda insuficiente, empezando por la escandalosa renuncia de Alemania a actuar como motor del crecimiento europeo. Estamos a tiempo de rectificar. Necesitamos un auténtico plan de inversiones europeo, incluida inversión pública. Con objetivos sectoriales claros y con una aplicación geográfica coherente: transición energética y cambio climático, inversión en la economía digital, educación, investigación y equipamientos sociales. Saquemos la conclusión lógica de la experiencia de este primer año de vigencia del FEIE. La inversión privada solo resultará en crecimiento sostenible si adoptamos políticas de estímulo de la demanda con dimensión europea. La única y real adicionalidad que deberíamos conseguir.

  Auke Zijlstra (ENF). – Toen in 2008 de bankencrisis uitbrak, waren de lidstaten van de Europese Unie niet meer in staat adequaat te reageren vanwege de euro. De economische groei stortte in, de werkloosheid liep enorm op en staatsschulden verdubbelden. En niets heeft sindsdien geholpen: tegenwoordig is zelfs de rente negatief, waardoor het nu gunstig is eerst met pensioen te gaan en daarna te gaan werken, want bij een negatieve rente rendeert helemaal niets.

Toch zag Commissievoorzitter Juncker een lichtpuntje, een honderden miljarden groot EU-investeringsfonds dat alles weer rechtzet en tegelijkertijd duidelijk maakt dat de lidstaten niet meer de baas zijn. Helpt het? Nee, de werkloosheid is nog steeds torenhoog en de groei behoort nog steeds tot de laagste ter wereld.

Daarom stel ik de fundamentele vraag: waarom ziet Brussel liever een eengemaakte, arme EU dan vrije, soevereine en welvarende Europese landen?

  Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – Señora Presidenta, señor Vicepresidente Katainen, yo creo que hoy podemos hacer una valoración razonablemente buena de la evolución del plan hasta ahora. En su primer año, la inversión movilizada se estima en 100 000 millones de euros, lo cual, sin duda alguna, es una buena señal, pero aun así, tenemos que seguir progresando. El Plan Juncker ha permitido acceder a 242 millones de euros de financiación para pymes en mi país, en España, lo que movilizará 4 400 millones de euros y podría beneficiar hasta a 17 000 de estas pequeñas y medianas empresas.

La Comisión Europea ha propuesto la extensión del FEIE. Esto permitirá que proyectos en estudio estratégicamente muy importantes para mi región, para Navarra, como las interconexiones eléctricas entre España y Francia, puedan beneficiarse de este plan. Por eso, lo apoyamos sin duda alguna. Pero seamos conscientes. Lo ha dicho el Vicepresidente: el FEIE no es la solución a todos los problemas económicos que tiene la Unión Europea. Necesitamos continuar con las reformas estructurales. Por otra parte, quiero destacar que, para explotar plenamente el potencial de la garantía FEIE y evitar distorsiones en los mercados, resulta imperativo que el BEI colabore activa y lealmente con los bancos nacionales de promoción y los inversores privados. Solo así el instrumento FEIE servirá como instrumento de verdadero «crowding in» y así podremos evitar los fenómenos de mera sustitución de fuentes de financiación en los proyectos a favor del Banco Europeo de Inversiones.

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» (artículo 162, apartado 8, del Reglamento))

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Köszönöm szépen a lehetőséget, Elnök Asszony, Önnek is, Képviselő Úr a válasznak az esélyét. Ön említette, hogy bizonyos torzulások vannak, bár jónak látja összességében ezt a tervet. Én azt szeretném Öntől kérdezni, hogy ennek fényében minek tudja be Ön azt, hogy bizonyos tagországoktól, köztük például Magyarországról egy darab pályázat sem érkezett? Mivel lehetne esetleg bíztatni ezeket az országokat, akik nem pályáznak, hogy ők is tegyenek valamit a földrajzi kiegyenlítettség érdekében?

  Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Señor Szanyi, no conozco en profundidad la situación de Hungría, pero, sin duda alguna —y lo ha dicho el Vicepresidente anteriormente—, también es responsabilidad de los diputados de esta Cámara ayudar a promover y a dar a conocer este Plan. Yo lo hice en mi ciudad. Lo hice en Pamplona, con la colaboración de la Comisión Europea, y yo le animo a que también usted y sus colegas húngaros lo hagan en su país porque, sin duda alguna —insisto—, es también nuestra responsabilidad contribuir a difundir las bondades de este Plan.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Vice-président, nous devons réussir le plan d'investissement, alors donnons-nous les moyens d'y parvenir.

Vous avez dit tout à l'heure que l'EFSI est là pour financer ce que le marché ne peut financer. Or, c'est là que le bât blesse. Les doutes s'accumulent sur l'additionnalité du dispositif.

Les choix de la BEI ne semblent pas plus risqués qu'avant et nos objectifs concernant l'emploi, la cohésion et la transition énergétique sont négligés.

Nous devons corriger au plus vite le dispositif pour qu'il puisse aider d'autres projets que ceux dont le niveau de rentabilité est élevé et qui auraient sans doute pu être financés par le marché.

L'une des corrections à mon avis nécessaire consiste à renoncer à la quête de l'effet multiplicateur le plus élevé, qui implique mécaniquement que l'on retienne les projets les plus rentables et que l'on écarte dans le même temps les projets les plus risqués, mais souvent les plus structurants.

Il ne s'agit pas de jeter le bébé avec l'eau du bain, mais bien d'adapter le dispositif pour qu'il puisse répondre à des projets à effet multiplicateur faible et moins rentables, mais – comme je le disais – plus structurants, répondant notamment aux priorités de transition énergétique, de cohésion et d'emploi.

  Stanisław Ożóg (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Przewodniczący Komisji! W ciągu praktycznie roku europejski fundusz EFIS zainicjował inwestycje w kwocie około 100 mld euro dla blisko 250 projektów infrastrukturalnych w dwudziestu czterech państwach członkowskich. Według informacji podanej na stronie Komisji Europejskiej możemy zauważyć ogromne różnice w dysponowaniu tymi środkami z funduszu dla poszczególnych krajów. Większość projektów – tak jak było wspominane – jest realizowana w zachodniej części Europy. Panie przewodniczący, mam pytanie: z czego biorą się te różnice? Czy problem leży tylko w jakości projektów przedstawianych przez poszczególne kraje? Czy może w przypadku mojego kraju, Polski – gdzie Komisja Europejska stała się praktycznie stroną w konflikcie wewnętrznym – decydują po części kwestie polityczne?

  Nedzhmi Ali (ALDE). – Madam President, 18 months after the introduction of the investment plan, it is time to make the first mid-term overall assessment of the results in order to be sure that it supports the priorities declared by the Commission and adds value to the European economy. The last figures revealed that we have already substantial investment from EFSI that should trigger total investment of EUR 100 billion. These resources are spread throughout the vast majority of the EU Member States and are concentrated in the areas of energy, research and development, transport, the digital single market and other sectors vital for the European economy.

In the case of Bulgaria, several banks have already signed agreements and are active in the area of supporting small and medium enterprises. Equally important are the other two strands of the investment plan: the transparency of investment opportunities and strengthening the advisory services, as well as improving the investment environment. Bearing in mind that the first results will support the implementation of the plan, in the case of extending the activities of the plan, we call for more effective project distribution to include all the underdeveloped regions of the Union.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης ( GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Katainen, αντί για εφησυχασμό και ικανοποίηση χρειάζεται τώρα μια αποφασιστική στροφή. Το Ταμείο Juncker πρέπει να σημειώσει στροφή για να υπάρξουν περισσότερες επενδύσεις σε όλη την Ευρώπη αλλά κυρίως εκεί που υπάρχει μεγαλύτερη ύφεση, μεγαλύτερη φτώχεια, μεγαλύτερη ανεργία, μεγαλύτερη αποεπένδυση. Δεν μπορεί στα 64 έργα να έχει μόνο ένα έργο, και μάλιστα μικρό, η χώρα μου η Ελλάδα, που έχει υποφέρει πάρα πολύ τα τελευταία χρόνια από μεγάλη ύφεση και μεγάλη αποεπένδυση, και την ίδια ώρα να χρηματοδοτείτε ακριβούς αυτοκινητόδρομους στην πλούσια Γερμανία, στην πλούσια Ολλανδία και στα πλουσιότερα κομμάτια αυτών των δύο χωρών και να σας ασκούν κριτική ευρωβουλευτές αυτών των χωρών, και Ολλανδοί και Γερμανοί, για αυτή την αδικία.

Πρέπει λοιπόν να προσανατολιστούν αυτές οι επενδύσεις στις φτωχότερες περιφέρειες, στη Νότια Ευρώπη, την Ανατολική Ευρώπη, στις ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργειας, τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, να δημιουργήσουν απασχόληση. Την επόμενη φορά να έρθετε με λιγότερη αυτοϊκανοποίηση και με περισσότερες αλλαγές προς την κατεύθυνση που σας ζητά η πλειοψηφία του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου.

  Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I have just one minute and I have to be sharp on energy efficiency and the circular economy. Mr Katainen, you are right. EFSI is demand driven, but why is there only one circular economy project? Why is the energy efficiency pipeline empty? Why?

First, it is because you have completely investment-hostile accounting rules for the local authorities. It is because they are on-book and they cannot invest through third parties. This is so counterproductive. You have known this for one year and you have not done anything.

The second issue is that you have promised us EUR 350 million of technical assistance, and we have EUR 60 million because your services gave us the wrong information when we negotiated. I have proposed since September last year an energy efficiency hub for south-east Europe to allow technical assistance from the Structural Funds to come into the scheme. No answer from the Commission. So do not accuse me of not having done my work. I have done my work but it is the Commission who will have to act to make EFSI more efficient.

  Gerolf Annemans (ENF). – Het EFSI is een soort hocuspocusproject, waar u naar het voorbeeld van Jezus Christus een soort vermenigvuldiging der broden door de Europese Unie laat afkondigen ten voordele van wat u zelf meer risicovolle projecten noemt. Inmiddels heeft België drie infrastructuurprojecten, ik neem dat als voorbeeld, die gefinancierd worden door het EFSI. 380 miljoen euro wordt versluisd en dit moet in totaal zowaar 1,8 miljard euro opleveren aan investeringen en 3200 banen scheppen. Bravo! Applaus! Hoe je dat in een kmo-land als België kunt waarmaken en kunt verantwoorden met drie projecten is mij een raadsel. En ook voor u is het dus een raadsel, want de cijfers worden nergens toegelicht. Hocuspocusstatistiek noem ik dat.

Overigens, als ik zie dat het gros van het geld gaat naar een project voor windmolens op zee, dan houd ik mijn hart vast, en met mij de hele Vlaamse bevolking. In Vlaanderen hebben wij genoeg ervaring met groenestroomwaanzin en de schuldenberg die deze veroorzaakt.

Kortom, ik ben niet onder de indruk van uw goednieuwsshow. Dit EFSI-fonds is helemaal geen new deal voor Europa. In de eurocontext is het veeleer op lange termijn een nieuwe schuldenberg voor de Europese bevolking.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Natürlich kann man von einem Instrument nicht verlangen, dass es alle Probleme löst, die anliegen. Wir haben zu wenige Investitionen in Europa, und das löse ich nicht mit einem Instrument. Aber EFSI könnte und kann einen Beitrag leisten, wenn man es richtig anwendet. Insofern finde ich es nach einem Jahr durchaus fair, einfach mal nüchtern zu bewerten: Wo sind Schwachstellen, wo sind Stärken, und wo gibt es vielleicht auch noch andere Hausaufgaben, die gemacht werden müssen?

Für mich ist das schon ein Problem, dass es eben nicht so besonders starke Investitionen in wirtschaftlich schwächeren und kleineren Ländern gibt, dass bestimmte Länder nicht dabei sind, die wir eigentlich dabei haben wollen, oder dass sich der Eindruck aufdrängt, dass sehr oft auch in Produkte oder Projekte investiert wird, die schon laufen oder die schon begonnen wurden. Es sind nicht immer nur nagelneue Projekte. Deswegen muss man schon schauen, wie man dieses Instrument anschärfen, wie man erreichen kann, dass es besser greift. Aber dieses Instrument ist auf jeden Fall wesentlich besser als das Lamentieren und der Hinweis: Wir müssen immer nur mehr Geld reinschmeißen. Es geht nicht um mehr Geld, sondern es geht um intelligenten Einsatz von Geld. Und da ist das eine Idee, deren abschließenden Erfolg man heute noch nicht bewerten kann. Deswegen heute zu sagen: „Wir verlängern auf jeden Fall“, finde ich zu früh. Sondern da muss weiter nachgearbeitet werden.

Und es gehört dazu, sich ehrlich einzugestehen, dass Investitionsschwäche auch etwas zu tun hat mit den Punkten, die der Kommissar selber genannt hat. Natürlich, die Bankenregulierung hat offensichtlich auch eine Schwäche an der Stelle, dass Banken nicht mehr so stark finanzierungsbereit sind. Da muss man doch mal nachdenken, ob man da auch korrigieren muss. Oder warum investiert denn die Industrie in Europa im Moment sehr stark außerhalb Europas? Das hat etwas mit unseren Regulierungen zu tun, und darüber muss genauso nachgedacht werden. Also bitte: Das eine tun, aber das andere nicht lassen.

  Maria João Rodrigues (S&D). – Madam President, I would point out to Mr Katainen that he is the Vice-President for growth and jobs. So let me recall the three objectives the investment plan and EFSI should meet and, in fact, the crucial questions the European Parliament will address to you to ensure a regular oversight.

The questions are very simple. How far is EFSI going in raising recovery and job creation? The second question is: How far is EFSI going in promoting the transition to a new growth model, greener and making the best of the digital revolution? The third is: How far is EFSI going in reducing the regional divergences?

My conclusion, and my Group’s conclusion, is that the Commission needs to change something fundamental, first on the promotional strategy, because you need to build up investment platforms and to spread advisory hubs everywhere. Secondly, we need to change the financial strategy. Sooner or later you need to confront the need to raise the ceilings of the MFF and, most of all, you need to create real room to invest in the national fiscal policies.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Madam President, when I was flying back from Strasbourg to London a few months ago, I looked down at the sea and I saw line after line of huge wind turbines, generating clean, green energy, and I thought: is this the Juncker plan? Is this EFSI? But then I thought, maybe that was the project that was funded already by the European Investment Bank. It is great to see new investment in infrastructure. We need it, but we cannot be complacent because public confidence in European spending is at a very low level and we need to make sure that all the money is well spent. So when we are reviewing the performance of the fund for strategic investments, we should also evaluate how this programme relates to other EU funding, including the EIB. We should make sure there is no overlapping of overheads and also double check whether science and research projects have suffered from having their budgets top-sliced.

  Dominique Riquet (ALDE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, afin d'éviter que l'EFSI ne soit une simple augmentation de capital de la BEI, le Parlement européen, conscient de l'abondance des liquidités sur le marché, avait défini les conditions d'utilisation des deniers du contribuable européen, à savoir la valeur ajoutée européenne et l'additionnalité des projets retenus.

Quel bilan un an plus tard? Dans le secteur des transports, par exemple, l'additionnalité et la valeur ajoutée européenne des projets retenus, essentiellement autoroutiers, ne paraissent pas optimales. Pour des projets plus en phase avec les priorités politiques européennes, l'additionnalité nécessitera souvent un couplage avec des instruments financiers et des subventions. À ce propos, on ne peut que regretter la ponction budgétaire opérée sur le mécanisme d'interconnexion pour l'Europe à l'horizon 2020, qui va à l'encontre même de l'efficacité du plan.

L'amélioration qualitative des projets suppose une démarche également proactive de l'Union. La bonne articulation nationale et régionale dans la sélection des projets nécessite d'améliorer les résultats avec les banques nationales de promotion. Cela dit, toutes ces précisions seront vaines si nous n'agissons pas en parallèle sur la constitution d'un environnement attractif pour les investisseurs, je veux parler de la nécessaire évolution du cadre réglementaire concernant le financement de l'économie réelle, et notamment des infrastructures. L'Europe doit défendre cette priorité au sein des institutions internationales chargées de l'élaboration de ces normes prudentielles auxquelles sont soumis les investisseurs institutionnels.

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS
Vice-President

  Monika Vana (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Vizepräsident! Ich möchte den vielen Kritikpunkten meiner Kolleginnen und Kollegen an der Umsetzung des EFSI noch einen hinzufügen: Das ist der auffallende Mangel an sozialen Investitionen.

Lediglich vier Prozent aller EFSI-Investitionen fließen in den sozialen Sektor, zum Beispiel in Gesundheit und Bildung. Das ist der niedrigste Anteil aller Sektoren. Ich denke, gerade in Zeiten der Krise sollten soziale Innovationen, green jobs oder auch soziales Unternehmer- und Unternehmerinnentum besonders gefördert werden. Es sollte auch sichergestellt sein, dass die Investitionen des EFSI in Einklang mit den Europa-2020-Zielen wie Armutsbekämpfung, Senkung der Zahl der Schulabbrecher, Klimaschutz und Förderung von Forschung und Entwicklung stehen.

Sehr geehrter Herr Vizepräsident, wir Grünen stehen voll zu dem Ziel verstärkter Investitionen, privater und öffentlicher Investitionen, um uns aus der Krise herauszuinvestieren und um Beschäftigung zu schaffen. Aber die von Anfang an vorgebrachten Kritikpunkte der Grünen an der Konstruktion und Umsetzung des EFSI sind berechtigt, wenn man sich die Zahlen dieser Zwischenbilanz ansieht. Nicht nur wurden viel zu hohe Erwartungen geschürt und ist die angekündigte Hebelwirkung viel zu gering, auch die geografische Verteilung und die sektorale Verteilung der Mittel ist unausgewogen.

Sehr geehrter Herr Vizepräsident, stellen Sie sicher, dass der EFSI einen Mehrwert für Europas Bürger und Bürgerinnen hat! Wir können den derzeit nur unzureichend feststellen.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). – Ik was rapporteur in de Commissie regionale ontwikkeling voor het EFSI. We hebben het EFSI toegejuicht onder een drietal condities.

De eerste is additionaliteit, en ook de bijdrage aan de territoriale cohesie in de EU. We hebben heel weinig informatie bij uw eerste mededeling. Het gaat niet alleen om investeren op zich, maar ook om een afname van de disbalans in Europa. Na de crisis, na EFSI, over drie jaar mag het niet zo zijn dat de rijkere regio's versterkt zijn en de afstand met andere armere regio's is vergroot. Wanneer komt u met een echt verslag? Dat is heel belangrijk.

Tweede punt is de synergie tussen de fondsen. Op dit vlak komt u met een voorstel om de algemene verordening voor de structuur- en investeringsfondsen aan te passen. Daar hebben wij ook om gevraagd.

En ten derde, de rol van regio's in de investeringsplatformen. Dat is goed opgepakt. Daarmee hebt u dicht bij mensen, bedrijven en overheden kansen benut. Kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen en familiebedrijven kunt u daarmee direct aanspreken. En overal hebben we dezelfde nood aan garantstellingen op langere termijn om innovaties te bevorderen. Dat doe je niet één of twee jaar, zoals de banken nu willen. Dat is dus op zich een positieve benadering. Maar wanneer komt u nu met uw echte verslag?

[De spreker gaat in op een "blauwe kaart"-vraag overeenkomstig artikel 162, lid 8, van het Reglement.]

  Paul Rübig (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ich möchte den Herrn Lambert gerne fragen, wie er eigentlich den EFSI in der Beschäftigungswirkung sieht. Bringt der EFSI tatsächlich Beschäftigung, oder sichert er nur Beschäftigung, oder geht durch den EFSI auch irgendwo Beschäftigung verloren? Ist das eine wichtige Komponente, die auch in der Reihung der Projekte dementsprechend berücksichtigt werden sollte?

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE), "blauwe kaart"-antwoord. –De doelstelling van EFSI - en dan kijken ik ook naar de vice-voorzitter van de Commissie - is groei en banen. Het mooie van dit project is dat door middel van garantstelling nu ook de ruimte wordt geboden voor nieuwe werkgelegenheid, ongeacht of deze nu al dan niet het gevolg is van de ontwikkelingen in de digitale wereld. We moeten de opleiding voor onze mensen goed inrichten. We moeten niet van dag tot dag naar de statistieken kijken maar kijken hoe we op de iets langere termijn duurzame ontwikkeling, energietransitie, enzovoort tot stand kunnen brengen. Daar is behoefte aan. Denk aan de industrie 4.0. Daar komt werkgelegenheid van.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). – De S&D-fractie was ongetwijfeld één van de grootste supporters van het investeringsbeleid en van EFSI. Maar u zult in de vele tussenkomsten wel merken dat er wel wat kritiek is op het succesverhaal dat nu wordt gepresenteerd.

De cijfers zijn er, maar voor onze fractie is investeren om te investeren niet voldoende. Het gaat erom waarin we investeren. Het gaat over de transitie in energie, circulaire economie, een koolstofarme economie. Dat moeten de prioriteiten zijn. Het is toch te gek voor woorden dat er geld wordt weggenomen, bijvoorbeeld uit de financieringsfaciliteit voor Europese verbindingen om te investeren in snelwegen.

Daar willen wij voor de toekomst verandering zien in EFSI. We willen dat er meer geïnvesteerd wordt in duurzame economie en we willen ook dat er veel meer wordt geïnvesteerd in kleine projecten. Dus niet business as usual, niet het rebranden van projecten die er al waren, maar echt inzetten op de nieuwe uitdagingen in Europa.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – Volgens de Europese Commissie is EFSI een succes. Ook in mijn land, met name voor het midden- en kleinbedrijf. Investeringen in de ordegrootte van rond de 40 miljoen euro krijgen dan via een hefboomeffect een rendement van misschien wel 330 miljoen euro. Dat klinkt hartstikke goed, maar nu even naar de praktijk. Vorige week had mijn partij een grote vergadering georganiseerd met ondernemers en ik heb hun met name gevraagd of ze meededen aan dit soort investeringsprojecten. En ze zeiden eigenlijk allemaal: nee, dat doen we niet, want het is een hele inspanning die wij moeten leveren om een aanvraag te doen en je weet niet wat de uitkomst is. Het is te veel bureaucratie en te ingewikkeld.

Dat wil ik graag meegeven aan de commissaris bij een evaluatie: verbeter de toegankelijkheid, zodat het midden- en kleinbedrijf instapt en mee wil doen, want ik heb ervaren dat dat nu nog niet goed loopt.

  Dariusz Rosati (PPE). – Madam President, I think that after one year of operation we have achieved reasonably good results. Of course, EFSI does not produce miracles but I hope nobody expected that. The figures on balance are good and encouraging. One concern I have is that the geographical distribution of projects is not well balanced. This issue has already been raised earlier. We would like to have a clear explanation on that and perhaps suggestions as to what can be done in order to make this distribution more balanced.

Another important concern which I also have is on one of the initial goals of the EFSI plan. This goal was to improve the investment climate in Europe in general. Basically, EFSI was supposed to work as a confidence-building measure. To what extent do you think we have achieved this goal, Commissioner? To what extent have we managed to improve the investment environment and the regulatory framework in the EU Member States in order to encourage autonomous private investment to take place?

When I look at the statistics, we see that investment is still very sluggish. Of course, one question is to what extent this additionality condition has been fulfilled and to what extent we have avoided the crowding out effect of private investment. But the other thing is the regulatory framework, to what extent we have managed to make the environment more conducive to business, and to what extent we have managed to convince private business to start investment because the prospects for growth in Europe have improved.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Maria Grapini (S&D), întrebare adresată în conformitate cu procedura „cartonașului albastru”. – Doamnă președinte, stimate coleg, sunt de acord cu ceea ce ați spus dumneavoastră legat de repartiția geografică. Vreau să vă întreb concret: credeți că criteriile folosite de Fondul european pentru investiții strategice - „primul venit primul servit” - ajută la o mai bună coeziune sau afectează coeziunea despre care vorbim în Tratatul Uniunii Europene?

  Dariusz Rosati (PPE), blue-card answer. – Thank you for this question. I think we have to indeed had a closer look into the system of project selection. I think the project selection should be based on the criterion of additional value added, in terms of European value added. In this sense, I am, for instance, against excessive concentration of projects in selected countries. No, the project should be selected on the basis of economic viability. We should not forget, after all, that it is the EIB which is behind this selection, and of course the projects have to fulfil economic criteria.

  Inés Ayala Sender (S&D). – Señora Presidenta, frente a los grandes beneficiarios del FEIE, países que ni son los que tienen más desempleo ni los que más han sufrido con la crisis, para los países incursos en procedimientos de déficit excesivo como el mío, fruto en gran parte de políticas erróneas de recortes y austeridad y con prohibición expresa de poder endeudarse, la única novedad atractiva —un real valor añadido europeo— del FEIE era la aplicación, por fin, de la golden rule a las inversiones europeas. En origen se nos dijo que se aplicaría al primer tramo de aportaciones de los Estados miembros, que, como usted sabe muy bien, señor Katainen, fueron nulas. Ahora se nos dice que podrá aplicarse, de acuerdo con la comunicación del Vicepresidente Moscovici, a las plataformas de los bancos intermediarios de inversión, pero ni unas ni otras están funcionando como debieran.

Y el Banco Europeo de Inversiones, cuando el presidente de mi región, Aragón, se acerca para demandar apoyo concreto sobre proyectos concretos, le ofrece business as usual, sin solución al problema del endeudamiento. Y eso por no hablar de ejemplos penosos como el del proyecto Castor, que todavía el BEI publicitaba cuando el Gobierno del señor Rajoy planteaba ya paralizarlo con costosas consecuencias por los contribuyentes españoles.

Ahora nos propone ampliarlo más lejos, cuando aún no hemos resuelto la mayor contradicción, que procede de sus propios servicios. Se ofrece un instrumento de endeudamiento a países y regiones que tienen prohibido endeudarse por directrices y sanciones de la propia Comisión. Señor Katainen, ¿cómo vamos a hacer para resolver esa contradicción que es letal para el FEIE?

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, EFSI has been particularly successful in the United Kingdom, with 1.9 billion financing in infrastructure and innovation projects and 462.3 million in SME financing already achieved.

Examples of EFSI-backed projects include the roll-out of smart meters across a large number of households in the UK, the construction of a new teaching hospital in Birmingham and the operation of an offshore farm in Scotland. However my constituency of Northern Ireland has not been able to make such good progress, even though we have a Barroso task force – now a Juncker task force – set up so that Northern Ireland should do well. Can you actually explain to me why Northern Ireland has not done so well?

I will understand if you cannot accept my question today and I will accept your answer in writing down the road, if that is the case. But why have we not done more? Is the problem in Brussels? Is it in London? Is it in Belfast? Please tell me, because my people want to know because we want to make up and we are very supportive of this, so I hope you will respond to me.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Meine Frage geht in die Richtung, was eigentlich der Unterschied zwischen einem Bankkredit und EFSI ist; Wo liegen hier die wesentlichen Unterschiede? Und ich würde meinen Freund Katainen sehr gerne fragen, ob er hier eine Weiterentwicklung sieht, weil er in seiner Eröffnungsrede schon gesagt hat, dass ein direct equity instrument eigentlich abgeht.

Was können wir tun, um Risikokapital ganz einfach zur Verfügung zu stellen, vor allem für Spin-offs, für Start-ups, für Scale-ups? Haben wir in Europa eigentlich schon einmal darüber nachgedacht, auch Akzeleratoren, wie es im Silicon Valley schon sehr viele gibt, zu implementieren, dass wir unseren Betrieben, die schon bestehen, helfen, die Weltmärkte zu erobern? Ich glaube, das wäre eine ganz wichtige Vorgangsweise.

Die private-public-partnership ist – glaube ich – insofern wichtig, als natürlich die kleinen und mittleren Betriebe zuerst einmal Produkte oder Dienstleistungen entwickeln müssen, die von den Konsumenten dementsprechend gekauft werden. Das Bekanntmachen, das Produzieren erfordert aber meistens Kapital und Investitionen. Wenn man das vorher schon wegbesteuert, dann bleibt natürlich nichts übrig für Investition. Deshalb ist es wichtig, dass wir auch von der Steuerpolitik her Anreizinstrumente setzen. Privaten oder jenen, die heute viel Geld zur Verfügung haben und bereit sind, Risiko einzugehen, muss man dann natürlich auch ein Risikopremium geben.

Also wie sieht hier die Anreizstrategie von Herrn Moscovici aus? Wie können wir Herrn Moscovici einbinden, Anreize zu setzen für jene, die Jobs schaffen, die investieren und für Europas Wohlstand sorgen?

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, merci de dire votre soutien au plan Juncker. Ce plan, nous, socialistes européens, l'avons voulu et le Parlement européen l'a également voulu. Nous nous réjouissons que vous envisagiez sa prolongation car, effectivement, l'investissement en Europe va mal. Paradoxalement, les taux d'intérêt bas ne favorisent pas l'investissement. Il y a les pays qui connaissent des difficultés à mobiliser des projets d'investissement, où il faut dix ans pour lancer la construction d'un pont, et il y a ceux qui n'ont pas les financements nécessaires. Alors, oui, le plan Juncker était nécessaire. Il doit être prolongé.

Mais, ce plan, nous l'avons voulu dans d'autres conditions que celles que vous avez accepté d'entendre. Nous voulions un plan additionnel, nous voulions un plan créateur d'emplois, nous voulions un plan pour la transition écologique et nous voulions un plan pour la cohésion de l'Union européenne. Aucun de ces critères n'est au rendez-vous. De plus, j'ajouterai que, pour le financer, vous devez relancer la titrisation ou accepter des fonds chinois sans condition.

Alors, oui, nous voulons continuer avec vous ce plan d'investissement, mais pas dans n'importe quelle condition. Il est temps que vous écoutiez le Parlement européen.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Madam President, there is a Swedish expression which says that you should not shout hello until you are over the river. I do not know how you look upon that in other parts of Europe, but I would like to advise that as an approach from the Commission during the review, because the fact that the money in EFSI is spent and used is not a success as such. It would have been a surprise if not, because public—subsidised and public—guaranteed money is always preferred to other types.

The remaining problem is that Europe still has an investment gap of between EUR 300 to 400 to 500 billion annually, and we see it very clearly when we look at the flows of foreign direct investments. Since 2007, they have been more or less halved, while in other competing regions they have been doubled. This is the core problem, and in the review the Commission needs to look at whether this money is replacing other investments. Is it creating attraction to more investments, and at what does it mean that we have undermined research science and the Connecting Europe Facility? This must not be an alibi for reforms to make Europe the most entrepreneurial economy in the world by attracting investments, instead of promoting them.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), blue-card question. – The geographic repartition is a very problematic issue. We need to know – and this is my question – what has been done, or will be done, to correct that – to allow less—developed financial Member States’ markets to access finance through the European Fund for Strategic Investments, and not only the most stable, technical—capacity countries. What should be done?

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), blue-card answer. – I think the answer is both simple and complex, as always. The main reason for investments in any of our countries is that you can get a return on the investment. Otherwise, it is not an investment. Therefore, we need to strive for stable public finances but also remind ourselves that, if we in the European Union on average have a 10% to 15% higher tax load than in any other competing region, of course this is influencing the climate for investment. So let us change the climate for investment in all parts of the European Union and go ahead with that.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Ist der Start von EFSI tatsächlich gelungen? Herr Katainen, beantworten Sie uns doch bitte die Frage, wie viele zusätzliche, neue und nachhaltige Arbeitsplätze bisher durch EFSI geschaffen wurden. Denn Investitionen um der Investitionen willen bringen weder die europäische Wirtschaft noch die europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger weiter. Und die Bürgerinnen und Bürger sollten Sie im Blick haben.

Wenn Sie ehrlich sind – und das ist ja in der Diskussion eben auch schon angesprochen worden – wurde die erwünschte Hebelwirkung nicht erreicht. Durch EFSI wurden viele Investitionen getätigt, die ohnehin schon geplant waren und die auch stattgefunden hätten. Welchen Mehrwert hat EFSI also im Moment?

Was wir brauchen, ist eine echte Investitionsoffensive, die dort greift, wo Impulse in die Wirtschaft tatsächlich am dringendsten gebraucht werden, und nicht nur, dass Gewinne eingefahren werden. Wir brauchen ein Investitionsprogramm, das bei den Menschen ankommt, das Arbeitslosigkeit und Armut reduziert. Nur dann macht eine Verlängerung auch wirklich Sinn.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! To nie przypadek, że Pan Komisarz chciałby, abyśmy bez przerwy rozmawiali o planie inwestycyjnym, a nasza Izba rozmawia o funduszu inwestycyjnym, w gruncie rzeczy ograniczając się tylko i wyłącznie do funduszu. To nie przypadek, i warto przemyśleć, dlaczego nie mówimy o pozostałych elementach planu. Przecież ocena funduszu, zgodnie z przepisami, jest przewidziana na rok 2018. To po pierwsze.

Po drugie, jako sprawozdawca ds. rewizji budżetowej chciałbym wyrazić swoje zadowolenie, że Komisja proponuje rewizję budżetu. Propozycja przedłużenia EFIS na następne lata jest de facto propozycją rewizji wieloletnich perspektyw. W związku z czym wyrażam zadowolenie, że Komisja chce rewizji budżetu.

I trzeci bardzo ważny element: istnieje trudność w realizacji połączenia EFIS z funduszami strukturalnymi – Pan Komisarz o tym mówił, mamy przykład z Francji – ale tak naprawdę to jest bardzo trudne. Poza tym chciałbym zwrócić uwagę Pana Komisarza, że wymogi stawiane funduszom są inne niż w przypadku projektów z EFIS: nie ma kompatybilności między tymi dwoma elementami. Jeżeli i to, i to ma być europejskie, to warunki muszą być podobne.

(Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 162 ust. 8 Regulaminu))

  Μαρία Σπυράκη ( PPE), ερώτηση με γαλάζια κάρτα. – Αγαπητέ κύριε Olbrycht, προτίθεμαι να προτείνω στον Αντιπρόεδρο της Επιτροπής, και θα ήθελα τη δική σας άποψη, τη δημιουργία μιας ειδικής ομάδας μεταφοράς τεχνογνωσίας στις χώρες που έχουν χαμηλή δυνατότητα μόχλευσης κονδυλίων από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Στρατηγικών Επενδύσεων (EFSI). Θα ήθελα τη γνώμη σας για αυτό.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Przy tej konstrukcji funduszu nie jest możliwe proste przełożenie geograficzne. W związku z czym jest, moim zdaniem, dobrym pomysłem stworzenie pewnego rodzaju podmiotu, który zastanowiłby się nad tym, w jaki sposób mobilizować inwestorów, żeby skutek był geograficzny, skoro nie można wyjść od założeń geograficznych. Absolutnie bym taki pomysł popierał.

  Jens Geier (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Vizepräsident Katainen, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ja, EFSI kann eine im Ganzen positive Bilanz vorlegen, wenn man auf die Investitionen schaut. Uns geht es aber heute Morgen darum, EFSI in erster Linie zu optimieren.

Vom Europäischen Parlament als Haushaltsbehörde wird erwartet, dass acht Milliarden Euro auf Haushaltszahlen gesetzt werden, die die Investitionen garantieren. Wir haben das Geld aus der Forschungspolitik genommen, aus dem Programm Horizont 2020, und sind dafür von der Gemeinde der Forscherinnen und Forscher hart kritisiert worden. Wir haben das Geld aus der Connecting Europe Facility genommen und damit das wichtigste Finanzierungsinstrument der europäischen Verkehrspolitik eingeschränkt. Und im Haushalt 2017 sollen wir zusätzliche 3,3 Milliarden Euro für diese Haushaltslinien mobilisieren.

Herr Katainen, ich habe die Ehre, für dieses Haus den Haushaltsentwurf 2017 vorzubereiten. Ich werde sehr genau beobachten, was Ihre Behörde tut, um die Zusätzlichkeit und die Nachhaltigkeit der Projekte zu verbessern. Tun Sie bitte etwas dafür, dass der Haushaltsausschuss dieses Hauses nicht zu der Ansicht kommt, dass wir eigentlich nur bezahlen, was die Europäische Investitionsbank ohnehin bezahlt hätte. Dann hätten wir das Geld besser in der Forschungspolitik gelassen.

  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου ( PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Αντιπρόεδρε, όλοι εμείς μέσα στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο ουκ ολίγες φορές ζητήσαμε να υπάρξει ανάπτυξη και νέες θέσεις εργασίας στις χώρες μας. Για να υπάρξουν όλα αυτά, χρειάζονται επενδύσεις. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή ανταποκρίθηκε τάχιστα και δημιούργησε το Επενδυτικό Σχέδιο με τεράστια συμβολή και του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, για να γίνει καλύτερο, και δεν πρέπει να λησμονούμε και την απεριόριστη σημαντική συμβολή του αγαπητού συναδέλφου του José Manuel Fernandes, που ήταν ο εισηγητής για αυτό το Σχέδιο.

Δεν είμαι εξ εκείνων που πιστεύουν ότι θα έλυνε όλα τα προβλήματα αυτό το Σχέδιο. Δεν είμαι μάλιστα εξ εκείνων που θεωρούν ότι αυτό το Σχέδιο θα είναι απόλυτα επιτυχημένο, αλλά μέχρι σήμερα δεν άκουσα άλλη εναλλακτική πρόταση. Δεν άκουσα προτάσεις για βελτιστοποίηση αυτού του Σχεδίου. Και σας τα λέω εγώ, που ανήκω σε μία χώρα όπως η Κύπρος, που δοκιμάστηκε και μέχρι στιγμής δεν πήρε ούτε cent από αυτό το Επενδυτικό Σχέδιο, για να ζητήσω τώρα επίσημα από τον Αντιπρόεδρο Katainen για χώρες όπως τη Μάλτα και την Κύπρο, που δεν κατόρθωσαν να συμμετάσχουν μέχρι σήμερα, να τύχουν της συμβολής και της βοήθειας του Επενδυτικού Ταμείου, να υπάρξει πληροφόρηση για το Επενδυτικό Ταμείο, γιατί μέχρι σήμερα όλοι μας πιστεύαμε ή πιστεύουν οι χώρες μέλη ότι είναι μόνο για μεγάλα έργα, για έργα υποδομής, για μεγάλες αναπτύξεις. Είναι για τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις. Αν είναι δυνατόν, να γίνει σε κάθε χώρα one-stop shop όπου θα ενημερώνονται οι μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, για να επιτευχθεί ο στόχος και η διάχυση αυτού του Ταμείου σε 140.000 μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις. Ειλικρινά, δεν θέλω να πιστεύω ότι κάποιοι θα προτιμούσαν να αποτύχει το Ευρωπαϊκό Σχέδιο Στρατηγικών Επενδύσεων για να ασκήσουν κριτική, γιατί θεωρώ ότι το Σχέδιο δεν απέτυχε αλλά μπορεί να πετύχει πολύ περισσότερο με εισηγήσεις, με θετική προσέγγιση, με εποικοδομητικό διάλογο. Και το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο θα το πράξει αυτό.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, se guardiamo ai dati, io credo che noi possiamo dire che da un lato la formula EFSI può funzionare e, in molti casi, sta funzionando. Per esempio, non c'è dubbio che la finestra "piccole e medie imprese" sta producendo un'addizionalità, una leva, molto alta, e sta dando risultati positivi. Però è anche vero, soprattutto se guardiamo la finestra "infrastrutture e innovazione", che si può e si deve fare meglio e fare di più.

Io come elementi critici principali individuo i seguenti. Innanzitutto credo che vada rafforzato il coinvolgimento delle banche di sviluppo nazionali. In secondo luogo, noi dobbiamo vedere più piattaforme create nei vari paesi e anche transnazionali. Infine, dobbiamo aiutare di più a combinare i fondi strutturali con i finanziamenti EFSI. Abbiamo degli esempi, il caso Nord-Pas-de-Calais, di tranche mezzanine, tranche junior con i fondi europei, ma sono ancora dei casi isolati. Questa combinazione, insieme alle piattaforme nazionali, credo sia la chiave per consentire all'EFSI veramente di affrontare i fallimenti di mercato attraverso tutto il territorio europeo.

  Eva Paunova (PPE). – Madam President, I just wonder how often it happens that we vote for something here in plenary last June and we actually bear very concrete results a year later. Citizens, as well as businesses, expect swift decisions and this is one.

At the same time, the plan is not a panacea for all our economic hurdles but it paves and facilitates the way ahead for the European economy, with more competition-based investment in projects with added value and a much easier access to finance for business. Thanks to our suggestions, the SME window was enlarged and, in this way, has reached 185 agreements with commercial banks that will contribute towards more than 140 000 SMEs across Europe. This contribution will go towards the innovative ideas of younger professionals, of those digital entrepreneurs in businesses that want to contribute to a more prosperous Europe because it is precisely these businesses that say their number one problem in bringing their ideas to life is lack of financing and this is what the plan addresses.

I would like to encourage the Commission to act much more quickly and to bring the advisory services to national and regional level. This will have a twofold effect: they will be more involved and develop better expertise. Second, this will allow more coherent technical advice when it comes to combining EFSI and ESI funds because the Member States already have a solid capacity on that.

  Massimo Paolucci (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, finalmente con il piano Juncker ci concentriamo sugli investimenti. Finalmente parliamo di sviluppo, che è il nostro vero grande problema. Vediamo il bicchiere mezzo pieno, i primi risultati, ma sarebbero sbagliati toni troppo entusiastici, sarebbe sbagliato non vedere i problemi. Primo: ambiente e sviluppo sostenibile e transizione verso un'economia circolare devono rappresentare una chiara priorità strategica. Su questo non ci siamo. Secondo: bisogna finanziare progetti nuovi, aggiuntivi, come si dice addizionali. Se finanziamo solo progetti già maturi e sostenuti dal mercato non facciamo molta strada, non facciamo passi in avanti. Terzo: l'integrazione con i fondi strutturali è tecnicamente difficile se non si mettono le regioni, soprattutto le regioni del Sud, nelle condizioni di liberarsi da ottusi vincoli di bilancio.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Spoštovani komisar Katainen, najprej čestitke za prvo leto delovanja sklada. Mislim, da je v marsičem pozitivno presenetil. Pokazal je tudi na nekatere pomanjkljivosti. Danes so bile tu omenjene in mislim tudi osebno, da je ena od ključnih pomanjkljivosti pomanjkanje investicij v državah, ki so investicij najbolj potrebne.

Tu ni krivda na vaši strani. V veliki meri mislim, da je tudi krivda na državah članicah, ki so se premalo pripravile na to in nimajo zgrajene infrastrukture za takšen tip investiranja. Podobne usode so bili deležni tudi pri kohezijskih skladih v prejšnji perspektivi in tudi v sedanji, ko je potrebno pripraviti kompleksnejše projekte.

Zato priporočam, da največ naredite na tem, da se skupaj z nami ta promocija v državah članicah, kjer ni teh projektov in so projekti nujno potrebni, naredi in da se države na takšen način tudi spoprimejo s svojim razvojnim zaostankom, kajti sicer bo Evropa manj kohezivna, kot je danes.

  Mercedes Bresso (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Vicepresidente, io sarò relatore per la commissione REGI sulla revisione di metà periodo dell'EFSI. Come altri colleghi hanno detto, noi pensiamo che la collaborazione fra l'EFSI e l'ESIF, i fondi strutturali, sia ancora insufficiente. In particolare, proprio dove ci sono fallimenti del mercato serve una maggiore cooperazione con i fondi strutturali e, in particolare, con la parte "grants" dei fondi strutturali. Anche perché, come è apparso molto evidente, le regioni più povere sono quelle nelle quali la presenza dell'EFSI è ancora modesta e l'effetto traino non c'è stato. In secondo luogo, serve più ambizione: 100 miliardi attivati in grosso modo un anno di investimenti in Europa sono una goccia nel mare. Lei sa bene che con la crisi gli investimenti si sono molto ridotti. Mancano circa 500 miliardi all'appello, e quindi credo si debba andare avanti se vogliamo avere un effetto davvero importante.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Katainen, το Επενδυτικό Σχέδιο Juncker όσον αφορά την Ελλάδα έχει αποτύχει γιατί η τρόικα, στην οποία συμμετέχει η Επιτροπή, έχει επιβάλει ένα ασφυκτικό οικονομικό περιβάλλον για την ελληνική κοινωνία και την επιχειρηματικότητα. Έχει μειώσει μισθούς και συντάξεις, με αποτέλεσμα τη μείωση της αγοραστικής δύναμης στην ελληνική αγορά, πράγμα που αποθαρρύνει τις επενδύσεις. Η τρόικα έχει αυξήσει τους έμμεσους φόρους και τον συντελεστή φορολογίας στις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, πράγμα που οδηγεί σε λουκέτα. Αντί η τρόικα να επιστρέψει στην Ελλάδα τα κέρδη της ΕΚΤ και των κεντρικών τραπεζών, των SMP και ANFA, ύψους 10 δισεκατομμυρίων ευρώ μέχρι το 2020, προκειμένου να χρηματοδοτήσουν ένα νέο Σχέδιο Μάρσαλ για την ανάπτυξη, το ESM κρατάει αυτά τα χρήματα. Τέλος, η παραπομπή της ρύθμισης του ελληνικού χρέους στις ελληνικές καλένδες επιβαρύνει το οικονομικό κλίμα και αποθαρρύνει τις επενδύσεις. Άρα λοιπόν το Επενδυτικό Σχέδιο Juncker μπορεί να στηρίξει την ελληνική οικονομία μόνο εάν η Ελλάδα απαλλαγεί από το μνημόνιο και την τρόικα. Αυτό πρέπει να το αντιληφθείτε.

  Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης ( GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Katainen, αντί το Επενδυτικό Σχέδιο να προωθεί δημόσιες επενδύσεις για ανάπτυξη προς όφελος της κοινωνίας, βασίζεται στις ιδιωτικές επενδύσεις και έχει στόχο να μειώσει το ρίσκο τους. Αυτό επιβεβαιώνεται άλλωστε και από τα στοιχεία για το πρώτο τρίμηνο του 2016, σύμφωνα με τα οποία τα χρήματα πηγαίνουν κυρίως σε ανεπτυγμένα κράτη και περιοχές. Εκεί όπου οι πολυεθνικές έχουν μεγαλύτερα κέρδη και όχι στα κράτη όπως η Κύπρος και η Ελλάδα, που έχουν μεγαλύτερη ανάγκη λόγω και των μνημονιακών πολιτικών λιτότητας που διέλυσαν την οικονομία τους, οδήγησαν σε μεγάλα ποσοστά ανεργίας, μετανάστευσης των νέων και φτωχοποίηση του λαού. Εξίσου επικίνδυνο είναι πως στον απολογισμό της Επιτροπής αναφέρεται ξεκάθαρα πως, αντί να δοθούν νέα χρήματα, θα προωθηθεί η περαιτέρω ανάμειξη του Ταμείου Στρατηγικών Επενδύσεων με το πρόγραμμα «Ορίζοντας 2020» και το πρόγραμμα «Συνδέοντας την Ευρώπη» καθώς και τα Διαρθρωτικά Ταμεία. Σχεδιάζεται δηλαδή η περαιτέρω αποκοπή κονδυλίων από τα υφιστάμενα προγράμματα και Ταμεία. Εάν δεν αλλάξουν οι στόχοι που εξυπηρετεί το Επενδυτικό Σχέδιο και δεν δοθούν νέα κονδύλια σε νέες επενδύσεις, δεν θα υπάρξει ποτέ διέξοδος από την κρίση και την ύφεση.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident Katainen! Es fällt auf, dass in dieser Diskussion über das Paket, von dem Sie gesprochen haben, Herr Vizepräsident, der Schwerpunkt eindeutig bei dem EFSI liegt und die Fokussierung auf die Weiterentwicklung des Binnenmarktes, die Sie so sehr betont haben, wesentlich kürzer kommt. Das hat zwei Gründe. Zum Einen: Die Schwierigkeiten, die es bei dem EFSI gibt, die nun in so vielfältiger Weise von den Kollegen dargestellt worden sind, zwingen uns geradezu dazu, Ihnen klarzumachen, dass der EFSI so, wie er bis jetzt praktiziert wird, die Hoffnungen, die Sie damit erweckt haben, nicht erfüllt. Zweitens: Auch in Bezug auf die Weiterentwicklung des Binnenmarktes, den digitalen Binnenmarkt und den für Kapital legen Sie nichts dar, was Hoffnung macht. Ändern Sie Ihre Politik, sonst werden Sie in Europa niemanden dafür begeistern!

  Rosa D'Amato (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli collegi, signor Commissario, vado al sodo. Due osservazioni: nel piano vi è assenza di locazione geografica e settoriale predefinita, perché ad oggi vi è un'alta concentrazione degli investimenti in pochi paesi, tra cui quelli meno colpiti dalla crisi, e quando investite in energie rinnovabili, lo fate favorendo grandi aziende, e non l'autoproduzione e l'autosufficienza. Seconda osservazione: mancanza di chiarezza e trasparenza sulle modalità di funzionamento delle linee di credito e dei fondi concessi a banche e a grandi gruppi finanziari. Ricordo che vi sono diversi private equity funds. Signor Commissario, lei afferma che da 12,8 miliardi si attendono 100 miliardi. Ci si attende? Siate trasparenti e precisi. Quanto denaro è arrivato? A chi? Dove? A che condizioni? State finanziando l'economia reale o creando una nuova bolla finanziaria? Che fine ha fatto l'effetto leva? Uno per quindici: ma 12,8 miliardi per 15 non fa 100 miliardi.

  Andrey Novakov (PPE). – Madam President, facts and figures do not need explanation: they are self-explanatory. Facts and figures are showing that Juncker’s plan is performing better than a lot of people here believed it would. If I had to use aviation terms I would have to say that the Juncker plan and EFSI have had a very short and bumpy runway but still flies and while it has a very strong tailwind from pessimism and political hate at the moment it is working perfectly. And exactly now, when we have reached our cruising altitude, along with planning to go further and watch further, we have to see what the results are and analyse them.

Here, I have three main improvements that I believe have to be made: investment platforms at a regional level to help meet potential investors and public entities; create more public and private partnerships, and more and strong technical assistance on the ground to help potential beneficiaries; and last but not least, more synergies between EFSI and ESIF.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il piano di investimenti, che certamente va prorogato, ha tra le sue priorità, vorrei ricordarlo, l'educazione e le industrie culturali e creative. Ma questi due settori non se ne sono praticamente accorti, come dimostra l'analisi che avete presentato sui settori. Salvo alcuni paesi come il mio, l'Italia, che ha lanciato un ambizioso piano "Digital school" in cui l'EFSI è effettivamente addizionale alle risorse pubbliche e alla Cassa depositi e prestiti, in giro ci sono pochi progetti.

Come abbiamo già detto al suo collega Navracsics e alla Banca europea per gli investimenti in sede di commissione per la cultura, la Commissione con la BEI deve svolgere un ruolo di regia europea proattivo di questo piano straordinario, come grande occasione di occupabilità, innovazione e transizione, non solo di attesa dei progetti che non arrivano. Vanno promosse piattaforme nazionali ed europee, anche di facilitazione dell'accesso alle scuole, all'università, oltre che alle PMI creative e audiovisive, con una consulenza più mirata a questi attori. Penso ad alcune proposte che abbiamo anche avanzato, penso alla e-card degli studenti europei, alla piattaforma per l'e-teaching, alla ricognizione online delle competenze, piattaforme per la promozione di industrie culturali.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, am următoarea remarcă: ați dublat timpul pentru aproape toți vorbitorii. Am fost primul om în sală la ora 9.00 și am stat două ore la dezbatere și nu-mi acordați catch-the-eye. Mi se pare neetic și nu este prima dată când faceți acest lucru. Cred că nu este nici colegial, dar, mai ales, nu este benefic pentru dezbatere.

  President. – Thank you for the point. As you know, I came into the Chamber during the debate. I tried to be flexible and explained to colleagues that there were over 20 people wanting catch-the-eye, so please make your contributions in writing, and I am conscious of giving new voices to the debate for the lots of colleagues who have been in the Chamber. I hope you will accept that I am trying to be fair and flexible and that I do have to stop the debate at 12.00.

Yes, colleagues ran over their speaking time and I tried to control that. So, with apologies to those who have not spoken, I hope you will respect my attempts to be fair. I know, Mr Jakovčić, that the ALDE Group have not spoken in catch—the—eye, but you did get a blue card and you were the only colleague looking. I hope you understand. Thank you for your understanding. I do accept and take your points on board.

Commissioner, I would like if I may to invite you to respond to the debate and, if I may say, from the point of view of communication, perhaps Parliament and the Commission have work to do in the Member States.

  Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I will make a few comments. I will try to group my answers to your questions together.

First, around 30% of EFSI projects are in the energy field and mostly in the renewable energy efficiency field. Some of our colleagues said that there were no projects in energy efficiency. That is a complete mistake. EFSI provides risk financing for new technologies and innovative projects and that is very good because this is what we all wanted.

For everybody who is concerned about projects already financed – or if there are some areas which have not been covered, like the circular economy for instance – I strongly encourage everybody to be active with the people who are operating in, for instance, the circular economy field to raise awareness of what EFSI can provide for them. I do this every single day. I go around Europe explaining the opportunities EFSI has to offer, for instance, new innovations and circular economy projects, but unfortunately the level of awareness varies between the Member States.

Now, I will come to the point concerning why some Member States have not benefited very much from EFSI already. It is mostly – if you look at it very concretely – because public authorities have not been active in promoting EFSI opportunities. As we all know, EFSI does not finance pure public projects, but very often regional authorities, national authorities and Ministers play a role when raising awareness about what EFSI can do among the private sector – private investors – and there are huge differences between Member States.

Some Ministers have even indicated very clearly when I met them that if there were not more trains coming to their country, then they were not interested in EFSI at all. I asked them, if they were not interested, to please convey the message to investors in the private sector that they could contact the EIB directly.

Private investors in many countries are hearing for the first time, even though we have repeated it over and over again, that they do not need any public sector approval if they want to apply for resources from EFSI. We just have to repeat this over and over again. That is why I have repeated here a couple of times that we need your help. In some Member States some MEPs have been very active at regional level, conveying the message that companies can apply directly for resources from the EIB.

Another point is that we have Commission Representations in all the Member States, which are ready to serve both public authorities and regional authorities, but also the private sector, to explain what EFSI can do. In most Member States too we have EIB offices, which are there for technical assistance and advice.

In many Member States we have seen excellent events organised by the private sector itself or by political parties, for instance, or by public authorities, to which they have invited private investors, entrepreneurs, industrialists and regional leaders, and to which the EIB has sent its representatives and the Commission has sent its representatives to explain what EFSI has done in other countries. We have to do this more in all the Member States.

So there are some attitude problems. Some Member States are very passive but we try to contact the private sector directly in those Member States where the public authorities have not been the most active.

When looking at the projects, there were a few concerns about whether EFSI has financed motorways without good reason. Actually the few motorway investments which have benefited from EFSI have been technically the most difficult, there has been uncertainty about the traffic and it has been very difficult to attract private financing for those projects. Before you condemn those projects, I really encourage you to look at them and discuss them, for instance, with the EFSI management because they can explain in more detail why they have selected those projects.

We are helping – although it is not our primary duty – Member States to create platforms for green shipping, for instance. This means that we try to collect together port investment and other green shipping types of investment in order to spread EFSI to the areas where there have not been any projects so far.

I visited Greece for the second time a month ago. I met representatives from the five biggest banks in Greece and tried to explain what they could do for SMEs for instance. In Greece too it was the first time that Greek banks had heard that they could apply directly for resources from EFSI for SMEs.

I understand all the difficulties that the Greek banks have, but another idea which I raised there was to build an investment platform, for instance in the tourism sector, which means, basically that the platform could collect together a large amount of small—sized investment – for instance hotel renovation projects or things like that – and the private sector could put some equity in the platform while EFSI could provide, for instance, long—term, very low interest rate loans to the entrepreneurs.

I am a hundred percent sure that these would function in Greece. I spoke about it with the Greek authorities and the Greek Government and we have very close cooperation with the Greek Government on this issue. So I do want to see this happening in Greece. The same thing would also function in Cyprus.

There were lots of other issues. Mr Nicholson, you raised Northern Ireland and why Northern Ireland has not benefited from the EFSI yet. I do not know what the Northern Ireland authorities have done or have not done, but we have our Representation there at the authorities’ disposal. I visited there personally and I tried to convey the message to the private sector in Northern Ireland that they could apply resources directly from EFSI and it would be good to establish a platform for smaller projects. So everything is possible, in Northern Ireland too.

All Member States have the same opportunities and in those Member States which have been the least active, the Commission, and even my Cabinet directly, try to help the authorities understand how they could utilise the opportunities we have at our disposal.

I will stop here. We have mostly been talking about EFSI and this is only one part of the Investment Plan. I want to underline the importance of the single market project. I will repeat once more that hopefully Parliament and the Council can adopt and approve the proposals from Mr Ansip on the digital single market and from Commissioner Vella on the circular economy, etc. This is even more important than what EFSI can do because, when we take down barriers to investment, it has a big impact on growth and on sustainable growth.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  José Blanco López (S&D), por escrito. – Hoy evaluamos los aciertos y los fallos de lo que aprobamos hace un año. Se han conseguido inyectar en la economía 100 000 millones de euros y se ha permitido que muchos proyectos consigan financiación gracias a la movilización pública y privada. Pero no podemos dejarnos deslumbrar por la cantidad: la calidad y la adicionalidad son determinantes para este plan. Y en este aspecto no se están cumpliendo del todo los objetivos. El impacto social y en el empleo, la cobertura geográfica o temática no se está teniendo en cuenta. Y por eso, espero que la Comisión y el BEI estén trabajando más por mejorar estos parámetros que por conseguir llegar a la cifra mágica de 315 000 millones de euros. Seguramente, el mayor éxito hasta ahora tiene que ver con las pymes. Pero nada nuevo respecto de lo que ya se estaba haciendo con iniciativas tan exitosas como COSME o InnovFin. Impulsar al centro de asesoramiento y las plataformas hará que tanto las entidades locales y regionales como los proyectos más pequeños tengan acceso al plan. Ahí será donde de verdad podamos ver la diferencia entre lo hecho hasta ahora y el plan de inversiones que Europa tanto necesita.

  Κώστας Χρυσόγονος ( GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Συζητήσαμε στη συνεδρίαση της Ολομέλειας του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου την πρόοδο του επενδυτικού πακέτου Γιούνκερ, που στοχεύει στην τόνωση της ευρωπαϊκής οικονομίας. Το επενδυτικό πακέτο μέχρι στιγμής έχει αποδειχτεί σκιώδες σε ότι αφορά τα οφέλη του για την Ελλάδα. Ως σήμερα έχουν εγκριθεί 64 έργα στην Ευρώπη, συνολικής χρηματοδότησης 9,3 δισεκατομμυρίων και τα περισσότερα από αυτά βρίσκονται σε μεγάλες οικονομίες, όπως είναι η Γαλλία, η Ιταλία, η Γερμανία, η Βρετανία και η Ισπανία, ενώ μόλις ένα βρίσκεται στην Ελλάδα. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή πρότεινε την 1η Ιουνίου την επέκταση του επενδυτικού πακέτου για άλλα τρία χρόνια, χωρίς όμως να προτείνει διαρθρωτικές αλλαγές, έτσι ώστε να διασφαλισθεί η διοχέτευση των απαραίτητων κονδυλίων στις οικονομίες που έχουν πληγεί περισσότερο από την οικονομική κρίση και τις πολιτικές λιτότητας. Εάν δεν αλλάξουν οι παράμετροι του προγράμματος ώστε να επωφεληθούν οι πιο αδύναμες οικονομίες και αν δεν αυξηθούν τα διαθέσιμα κονδύλια, τότε μιλάμε για σταγόνα στον ωκεανό και η τόνωση της ευρωπαϊκής οικονομίας είναι καταδικασμένη να μείνει στα χαρτιά μόνο.

  Nicola Danti (S&D), per iscritto. – Nel dibattito di oggi in aula la Commissione ha presentato un primo bilancio sul piano Juncker, a un anno dal suo avvio; se da un lato è possibile affermare che sono stati raggiunti importanti risultati – oltre 100 miliardi di investimenti erogati, con 65 progetti finanziati e più di 150 mila PMI coinvolte – dall'altro sono convinto che si debba fare di più. Ritengo che l'EFSI debba privilegiare maggiore addizionalità e finanziare progetti innovativi a più alto rischio, che altrimenti non troverebbero opportunità di finanziamento ordinarie, così da sprigionare al massimo il proprio effetto leva e costituire un valore aggiunto per il tessuto industriale e sociale europeo. In secondo luogo, ritengo che il successo del piano Juncker debba passare da una migliore integrazione con i fondi strutturali esistenti, con l'obiettivo di coinvolgere maggiormente gli enti locali e le aree più povere e bisognose. Il piano Juncker sta già fornendo uno stimolo concreto alla crescita economica, offrendo nuovo ossigeno vitale alle nostre aziende e le PMI. Esso costituisce la più efficace risposta alla crisi economica e sociale di questi anni e alla mancanza di investimenti in Europa. Dobbiamo lavorare per renderlo ancora più ambizioso ed efficace.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D), por escrito. – Hoy evaluamos los aciertos y los fallos de lo que aprobamos hace un año. Se han conseguido inyectar en la economía 100 000 millones de euros y se ha permitido que muchos proyectos consigan financiación gracias a la movilización pública y privada. Pero no podemos dejarnos deslumbrar por la cantidad: la calidad y la adicionalidad son determinantes para este plan. Y en este aspecto no se están cumpliendo del todo los objetivos. El impacto social y en el empleo, la cobertura geográfica o temática no se está teniendo en cuenta. Y por eso, espero que la Comisión y el BEI estén trabajando más por mejorar estos parámetros que por conseguir llegar a la cifra mágica de 315 000 millones de euros. Seguramente, el mayor éxito hasta ahora tiene que ver con las pymes. Pero nada nuevo respecto de lo que ya se estaba haciendo con iniciativas tan exitosas como COSME o InnovFin. Impulsar al centro de asesoramiento y las plataformas hará que tanto las entidades locales y regionales como los proyectos más pequeños tengan acceso al plan. Ahí será donde de verdad podamos ver la diferencia entre lo hecho hasta ahora y el plan de inversiones que Europa tanto necesita.

  Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D), por escrito. – Hoy evaluamos los aciertos y los fallos de lo que aprobamos hace un año. Se han conseguido inyectar en la economía 100 000 millones de euros y se ha permitido que muchos proyectos consigan financiación gracias a la movilización pública y privada. Pero no podemos dejarnos deslumbrar por la cantidad: la calidad y la adicionalidad son determinantes para este plan. Y en este aspecto no se están cumpliendo del todo los objetivos. El impacto social y en el empleo, la cobertura geográfica o temática no se está teniendo en cuenta. Y por eso, espero que la Comisión y el BEI estén trabajando más por mejorar estos parámetros que por conseguir llegar a la cifra mágica de 315 000 millones de euros. Seguramente, el mayor éxito hasta ahora tiene que ver con las pymes. Pero nada nuevo respecto de lo que ya se estaba haciendo con iniciativas tan exitosas como COSME o InnovFin. Impulsar al centro de asesoramiento y las plataformas hará que tanto las entidades locales y regionales como los proyectos más pequeños tengan acceso al plan. Ahí será donde de verdad podamos ver la diferencia entre lo hecho hasta ahora y el plan de inversiones que Europa tanto necesita.

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE), в писмена форма. – Икономическата криза доведе до рязък спад на инвестициите и сериозно разклати доверието на европейските граждани в способността на институциите на Съюза да разрешат икономическите проблеми на Европа. Когато миналата година приехме плана „Юнкер“, изпратихме сигнал към гражданите и бизнеса, че ще работим за прекъсването на порочния кръг от ниско потребление, ниски инвестиции и в резултат нисък растеж. Една година по-късно може да кажем, че резултатите са обнадеждаващи. Европейският фонд за стратегически инвестиции вече работи в 26 държави членки и се очаква да привлече инвестиции на стойност 100 милиарда евро, макар изпълнението на повечето проекти все още да е в начална фаза. Важно е да гарантираме, че всички одобрени проекти изпълняват критерия за допълняемост, за да се избегне изместването на частни инвестиции. В България подкрепата на ЕФСИ вече улеснява достъпа на малки и средни предприятия до финансиране чрез т.нар. прозорец за МСП. Проектите в инвестиционния прозорец за инфраструктура и иновации обаче остават съсредоточени предимно в по-големи държави членки или такива с развити финансови пазари, което показва необходимост от по-ефективно разпределение, за да не се подкопават целите на политиката по сближаване. В период на предизвикателства пред единството на ЕС е важно да не създаваме разделителни линии между държавите членки.

  Alain Lamassoure (PPE), par écrit. – Je tiens à féliciter Monsieur Katainen, Vice-président de la Commission, pour son action et pour sa grande disponibilité personnelle pour accueillir les porteurs de projets et les responsables régionaux. Dix-huit mois après, le plan Juncker est une réussite institutionnelle et administrative : le mécanisme a été mis en place et a atteint son rythme de croisière dans les délais annoncés. Mais les points d'interrogation que nous avions à l'origine demeurent, tout d'abord sur la qualité des projets : sommes-nous sûrs que ce sont des investissements innovants dont la réalisation rendra l'UE plus compétitive? Puis sur la valeur ajoutée du dispositif : la liste des projets retenus donne l'impression qu'ils auraient vu le jour avec des financements déjà existants. Le Fonds spécial est-il plus qu'un guichet supplémentaire de la BEI? Enfin, sur le résultat macro-économique : l'objectif était de ramener l'investissement dans l'Union au niveau de 2008. Vous ne nous avez rien dit là-dessus. Or, malgré l'effondrement des taux d'intérêt, malgré la masse d'épargne et de liquidités disponibles, malgré le Fonds spécial, l'investissement n'a pas redémarré et, depuis 2007, les investissements directs étrangers ont baissé de 15%. C'est pourquoi le bilan à mi-parcours doit être l'occasion de réajuster le dispositif ou l'objectif.

  Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – Cuando los sindicatos y los partidos de izquierda pedimos un plan de inversiones para Europa, lo hicimos porque el desempleo masivo y la desindustrialización de la periferia europea exigían otro modelo productivo, capaz de poner fin a la dependencia y la espiral de precarización del empleo por el dumping entre países. Nada, absolutamente nada de este análisis está presente en el Plan Juncker. En el mejor de los casos, se están duplicando tareas del BEI y los presupuestos europeos, sin nuevos recursos y sin supervisión democrática. En el peor de los casos, se está socializando la especulación privada, de Castor a Abengoa. Y todo ello al servicio del mismo proyecto neoliberal: la privatización de las infraestructuras de transporte y energía y la subordinación de la política pública al mercado, incluyendo en este juego a los fondos regionales y los presupuestos nacionales. Seguimos pensando que la UE debe financiar proyectos capaces de mejorar su cohesión social y territorial, reforzando las prioridades de las administraciones públicas en su planificación económica y de los trabajadores en la gestión de las empresas. Seguimos esperando.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D), por escrito. – Hoy evaluamos los aciertos y los fallos de lo que aprobamos hace un año. Se han conseguido inyectar en la economía 100 000 millones de euros y se ha permitido que muchos proyectos consigan financiación gracias a la movilización pública y privada. Pero no podemos dejarnos deslumbrar por la cantidad: la calidad y la adicionalidad son determinantes para este plan. Y en este aspecto no se están cumpliendo del todo los objetivos. El impacto social y en el empleo, la cobertura geográfica o temática no se está teniendo en cuenta. Y por eso, espero que la Comisión y el BEI estén trabajando más por mejorar estos parámetros que por conseguir llegar a la cifra mágica de 315 000 millones de euros. Seguramente, el mayor éxito hasta ahora tiene que ver con las pymes. Pero nada nuevo respecto de lo que ya se estaba haciendo con iniciativas tan exitosas como COSME o InnovFin. Impulsar al centro de asesoramiento y las plataformas hará que tanto las entidades locales y regionales como los proyectos más pequeños tengan acceso al plan. Ahí será donde de verdad podamos ver la diferencia entre lo hecho hasta ahora y el plan de inversiones que Europa tanto necesita.

  Krystyna Łybacka (S&D), na piśmie. – W kontekście przeglądu planu inwestycyjnego dla Europy zwracam się do Komisji z apelem o pomoc w realizacji jednego z kluczowych jego celów, czyli podniesienia jakości procesu kształcenia poprzez stworzenie nowych możliwości finansowania dla sektora kształcenia i szkoleń. Niestety do tej pory w ramach planu inwestycyjnego nie został złożony żaden projekt związany z edukacją. Aby zachęcić potencjalnych beneficjentów do ubiegania się o fundusze, potrzebujemy więc dodatkowych kampanii informacyjnych oraz praktycznego wsparcia dla ośrodków edukacyjnych przy opracowywaniu stosownych projektów. Podkreślam także, że priorytetowo powinny być traktowane projekty, które skupiają się m.in. na niwelowaniu nierówności edukacyjno-szkoleniowych oraz wdrażaniu dualnego systemu kształcenia opartego na współpracy międzynarodowej.

  Ivana Maletić (PPE), napisan. – Novim investicijskim planom kroz provedbu EFSI-ja dobro se nadomješta nedostatak ulaganja na europskom tržištu. Ipak, često se u raspravama javljaju pitanja koliko je dosad financiranih 65 projekata zaista nešto novo i jesu li to projekti koji bez EFSI-ja ne bi bili realizirani, kao i formirani fondovi za financiranje poduzetnika. Kritike idu u smjeru da je samo riječ o nastavku klasičnih aktivnosti EIB-a. Međutim, bez obzira na to, činjenica je da se sredstva ulažu, projekti realiziraju i da će Europska komisija potaknuti izdvajanje dodatnih sredstava od 2017. kako bi se EFSI nastavio.

Dobrim korištenjem EFSI-ja mogli bismo ostvariti sinergiju s fondovima EU-a. Tako npr. iz fondova možemo financirati vrlo ograničen broj projekata i stvarnih potreba veznih uz energetsku učinkovitost, digitalizaciju, nove tehnologije, obnovu i izgradnju željeznica, luka i slično. Za sve ovo bismo mogli formirati investicijske platforme i kroz projekte javno-privatnog partnerstva ili samo javne i privatne projekte podići investicijski potencijal.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), písomne – Investičný plán pre Európu, ktorý je financovaný z Európskeho fondu pre strategické investície (EFSI), je určený na financovanie vysokorizikových investícií a financovanie tých oblastí, kde nefunguje trh. To sú doplnkové investície, ktoré by bez EFSI nebolo možné zrealizovať. EFSI financujeme z rozpočtu na úkor Horizont 2020 a z Nástroja na prepájanie Európy (cca. 5 mld. €). Tieto peniaze nám práve tu chýbajú na projekty s vysokou pridanou hodnotou. Medzi podporenými projektmi z EFSI sú projekty, ktoré si nevyžadujú znášanie žiadnych rizík (napríklad zateplenie 40 tisíc bytov a domov vo Francúzsku). Na Slovensku takéto investície realizujme aj bez EFSI. Dňa 22.2.2016 Európsky parlament v správe o európskom semestri pre koordináciu hospodárskych politík – ročnom prieskume rastu na rok 2016 vyzval Komisiu, aby overila, či sa financovanie v rámci EFSI poskytuje iba vysokorizikovým projektom, ktoré spĺňajú zásadu doplnkovosti; v tejto súvislosti Parlament bude hodnotiť projekty, ako aj ich pákový efekt s cieľom zabezpečiť, aby sa záručný fond EFSI používal v rámci rozpočtu EÚ vhodným spôsobom. Takéto hodnotenie Komisia dodnes nepredložila. Predpokladám, že Komisia nenašla dostatok projektov na realizáciu Junckerovho investičného plánu. Pri ďalšom použití tohto fondu je nutné, aby sme ho využívali na účel, na ktorý bol určený.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D), in writing. – The European Investment Plan should have brought a big change in the European economy. Despite the efforts, it seems that the initial declaration do not match in reality. The multiplication effect expected is not there and only few countries are taking benefit of this opportunity. The Commission is wrongly blaming the Member States for their lack of involvement instead of correcting the errors of the plan. I therefore call on the Commission to review the Investment Plan in order to: – allocate the financial resources based on the development needs of beneficiaries and regions by integrating the cohesion criteria – develop special instruments for start-ups with a special focus on youth and the poorest regions in Europe – create distribution quotas for countries in order to enable an equitable access across Europe – increase the transparency in the financial allocation and pro-actively engage in generating consortium in the countries having less experience in such type of financial aid The Investment Plan has to work, we have to raise the EUR 315 billion expected to be invested through this mechanism, but we also have to make sure no inequalities are made and that everyone can benefit out of it.

  Tonino Picula (S&D), napisan. – Parlament je 24. lipnja 2015. odobrio regulativu kojom se uspostavlja Europski fond za strateške investicije (EFSI) unutar Europske investicijske banke kao odgovor na financijsku krizu. Do sada su odobrena 64 projekta za koje je izdvojeno 3,9 milijardi EUR. Ukupan iznos investicija premašit će, prema očekivanjima, 100 milijardi EUR.

Većina projekata (75 posto) odnosi se na energetiku, istraživanje i razvoj, prijevoz i digitalnu tehnologiju i većina ih je odobrena za 5 zemalja članica koje su ujedno 5 najvećih europskih gospodarstava (Francuska, Italija, Njemačka, UK i Španjolska) – čak 43 od 64 projekta. 12 zemalja članica još uvijek nije povuklo sredstva iz ovog fonda za strateške projekte. Komisija je 1. lipnja najavila plan za proširenje inicijative nakon prvotno zamišljenog trogodišnjeg razdoblja te jačanje potpore za mala i srednja poduzeća, s obzirom na dosadašnji uspjeh tog dijela programa.

S obzirom na očiglednu neproporcionalnost u povlačenju EFSI fonda među članicama, ali i na činjenicu da velika većina fondova odlazi razvijenijim i najvećim gospodarstvima EU-a, tražim od Komisije da proširi kriterije za dodjelu EFSI fonda – umjesto dodjele isključivo prema pripremljenosti projekata, da se u obzir uzmu i ekonomska razvijenost zemalja članica te pogođenost njihovih gospodarstava financijskom krizom.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), schriftlich. – Meine Unterstützung der Juncker-Kommission hing insbesondere von der versprochenen Investitionsoffensive ab. Zusätzliche Investitionen von 315 Milliarden EUR wurden uns versprochen. Das ist notwendig, um Europas Realwirtschaft wieder in Schwung zu bringen. Der EFSI muss zu dem Instrument werden, als welches er geplant war: die Auswirkungen der Krise mit Investitionen in Gesundheit, soziale Infrastruktur, Energie- und Umweltprojekte, den digitalen Bereich und neue Innovationen abzufedern. Es entsteht jedoch der Eindruck, dass die Akteure den eigenen Einsatz von Finanzmitteln zurückfahren.

In Deutschland etwa wird eine Autobahn im reichsten Bundesland – Baden-Württemberg – ausgebaut. Mir scheint, es werden Projekte realisiert, die sowieso getätigt worden wären. Allen muss klar sein, dass das zur Bewältigung der Krise nicht reicht. Zusätzliche Investitionen müssen geschaffen werden, die EIB darf ihre Mittel nicht zurückfahren, die Akteure – EIB, EFSI und Europäische Kommission – müssen effektiver und mutiger Investitionen ermöglichen.

Für mich hat die Abkehr vom Sparkurs Europas Priorität. Größere Flexibilität für die krisengebeutelten Mitgliedstaaten in ihren Budgets innerhalb der EU-Fiskalregeln muss gewährleistet sein. Die Goldene Regel für öffentliche Investitionen muss auf europäischer Ebene umgesetzt werden. Die Akteure sind gefordert, ihren Handlungsspielraum voll auszunutzen und die bestehende Investitionsklausel aktiv anwenden, damit der nur lähmend voranschreitende Aufschwung zu einem echten Aufschwung wird.

  Alfred Sant (S&D), in writing. – I am among those who are very disappointed with the outcomes of EFSI’s first year. The Commission’s euphoria about the results cannot be reconciled with the reality. But I am unsurprised things have turned out this way. The financial fundamentals of EFSI, based on relatively insignificant ‘own’ funds, levered extensively through guarantees to surpass EUR 300 billion with private capital, militate against a choice of projects considered by markets as having low payoffs or being too risky. The institutional fundamentals of EFSI, tied into the European Investment Bank framework, constrain the Fund to follow the EIB operational model. The claim is that some low-risk, long-term infrastructure projects launched by EFSI would have featured as an EIB project otherwise. Similarly projects have been concentrated in infrastructure areas which can only be considered as ‘safe’. For them, non-EFSI finance could easily have been found. There is, too, a concentration of projects in the bigger economies of the Single Market, with southern and other peripheral small economies practically not featuring at all. Indeed, one could claim that EFSI is providing an example of how, under EU initiatives, a transfer of resources from the periphery to the centre is occurring, further emphasising structural divergences.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE), în scris. – Așa cum se prezintă până acum, putem aprecia că lansarea planului de investiții propus de către Comisia Europeană a fost o idee bună. Fondurile mobilizate de pe piețele de capital pentru finanțarea proiectelor de investiții aprobate sunt însemnate și confirmă realitatea factorului de multiplicare a resurselor publice avut în vedere de inițiatorii planului de investiții. Avem însă un regret: există state membre, între care și România, care nu au încă niciun proiect finanțat în cadrul acestui plan. Consider că este necesar un efort suplimentar al Comisiei Europene pentru identificarea de proiecte finanțabile în fiecare stat membru.

  Claudia Țapardel (S&D), in writing. – The efforts of the EC and EIB to reduce the EU investment gap show potential, especially in increased investments for a greater number of SMEs. It has to remain clear that the EFSI financial support is additional; more private investment is yet to be attracted in order to generate more for the real economy. The success of boosting investments for an effective response to the economic and social crisis really depends on Investment Plan’s implementation achievements. Projects and agreements to benefit from EFSI have been approved in almost all member state. Some countries are still struggling and Romania is one of them. I believe that CEE is a region where investments are needed the most and the EC should do more to help these countries in attracting private investment. The role of the EIB is crucial here - more projects need to be supported to pass the AAA rating. Without that we cannot talk about economic growth, social cohesion or transition to a sustainable economy. I welcome the extension of the lifetime of the EFSI beyond 2018, but it needs to show more results and deliver better on the ground.

  Henna Virkkunen (PPE), kirjallinen. – Arvoisa puhemies, vuosi sitten perustettu ESIR-investointirahasto on lähtenyt käyntiin yllättävänkin hyvin. Ensimmäisen toimintavuoden aikana rahasto on saanut liikkeelle yli 100 miljardin euron investoinnit, joten se on tavoitevauhdissa. Investointien lisääminen Euroopassa on välttämätöntä kasvun, kilpailukyvyn ja työllisyyden edistämiseksi. Eurooppalaisia rahoitusvälineitä tarvitaan, mutta vieläkin tärkeämpää on luoda Euroopasta toimintaympäristö, joka kannustaa yrityksiä investoimaan. Säätelyä on kevennettävä ja toisaalta varmistettava se, että yrityksillä on riittävä varmuus tulevasta lainsäädäntökehikosta pitkälle tulevaisuuteen. Tämä koskee erityisesti energia- ja ympäristöpolitiikkaa, jossa on nähty aivan liian lyhytjänteistä poukkoilua. Se ei rohkaise investoimaan. Yritysystävällisempää asennetta Euroopassa tarvitaan myös suhtautumisessa uusiin liiketoimintamalleihin, joita mm. Internetin mahdollistamat mobiilipalvelut ovat tuoneet. Komission viime viikon ohjeistus jakamistaloudesta olikin hyvin tervetullut. Uusia rahoitusmahdollisuuksia kaivataan edelleen niille yrityksille, joiden tuotteet ja palvelut ovat vielä tutkimus- ja tuotekehitysvaiheessa. Euroopassa on paljon osaamista, ja sitä potentiaalia meidän olisi osattava paremmin hyödyntää. Moni eurooppalainen menestystarina odottaa vielä keksijäänsä. Tulevaisuuden kasvu on pk-yrityksissä. Niitä tulee kannustaa nyt kasvuun ja kansainvälistymiseen. EU:n 500 miljoonan asukkaan sisämarkkinat ovat jokaisen yrityksen ulottuvilla. Erityisesti pk-yritykset hyötyisivät myös Yhdysvaltain kanssa solmittavasta TTIP-sopimuksesta. Se lisäisi vientimahdollisuuksia tuntuvasti ja talouskasvua.

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE), na piśmie. – Plan inwestycyjny ma zlikwidować przeszkody w prowadzeniu inwestycji w Europie, zarówno na szczeblu krajowym, jak i europejskim. Jego zadaniem jest stworzenie przyjaznego środowiska dla małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw. Dzięki temu projektowi powstały odpowiednie instrumenty finansowe, które w pewnym stopniu zwiększyły potencjał jednolitego rynku. Co więcej pomimo widocznego bezrobocia, wysokiego deficytu, problemów strukturalnych jestem przekonany, że zostały złagodzone skutki wcześniejszej nieefektywnej polityki. Widoczny już jest pozytywny wpływ planu inwestycyjnego na funkcjonowanie niektórych instytucji, które postanowiły z niego skorzystać.

Jednak musimy być świadomi, że należy wzmocnić współpracę państw członkowskich w kwestii promowania tego projektu. My jako przedstawiciele musimy podjąć działania, które uświadamiałyby korzyści płynące z funkcjonowania Europejskiego Funduszu Inwestycji Strategicznych (EFIS). Jestem zdania, że wzrost dofinansowania przeznaczonego na projekty innowacyjne, które w rezultacie będą zwiększały konkurencję na rynku europejskim oraz światowym, jak i wspólne działanie, kooperacja państw członkowskich zwiększą zasięg i efekt działania planu Junckera, co w konsekwencji pobudzi wzrost gospodarczy, spowolniony przez globalny kryzys finansowy.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE), písemně. – Myslím, ze již rok po schválení tohoto investičního plánu zde v Evropském parlamentu se nemusíme bát říct, že je úspěšný. Je to přesně to, co Evropa potřebuje, aby po krizi překonala strach nově investovat a znovu nastartovala svoji ekonomiku. Dostupné statistiky jednoznačně ukazují, že čerpání z tohoto fondu, jak je v současné době právně nastaveno, je přínosné nejen pro jednotlivé subjekty v členských státech, ale především vykazuje velkou přidanou hodnotu EU. Za zásadní pro Evropu považuji především investice do vědy a výzkumu stejně jako do jednotného digitálního trhu, tedy do oblastí, ve kterých stále ještě zaostáváme za zbytkem světa. Jako bývalého podnikatele mě pak především těší, že na čerpání z EFSI dosáhly i malé a střední podniky, protože právě ty jsou hnací silou naší evropské ekonomiky.

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE), na piśmie. – Z pewną ulgą przyjmuję dzisiejsze oświadczenie Komisji podsumowujące dotychczasowe osiągnięcia planu inwestycyjnego w osiemnaście miesięcy po zainicjowaniu przez przewodniczącego Junckera tego planu oraz w rok po uruchomieniu Europejskiego Funduszu na rzecz Inwestycji Strategicznych (EFIS).

Wciąż jednak daleki jestem od satysfakcji, jeśli chodzi o wykorzystanie wysokiego potencjału sektora kultury i sektora kreatywnego w tworzeniu miejsc pracy, długoterminowego wzrostu i konkurencyjności w ramach planu inwestycyjnego dla Europy. Odwołując się do mojej roli sprawozdawcy opinii Komisji Kultury i Edukacji w sprawie wniosku dotyczącego rozporządzenia PE i Rady w sprawie EFIS, pragnę raz jeszcze podkreślić, że fundusz ten powinien być również ukierunkowany na projekty w sektorze kultury i sektorze kreatywnym. Sektory te odgrywają bowiem rolę katalizatora i propagatora innowacji, a ich korzystne skutki nie ograniczają się do nich samych, lecz są również odczuwalne w wielu innych sektorach gospodarki.

Tym samym zaznaczam, że ich wkład w osiąganie celów polityki unijnej jest niezaprzeczalny i liczę, że zostanie to wykorzystane w ambitnych planach KE zorientowanych na doprowadzenie do uruchomienia co najmniej 315 mld euro na dodatkowe inwestycje w gospodarkę realną do połowy 2018 r. Szczególny potencjał dla wykorzystania sektorów kultury i kreatywnego dostrzegam również w ramach dopiero co zainaugurowanego europejskiego portalu projektów inwestycyjnych oraz Europejskiego Centrum Doradztwa Inwestycyjnego.

  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D), por escrito. – O Plano de Investimento Estratégico é uma das ferramentas centrais para uma alteração das prioridades da União Europeia, reforçando o investimento, fomentando o crescimento e o emprego e dando suporte às prioridades de diferenciação competitiva, como a União Digital, a União da Energia, a Indústria 4.0 e as novas redes inteligentes.

Ao fim de um ano de aplicação, os resultados do Plano são francamente negativos, não apenas pelos recursos mobilizados, mas sobretudo pela afetação feita. O Fundo foi sobretudo aplicado como reforço de projetos que poderiam ter continuado a ser financiados por instrumentos já existentes na UE e foi canalizado não maioritariamente para os países com maiores necessidades de investimento, mas para aqueles em que as taxas de investimento já eram superiores à média europeia. Falhou, por isso, quer como alavanca de inovação, quer como promotor de coesão.

A estratégia de aplicação do Fundo de Investimento Estratégico tem de ser radicalmente alterada. Tem de incorporar mais inovação e mais capacidade de assumir riscos. Tem de financiar projetos com potencial mas que não poderiam ser financiados pelos instrumentos tradicionais e financiar projetos localizados em territórios com dificuldades de captação de financiamentos por razões externas ao mérito dos projetos.