Пълен текст 
Процедура : 2018/0178(COD)
Етапи на разглеждане в заседание
Етапи на разглеждане на документа : A8-0175/2019

Внесени текстове :


Разисквания :

PV 28/03/2019 - 6
CRE 28/03/2019 - 6

Гласувания :

PV 28/03/2019 - 8.7

Приети текстове :


Пълен протокол на разискванията
Четвъртък, 28 март 2019 г. - Страсбург Редактирана версия

6. Създаване на рамка за насърчаване на инвестициите в устойчиво развитие (разискване)
Видеозапис на изказванията

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Basa Eickhouta oraz Sirpę Pietikäinen w imieniu Komisji Gospodarczej i Monetarnej oraz Komisji Ochrony Środowiska Naturalnego, Zdrowia Publicznego i Bezpieczeństwa Żywności w sprawie wniosku dotyczącego rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie ustanowienia ram ułatwiających zrównoważone inwestycje (COM(2018)0353 - C8-0207/2018 - 2018/0178(COD)) (A8-0175/2019).


  Bas Eickhout, Rapporteur. – Mr President, my thanks to the Commission and to my colleagues for having worked on this file, for a while now, and for finally also having this moment of truth here in the plenary to get to a vote later on today. In principle, this file really is about putting the money where your mouth is. That’s basically what we’re doing with this file. I just want to remind all my colleagues who were always celebrating the Paris Agreement about how important it is that we – as Europe – are leading by example.

It is also very important where we put our money. Where are the investments going? How do we ensure that our investments become Paris-proof? We are talking about shifting trillions of euros of investments here, and if we do that in the right way, we can help the financial sector and our industry to move to a green economy, which is the future. This is also being debated. We are debating at the Council level our zero—emission economy, a climate-neutral economy. If we want to get there, we need the right incentives; we need the right investments. We also need the right definitions, and that is exactly what is at stake here today.

First of all, the taxonomy will describe and determine what a green investment is. Parliament is making some good proposals on really defining what a green investment is in order to prevent greenwashing. That is very important, because there are many green products on the market, but quite often we do not know exactly what their environmental impact is, what their green impact is. By adopting this taxonomy, we will put transparent standards on what green financing means, and that is very important to have.

Of course, there are still some amendments on the table to make very clear what, in our mind, should not be considered a green investment. I will also ask my colleagues, are you really going to accept that later on an investment in coal can still be called green? While we are discussing the phasing out of coal in every country, any investment in coal cannot be seen as a green investment. This is just simple logic, and I hope that Parliament will follow that logic.

We also have some other discussions to follow, because green investment is still a niche; it’s still a small part of the investments. The big part of the investments are not claiming to be green, but are still being done. Therefore, we deliberately opened up the discussion on defining when an activity is non—green.

There has been a lot of lobbying out there really talking a lot of nonsense, as if we were forbidding activities; as if we were not giving a chance for industry to green. What we are doing is to show for every investment what the environmental impact is. If you have a downgrading of your impact, of course that should be highlighted, just like you highlight when you have a very positive green impact. It is not forbidding; it is not blacklisting; it is just providing transparency to the market. Hopefully, that will have an impact on the market, so that our finances will go from brown investments to more green investments. That is exactly what we need if we want to be Paris-proof.

The last point that is on the table: if we talk about sustainable finance, it should not only be green, it should also be social. We are putting some proposals for minimum safeguards, but we know that it is very difficult for many people to accept. When we are talking about sustainable finance, you cannot avoid discussing what the social implications of sustainable finance are, and that too is on the table today. I am looking forward to a good discussion and, more importantly, a very good vote later today.


  Sirpa Pietikäinen, Rapporteur. – Mr President, we have EUR 30 trillion in coal—risky and environmentally—risky stranded assets. EUR 30 trillion! That is millions of millions. That means that our pensions are threatened in the longer run if change is not made. It means that our economy is at risk and threat of a crises when change is going to come. And it means that our environment is under threat because we are investing in the wrong end of the economy.

But then again, the good news is that EUR 30 trillion is a lot of money and as we have a clear indication what kind of investments are environmentally—friendly, sustainable and not causing significant harm in other fields, then we have plenty of money to turn the wheel and support environmentally—sustainable economies and investments. We need only EUR 180 billion every year to invest in combating climate change. So, we do have the money, but it is in the wrong place. The question is about transferring that money from economically and environmentally risky investments to more sustainable investments.

There, we need a harmonised indicator so we really can compare industries to industries within a sector and between sectors. We need to define – and this is what this legislation is all about – the environmental requirements and, in the future, as a backstop, the social requirements that we consider to be sustainable. What that means is that in the case of palm oil, for example, you can’t focus on one issue like climate change and say this is a good investment if it causes significant harm in other fields of the environment like biodiversity in Indonesia and orang-utans. We know this to be the case with palm oil. And you couldn’t build a solar panel unit in a nature conservation area and claim it is green. And no, I don’t think that you could produce solar panels or any other green niceties with child labour. So the reference to significant environmental harm or other harm and the backstop makes consistent sense of how we understand and define sustainability.

The financial sector is already much more advanced than setting green indicators and reporting mechanisms. For the majority of politicians in Member States – and let’s see what the figures are here, in the European Parliament – the issue is that now when we do not have a harmonised taxonomy they lose comparability, and the information they have does not have as big an impact as it should. But we, as politicians, shouldn’t perform worse than the markets are doing already. That brings us to some of the specific issues here in the file.

First, coal. Frankly, with climate change, could you really call a coal investment a green investment? Put that question to yourselves. Second question, could you really call investments that follow only basic national legislation a green investment? My interpretation is that if you do not break the law you are not a criminal, but it does not mean that your activity would be green. So yes, there need to be some better standards that normal activity to be labelled green and sold as green investments.

It is important that we get it right this time, because investors do need transparency, predictability and long-term guidance from this regulation.


  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Eickhout and Ms Pietikäinen, for taking on this file last year. I would like to thank you for your strong will and ambition, ensuring that the European Parliament could form its views quickly and effectively, which has led to this vote today.

As you know, this file has raised some heated discussions between the committees, but this is why I welcome even more a strong commitment from the European Parliament to adopt this text. It will improve the ability of the financial sector to take part in the fight against climate change. It will deepen the single market for green financial services, and it will protect EU consumers from greenwashed financial products.

You already know that in order to boost sustainable investment, we need a shared understanding of what sustainability entails. This is why creating an EU taxonomy is a cornerstone for our strategy. It fills an important gap because it establishes a common understanding of which economic activities can help reach climate and other environmental objectives.

We heard time and again at the conference on a global approach to sustainable finance last Thursday, at which high-level representatives from many countries outside the EU, including China, Japan, India, Morocco and Hong Kong, were present, that in order to scale up sustainable investment, we need to start by having a common taxonomy. The high-level representatives are looking to the EU for that.

Once complete, this taxonomy will help us develop labels for sustainable financial products or funds. It will support disclosure and reporting by financial institutions and companies on climate and environmental activities or risks and it will support standardisation, which is also necessary and called for by many jurisdictions.

For example, if asset managers and institutional investors disclose how they have used the taxonomy in the design of their green products, this will help end investors compare products on how green they are. The taxonomy will also be one of the key elements in the upcoming EU green bond standard.

Finally, since financial markets are global, the EU will promote international convergence and alignment of those crucial tools to the extent possible. In practice, the taxonomy and its applications will have many advantages for companies and investors. Companies and project promoters will be better able to raise private capital to finance their sustainable activities. European companies will have a clear standard of what qualifies as sustainable for the purposes of raising finance. Polluting sectors will be encouraged to move onto more sustainable pathways by including activities that contribute to a reduction of emissions. The taxonomy will help them attract capital to finance this transition and financial companies looking to finance sustainable projects often say that there are too few investable projects and it’s too hard to search them out. The taxonomy will clarify this and help investors identify bankable and viable green projects, and it will also protect consumers from greenwashed products by providing clarity to end investors who are interested in sustainable investment, but currently have little information about what is sold to them.

I believe that our European sustainable finance strategy can be a game changer, both for us and for other jurisdictions. By harmonising the way we classify sustainable investments, we can and will continue to be a front runner on sustainable finance globally.

We will start with climate impact and then look at sustainability more broadly with a step-by-step approach.

Honourable Members, right now we are at an historic juncture. We have one decade to mitigate the worst impact of climate change on our citizens, businesses and planet as a whole. Climate-focused policies are no longer optional but necessary, and we are refocusing our policies in this way across many sectors. So let us not miss this opportunity to ensure the financial sector is fully behind this shift and fully contributes towards a climate neutral economy.


  Ivo Belet, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, duurzaam beleggen: inderdaad heel wat banken en financiële instellingen zijn er al mee bezig en de consumenten zijn altijd op zoek naar meer milieuvriendelijke financiële producten, maar vaak zien ze tussen de bomen het bos niet meer. Daarom is dit kader dat we hier vandaag gaan goedkeuren belangrijk. De wetgeving die we nu gaan goedkeuren, creëert een duidelijk kader voor welke investeringen als duurzaam, als milieuvriendelijk, klimaatvriendelijk kunnen worden bestempeld. En dat kan enkel als we duidelijk bijdragen aan milieu- en klimaatdoelstellingen zonder tegelijkertijd schade toe te brengen.

We weten allemaal dat de komende jaren zeer grote investeringen zullen moeten worden gedaan om in een klimaatvriendelijke omgeving terecht te komen: in de staalsector, in de chemie, de cement, noem maar op. Ook in hernieuwbare energie, energie-efficiëntie. Met deze wetgeving krijgen investeringen in schone en duurzame technologie een heldere en een terechte steun in de rug. Dit is dus wel degelijk een belangrijke stap vooruit die een omwenteling in de financiële wereld op gang kan en zal brengen. U hebt, meneer de ondervoorzitter, terecht gesproken van een gamechanger. Ik denk dat dat duidelijk is. Niet alle ambities, meneer Eickhout, zitten in deze tekst, maar soms is het ook zo dat het goed is om de boot niet te vol te laden, want dat brengt soms ook ellende met zich mee. Dus een gamechanger en een belangrijke stap vooruit. Volgende stappen zullen ongetwijfeld volgen. Er is geen weg terug. Ook de financiële wereld is definitief de weg ingeslagen van een klimaatvriendelijke toekomst.


  Simona Bonafè, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, parliamo sempre più spesso di lotta al cambiamento climatico, di transizione verso un'economia circolare e di nuovi modelli di sviluppo più sostenibili ambientalmente e più inclusivi socialmente. Parliamo, appunto, ma non basta parlare.

Per passare alle azioni, servono risorse, servono investimenti: investimenti per riconvertire le nostre industrie, per accompagnare i lavoratori verso nuove competenze, per realizzare infrastrutture, come quelle sulla mobilità e quelle digitali, innovative e sostenibili. Esiste un gap europeo di investimenti in tutti questi ambiti. 180 miliardi di euro l'anno per tenere fede ai soli accordi di Parigi e puntare su energie rinnovabili ed efficienza energetica, mentre sul fronte delle infrastrutture sociali si parla di 100-150 miliardi di euro l'anno necessari. Risorse che non possono essere soddisfatte dalle sole finanze pubbliche.

Con questo regolamento possiamo orientare anche il mercato finanziario privato. Chi decide dove investire i propri soldi, che si parli del singolo cittadino o del grande investitore, deve avere informazioni attendibili e trasparenti sull'impatto ambientale e sul grado di sostenibilità delle attività economiche su cui vertono i prodotti finanziari. Cosa che oggi è quasi del tutto impossibile, a fronte della mancanza di un sistema di classificazione riconosciuto e riconoscibile in tutta Europa.

Oggi voteremo su un testo che è stato oggetto di mesi di appassionata e – devo dire anche – accesa discussione. Colleghi, io invito tutti a potenziarlo, sostenendo gli emendamenti presentati sull'ampliamento del campo di applicazione a tutti i prodotti finanziari, e non solo a quelli già green, e sulla necessità di declinare la sostenibilità in entrambe le dimensioni: quella sociale e quella ambientale. Non perdiamo l'occasione di dimostrare che questo Parlamento ha il coraggio di affrontare nuove sfide, non solo a parole, ma anche con i fatti.


  Jadwiga Wiśniewska, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Inicjatywa Komisji zmierzająca do ustalenia wspólnych zasad oceny zrównoważonych inwestycji jest oczywiście potrzebna. Konsumenci coraz chętniej sięgają po produkty o charakterze ekologicznym – żywność czy energię. Coraz bardziej interesuje ich wpływ produkcji dóbr, które kupują, na środowisko, na klimat czy też dobrostan zwierząt. Te ważne motywacje są nieraz wykorzystywane przez nieuczciwych producentów, dlatego zharmonizowane metody określania, jakie inwestycje są zrównoważone, mogą przynieść wymierne korzyści i ukrócić nieuczciwe praktyki.

Uważam jednak, że do tematu trzeba podejść z pewną rozwagą, aby te ramy określania inwestycji zrównoważonych mogły funkcjonować w praktyce. Przede wszystkim nie ma sensu określanie, które inwestycje są złe dla środowiska. Mamy w Unii Europejskiej wiele regulacji prawnych ograniczających szkodliwość środowiskową działalności gospodarczej. Jeżeli ktoś nie łamie tych zasad, nie ma podstaw do karania go. Nagradzajmy raczej dobre praktyki.

Poza tym na tym etapie nie ma sensu dodawanie oceny społecznej. Jestem jak najbardziej za sprawiedliwością społeczną i ochroną pracowników, ale na razie lepiej ograniczyć się do oceny środowiskowej, a dopiero po nabraniu doświadczenia zobaczyć, czy później będzie można ocenić wpływ na prawa pracowników. Wynik głosowania komisji ECON i ENVI stanowi wykonalne i zrównoważone rozwiązanie, unikające negatywnych elementów, które zagrażałyby pomyślnej realizacji zrównoważonych inwestycji. Zachęcam do rozwagi.


  Lieve Wierinck, namens de ALDE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, vandaag is een historische dag. Over enkele jaren kijken wij terug op deze stemming en zeggen we: dat was de dag waarop het Europees Parlement de basis voor een duurzame toekomst heeft gelegd. Dat was de dag waarop Europa het voortouw nam, en de standaard zette die de rest van de wereld vandaag nastreeft. Na meer dan een jaar onderhandelen ben ik ervan overtuigd dat er vandaag een meerderheid is voor een vooruitstrevende en evenwichtige tekst, een tekst die ons een vraag en antwoord op de vraag geeft: wat is duurzaamheid? Een antwoord dat de financiële wereld dringend nodig heeft om duurzame producten te maken. Financiële producten die binnenkort voor u, voor mij en voor elke andere Europeaan te koop zullen zijn. Natuurlijk kunnen we in de toekomst verder gaan. Ik nodig de Commissie uit om verder te onderzoeken hoe we kunnen bepalen wanneer een activiteit niet duurzaam is of concepten van sociale duurzaamheid te onderzoeken. Maar laten we beginnen met wat we vandaag hebben bereikt en dat is geen verhaal waarin we met de vinger wijzen, maar een positief verhaal, een inclusief verhaal waarin we niemand uitsluiten en elke industrie, elk bedrijf uitnodigen om de transitie te maken naar een duurzame toekomst. De toekomst van onze kinderen en kleinkinderen.


  Ernest Urtasun, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor presidente, en primer lugar, quisiera felicitar a mi compañero Eickhout por su buen trabajo. Creo que en este Reglamento nos jugamos hacer realidad las declaraciones y las resoluciones que muchas veces votamos sobre el cambio climático. Sí, mover las inversiones hacia la transición ecológica y la sostenibilidad es fundamental; como decía Eickhout, mover los billones de euros que se mueven todos los días y que hacen avanzar y funcionar nuestra economía.

Para ello, hay tres grandes objetivos: cambiar estas inversiones, moverlas hacia inversiones sostenibles; definir bien qué es y qué no es una inversión sostenible; y poner bajo estricto control climático al sector financiero.

Y para ello hay algunas cosas que debemos hacer y que son muy importantes. En primer lugar, no solo regular las inversiones que ya son sostenibles, sino abarcar al conjunto del sector financiero, que yo creo que ha sido el esfuerzo que se ha hecho con este Reglamento.

En segundo lugar, definir una lista de lo que no son inversiones sostenibles. Y coincido plenamente: no podemos incluir cuestiones como el carbón, como el gas de esquisto, como la cría intensiva de animales como inversiones sostenibles. Esto está fuera de cualquier lógica.

En tercer lugar, también, tener una definición estricta de lo que es una inversión sostenible y no permitir un cierto greenwashing o que alguien pueda ponerle el sello de inversión sostenible a algo que no lo es.

Y finalmente, cuando hablamos de inversiones sostenibles, no podemos olvidar la dimensión social, que es fundamental. Por ello, yo espero que, en la votación de hoy, también con las enmiendas presentadas, podamos tener un Reglamento ambicioso que haga realidad las promesas de lucha contra el cambio climático del Acuerdo de París, que muchas veces se expresan verbalmente en esta Cámara.


  Stefan Eck, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Zunächst möchte ich mich bei den beiden Berichterstattern für die außergewöhnlich gute Arbeit bedanken. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, gegenwärtig gibt es viel zu wenig Möglichkeiten, unsoziale und insbesondere umweltschädliche Investitionen zu verhindern, und das in einer Zeit, in der es wirklich schlecht um die Umwelt bestellt ist. Es ist daher höchste Zeit gewesen sicherzustellen, dass der Finanzsektor in die Pflicht genommen wird, mehr auf Nachhaltigkeit zu achten. Und dabei dürfen wir nicht nur auf Freiwilligkeit setzen.

Verbindliche EU-Rechtsvorschriften mit strengen und klaren Normen sind notwendig. Es ist daher dringend geboten, dass der Finanzsektor nur in Projekte und Geschäfte investiert, die eben zu keinen Schäden für die Umwelt oder für die Gesellschaft führen.

Unterstützen Sie bitte die Übernahme der EU-Indikatoren für soziale und umweltbezogene Faktoren in die bestehenden Finanzvorschriften! Das ist ein wichtiger Schritt, um zu gewährleisten, dass im Finanzsektor der Begriff Nachhaltigkeit nicht eine lapidare Floskel bleibt, sondern zukünftig ernster genommen wird.


  Auke Zijlstra, namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, vandaag bespreken we een verslag over duurzame beleggingen en een van de doelstellingen uit dat actieplan is, en ik citeer, "het heroriënteren van kapitaalstromen in de richting van duurzame beleggingen om zo duurzame en inclusieve groei te bewerkstelligen", einde citaat. Een hele mondvol om te zeggen dat de rapporteurs een tekort zien aan kapitaal voor duurzame investeringen. Dat is vreemd omdat de Europese Centrale Bank al jaren aan geldverruiming doet en de rente voor investeringen momenteel op een recordlaag niveau staat. Alles is al gedaan om de prikkel om te lenen voor investeringen te vergroten.

Dus waarom willen die investeringen dan niet ontstaan? Als we kijken naar de doelstellingen van dit beleid, van dit plan, is dat niet vreemd. Ik noem er drie: koolstofvoetafdruk, doelgroepenbeleid, sociale doelstellingen. Dat is geen investeringsprogramma. Dat is het partijprogramma van links. Waar is het rendement op investeringen? Dat is er niet. Dat worden dus fiscale maatregelen en dat worden dus subsidies. Schaarste drijft de markt. Een productieproces dat minder grondstoffen en minder energie gebruikt wint. Behalve als de overheid erin gaat zitten rommelen – jammer dat de rapporteurs dat niet geloven. Monetaire politiek heeft al tot brokken geleid, dit maakt het nog erger. Van dit programma worden we allemaal slechter.


  Peter Liese (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Finanzmärkte müssen einen Beitrag leisten, damit wir die Klimaziele erreichen. Dieser Beitrag muss auch darüber hinausgehen, dass man sich einfach nur an die bestehenden Gesetze hält. Es muss Anreize geben für Investoren, wenn Unternehmen über die bestehende Gesetzgebung hinausgehen. Und selbstverständlich müssen wir dafür sorgen, dass es kein Greenwashing gibt, dass man also nicht etwas als nachhaltig labelt, das es ist nicht wirklich ist.

Aber wir als EVP waren auch ein bischen vorsichtig jetzt zu viele Details zu regeln, denn wir möchten, dass sich dieser Markt entwickelt. Viele Finanzinvestoren achten sehr auf Nachhaltigkeit, und wenn wir es zu kompliziert machen, könnte das kontraproduktive Effekte haben, insbesondere weil ja auch sehr viele kleine Kreditinstitute dann mit dieser Gesetzgebung umgehen müssen. Deswegen haben wir uns für einen praktikablen Kompromiss eingesetzt. Ich bin sehr dankbar, dass der gemeinsame Ausschuss von ECON und ENVI ein aus unserer Sicht sehr gutes Ergebnis erzielt hat. Es würde mich freuen, wenn wir das gleich mit großer Mehrheit im Plenum beschließen. Dann haben wir einen praktikablen Weg, der die Richtung vorgibt, der aber wichtige, gute Ideen nicht im Keim erstickt.


  Elena Gentile (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ritengo questa premessa politica utile alla comprensione e dunque alla condivisione, non solo dei passaggi squisitamente regolamentari, dell'argomento che oggi ci appassiona e del quale discutiamo. Una visione politica d'insieme che il regolamento, con le puntualizzazioni contenute, potrà offrire ai cittadini europei, al sistema di impresa, a quella larga parte dell'opinione pubblica che percepiamo vicina all'idea che la bussola dello sviluppo debba essere sostenibile e, quindi, anche inclusiva.

Sullo sfondo, la lettura di quello che è stato il lavoro di questi anni. La parola d'ordine: rigenerare i luoghi della vita in uso al capitale umano, dentro la rinnovata attenzione alla sostenibilità, per contrastare ogni forma di insulto all'ecosistema e alla salute delle persone, per affermare l'idea che la povertà va contrastata, appunto, con scelte di visione.

Ci sembra dunque necessario connettere tra di loro le più importanti scelte politiche di questi anni: la visione di un'Europa più giusta, più equa, che contrasti le diseguaglianze, più attenta alla salute dei cittadini e dei lavoratori, che cresce rispettosa dell'ambiente e dei diritti sociali. Appunto, l'Europa dei diritti e delle pari opportunità.

Ecco perché per noi è importante cominciare sin da ora a piantare saldamente le radici per una tassonomia sociale. Penso che tra gli indicatori maggiormente rilevanti debba esserci l'esclusione dall'ambito degli investimenti delle attività incentrate sulla generazione di energia da combustibili fossili.

Dunque, c'è una nuova consapevolezza in campo tra i cittadini, nel sistema d'impresa e tra i lavoratori. Questo è il tempo di una nuova responsabilità sociale della filiera della produzione e della finanza, altrettanto eticamente responsabile. C'è un cambiamento culturale in atto: va incoraggiato e sostenuto.


  Ralph Packet (ECR). – Voorzitter, de Groenen en de socialisten willen dat we hopen geld in Europa pompen om het te redden van de klimaatondergang en ze weten al heel goed waar ze dat geld gaan halen: bij de belastingbetaler, uit jullie zakken. Nog meer overheidsuitgaven, nog meer belastingen, voor ons is dat geen optie. We willen wel keihard inzetten op duurzame energie, we willen keihard inzetten op natuur, op de strijd tegen vervuiling, maar wij gaan dat doen op een veel efficiëntere manier. De energietransitie en de ecologische transitie zullen voor het grootste deel privaat gefinancierd moeten worden en daarom beginnen wij hier, bij de privésector, door aan beleggers en investeerders duidelijk te maken, door duidelijk te definiëren wat ecologisch duurzaam echt betekent, zodat ze daar bewust voor kunnen kiezen. Zo begeleiden we miljarden naar een groene economie. Want wat een groen label krijgt, moet ook echt groen zijn. Geen green washing, daar zorgen we hier voor. Het is een goede eerste stap in de groene richting, voor een bewuste en duurzame belegger en investeerder.


  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – Voorzitter, in de zo belangrijke transitie naar een duurzame economie heeft natuurlijk de financiële sector de sleutel in handen. Want elke investering, hoe groot en klein ook, beïnvloedt de snelheid van die transitie positief en ook negatief. Om die reden is deze taxonomie zo belangrijk, want het bepaalt wanneer financiële producten ook echt duurzaam genoemd mogen worden. Maar we moeten natuurlijk verder gaan. Die ambities moeten echt omhoog. Wij mogen niet zwelgen in tevredenheid als 5, 10 of 15 % van de investeringen duurzaam is. Want als dat het geval is, hebben we nog altijd 95, 90, 85 % van de investeringen die niet duurzaam zijn. Dat is in mijn ogen dweilen met de kraan open.

Daarom vind ik ook dat de Europese Commissie naast de groene taxonomie ook werk moet maken van die bruine taxonomie. De Commissie, de Raad en zeker ook het conservatieve deel van dit Parlement moeten zich realiseren dat wij alleen Parijs kunnen halen, dat wij de doelen van een circulaire economie en al die andere duurzame doelstellingen die we onszelf zetten, alleen maar kunnen bereiken als wij de financiële sector weten te verduurzamen. Dat is het doel en daarom verwacht ik van de Europese Commissie in de toekomst ook echt veel meer ambitie op dit terrein.


  Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, this report gives us an opportunity to define what is sustainable economic activity and what is not, and to consider the interaction between environmental goals and social protections. The attempts that we’ve heard here today by the right-wing groups in this House to limit the scope of this proposal and to limit its effect in shifting finance away from fossil fuels is shameful.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report of last October was the starkest message yet of the impending climate catastrophe. The scientific consensus is that we have until 2030 to act to make rapid and far—reaching transitions in all areas of our economies if we are to limit global warming to 1.5° – that’s just 11 years away. Changing finance is one of the fastest and most effective ways to achieve this.

The opposition that we’ve heard in this House to climate action is actually about protecting the profits of corporations and financial institutions above our future, and everyone knows it. The millions of schoolchildren who have been striking from school to march on the streets across Europe and around the world know it. They demand real action – not tokenism, not carbon taxes – real action, such as a 100% renewable energy by 2030. You call them idealistic, but actually they are the ones who are being realistic. We can’t compromise or negotiate with the laws of physics or chemistry. We can’t buy time, and there’ll be no profits for your corporate friends on a dead planet.


  Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice- président de la Commission, chers collègues, face à l’urgence climatique et afin de mettre en œuvre les accords de Paris, il est indispensable d’encourager le développement de la finance verte. Les besoins dans ce domaine sont exponentiels.

Nous avons un rapport d’Oxfam qui dit que les grandes banques françaises n’ont pas tenu leurs engagements pris dans le cadre de la COP 21. Il est temps de mettre la finance au service de la transition énergétique car elle constitue l’avenir de notre industrie. Cependant, il faut rester pragmatique et c’est pour cela que je ne souhaite pas que nous ayons une liste négative d’activités, qui serait par principe exclue du champ des investissements durables, parce qu’on peut prévoir aussi des investissements pour des améliorations de technologies existantes. De la même façon, orienter ces investissements uniquement vers les énergies renouvelables au détriment d’autres sources d’énergie à basses émissions de carbone serait une erreur. Revenir sur la neutralité technologique de notre texte reviendrait à hypothéquer l’avenir.

Souvenons-nous que le mieux est souvent l’ennemi du bien. Je défends une vision plus ouverte de ce que pourrait être un investissement durable car une vision trop restrictive, trop idéaliste conduirait en réalité à limiter fortement la labellisation de ces investissements.


  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, si nous voulons être cohérents dans la transition écologique, ce dossier est absolument essentiel, car la meilleure manière d’aller vers la transition écologique, c’est d’orienter les investissements. C’est l’outil le plus efficace pour garantir cette transition écologique.

Or, ce que je constate, c’est qu’au pied du mur, trop souvent, ici et ailleurs, certains conservateurs et certains lobbies font de grandes déclarations en faveur de cette transition écologique et, lorsqu’il faut vraiment mettre en œuvre des outils concrets, ils reculent devant l’obstacle.

C’est pour cette raison que nous sommes déçus du résultat obtenu à l’issue des travaux de la commission de l’environnement et de la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires. Aussi, nous vous demandons de vous mobiliser pour corriger le tir et pour que, à travers le vote de cette plénière, nous puissions rétablir l’idée de catégories d’activités ayant une incidence négative importante pour l’environnement et rétablir l’idée que des aides aux combustibles fossiles solides ne sont pas possibles. Il n’y aura pas de transition écologique sans dimension sociale! Dans le cas contraire, la rue se retournera contre son bien commun. Cela ne peut pas être le message de cette assemblée.


  Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, no habrá finanzas sostenibles sin compromiso con la justicia social y sin el control democrático de las inversiones.

El informe del grupo de expertos aconsejó un enfoque global sobre las finanzas sostenibles que hacía referencia a la necesidad de criterios medioambientales, sociales y de gobernanza. La lucha contra la exclusión y la mejora de la calidad democrática en todos los ámbitos son una exigencia en la batalla del siglo: hacer que nuestro planeta siga siendo sostenible.

En España el 70 % de la población se ve afectada por el cambio climático y el avance de la desertificación es el mayor desafío al que nos enfrentamos. La palabra que describe la situación en todo el planeta es emergencia. Tenemos apenas unos años para revertir esta tendencia suicida. Por eso las finanzas deben dejar de ser un estímulo para la destrucción del planeta. Si falta la ambición solo tendremos palabras que ofrecer. Y nuestros jóvenes, la sociedad, nos exigen hechos.


  Dariusz Rosati (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Omawiamy dziś ważne sprawozdanie w sprawie ustanowienia ram ułatwiających finansowanie zrównoważonych inwestycji gospodarczych w Unii Europejskiej. Komisja Europejska przygotowała kryteria pozwalające ustalić, czy dana inwestycja przyczynia się do transformacji gospodarki europejskiej na rzecz realizacji celów środowiskowych i klimatycznych. Naszym zadaniem jest ambitna walka ze zmianą klimatu, dlatego popieram propozycję Komisji Europejskiej.

Jednocześnie jednak uważam, że podejście do zrównoważonego finansowania musi być realistyczne i opierać się na neutralności technologicznej. Zmniejszanie emisji gazów cieplarnianych powinno iść w parze z zachowaniem konkurencyjności europejskiego przemysłu. Powinniśmy brać pod uwagę jak najszerszy wachlarz technologii, które wspierają walkę z ociepleniem klimatycznym.

Niestety, propozycja przedłożona przez sprawozdawców grozi wyeliminowaniem całego szeregu inwestycji, których celem jest zmniejszenie emisji CO2. Arbitralne wykluczenie niektórych technologii doprowadzi do sytuacji, w której zrównoważone finansowanie będzie dotyczyło bardzo wąskiej grupy inwestycji i nie wywoła efektu skali. Nie możemy poprzeć rozwiązań, które a priori i w sposób administracyjny wyłączają całe sektory przemysłu z dostępu do zrównoważonego finansowania.

Uważam, że naszym zadaniem jest stworzyć zachęty i mobilizować przemysł do niskoemisyjnej działalności, a nie go karać. Stygmatyzowanie i karanie całych sektorów nie jest potrzebne. Kryteria wyboru zrównoważonych inwestycji muszą być obiektywne, proporcjonalne i oparte na badaniach naukowych, w tym rynkowych. Dlatego apeluję do wszystkich kolegów o przyjęcie sprawozdania w takim kształcie, w jakim zostało przegłosowane podczas posiedzenia połączonych komisji ECON i ENVI.


  Paul Tang (S&D). – Mr President, this should be an important file, if the criteria set out in an initiative report on sustainable finance by this Parliament are met. Firstly, it needs to be broad in scope. It should apply to all financial products, not just to a small niche of green products. We need mainstreaming. If Europe cannot bring the financial sector in line with the Paris Agreement, who can?

Second, we need a broad view. Sustainability is not about being green: it should also include tax compliance, human rights, and – speaking as a Social Democrat – a social dimension, so that the financial sector serves us and not the other way around. A law that lays down green standards for green products is, in a sense, not effective and is no progress. Amendment 87 on the scope, and Amendment 91 on the social dimension, are therefore key.


  Markus Ferber (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und liebe Kollegen! Die Taxonomie hätte eigentlich als erstes Dossier das Sustainable-Finance-Pakets sein müssen. Schließlich müssen wir erst mal wissen, worüber wir reden, bevor wir uns dann über weitere Details unterhalten. Aber wir haben mittlerweile ja schon Offenlegungspflichten und nachhaltige Benchmarks verabschiedet. Wir zäumen also das Pferd ein bisschen von hinten auf.

Dass wir die Taxonomie erst als Letztes dieser drei Dossiers behandeln, ist mehr als unglücklich. Umso wichtiger ist es aber, dass das Taxonomie-Dossier gut wird und dass es gelingt. Wir haben im Ausschuss mit knapper Mehrheit eine Position gefunden, die angemessen und vernünftig ist. Andernfalls wird der Wandel zu mehr Nachhaltigkeit im Finanzwesen nicht gelingen.

Am Markt gibt es natürlich Appetit für klare europäische Vorgaben und für Produkte. Aber es kann nicht unsere Aufgabe sein, nur Labeling zu machen, sondern es muss sich wirklich um nachhaltige Finanzprodukte handeln.

Es kann aber auch nicht dazu führen, dass wir zum kompletten Umbau unseres Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftssystems kommen. Finanzinstrumente sind nicht dazu da, die Gesellschaft umzubauen, sondern die Gesellschaft hat sich um die Finanzinstrumente zu kümmern, dann wird das Ganze richtig. Wenn wir das nach dem Motto machen: „Unsere Ziele können wir nirgends durchsetzen, dann machen wir es halt beim Finanzsystem“, wird das nicht erfolgreich sein.

Deswegen bin ich für eine klare Taxonomie, einen klaren Fokus auf Nachhaltigkeit, keine Wirtschaftsbereiche grundsätzlich ausschließen und Freiwilligkeit. Dann wird es auch vom Markt und auch von den Kunden akzeptiert.


Zgłoszenia z sali


  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, congratulo a Sirpa e o Bas pelo excelente trabalho desenvolvido neste dossier. Harmonizar o investimento sustentável é trazer mais transparência e maior competitividade ao investimento dentro da União e não ficar sujeito a vinte e oito sistemas diferentes que só contribuem para fragmentar o mercado e para as assimetrias na Europa.

Combater as alterações climáticas vai-nos custar dinheiro. Conseguir fazer com que a nuvem económica se desloque para poder regar as zonas verdes implica que assumamos na plenitude as diretrizes ecológicas em que a Europa está a apostar.

Se estamos orientados para descarbonizar a economia só podemos considerar atividades económicas sustentáveis aquelas que não contribuem para efeitos de dependência do carbono, nem produzem resíduos não renováveis ou prejudiciais ao ambiente.

Queremos criar um ambiente favorável ao investimento verde e, por isso, a informação aos investidores tem que ser transparente em todos os negócios para que lhes seja possível exercer as suas preferências com toda a consciência e comprometimento que isso acarreta e é importante que se saiba quando estão a investir em negócios castanhos para que se lhes possa exigir as devidas responsabilidades.

Caros Colegas, temos que ter a coragem de saber divergir quando a nossa consciência assim o dita.


  Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, it is long overdue that environmental concerns take precedence over purely business—driven interests. Governments can no longer gamble with the future generation’s survival. Prosperity in the 21st century must go hand in hand with sustainability.

I therefore urge this Parliament to take an ambitious stance for a genuine alignment between investment, sustainability and social impact. We must collectively operate structural changes regarding the legal standards that our businesses must uphold. We cannot satisfy ourselves with merely cosmetic measures. We must, first and foremost, provide support to the many initiatives aimed at alternative and sustainable business models, such as cooperatives. We must support, politically and financially, initiatives aimed at linking economy with human rights, workers’ rights, social justice, equity and sustainability, because that provides the way forward to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In that respect, I want to applaud the work of the civil society network, SDG Watch, who are scrutinising our work and will call out any backpedalling.


  Paul Rübig (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Ich glaube, dass dieses Dossier gerade für die nächsten Jahre von besonderer Bedeutung ist, wenn wir nehmen, dass die Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung ja auch eine globale Ausrichtung haben. So ist es ganz zentral, dass wir die Ziele Nr. 2, 6 und 7, nämlich nachhaltige Ernährung, Sanitärmaßnahmen, Wasser, Abwasser, aber auch erneuerbare Energien, in den Mittelpunkt stellen, dass wir schauen, dass vor allem die kleinen und mittleren Betriebe in dieser nachhaltigen Investitionskultur Anreize vorfinden, dass sie auch dementsprechend investieren, und dass wir natürlich auch gerade für die kleinen und mittleren Betriebe neue Jobs in diesen Bereichen schaffen, dass wir die Arbeit wieder nach Europa zurückholen. Für gut bezahlte, neue Aktivitäten ist es sinnvoll diesen Ansatz zu unterstützen. Und ich freue mich, dass das damit möglich wird.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, este un regulament extrem de important, dar, datorită faptului că este foarte important, Comisia are o sarcină foarte grea. În primul rând, trebuie să stabiliți acele criterii și trebuie să fim atenți cum stabilim. Foarte multă transparență și extrem de bine definit. Ce înseamnă durabilitate? Evident că investiții durabile trebuie să țină cont de cerințele de mediu, de cerințele sociale, de protejarea resurselor.

În același timp, nu trebuie să blocheze - așa cum mai spuneau aici colegii - dezvoltarea IMM-urilor. Trebuie să vedem în ce context național, cum putem în anumite zone îndepărtate să nu avem același efect ca la Fondul european pentru investiții strategice, care s-a definit ca fiind un fond care vrea să dezvolte coeziune și să dezvolte zonele mai sărace și acum constatăm că s-au concentrat fondurile în cinci state membre.

Deci este extrem de important Comisia ce face cu aceste criterii. Evident că trebuie urmărite și - așa cum prevede și regulamentul - să faceți un raport prin care să arătați efectele acestui regulament, însă sunt îngrijorată, pentru că sunt anumite puncte în acest regulament care duc la blocarea investițiilor în anumite sectoare.


(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to congratulate once again the co-rapporteurs for their work and dedication, and the shadow rapporteurs for their support in the negotiating of this file. I do hope that this Assembly will adopt this ambitious and balanced report, which will provide an excellent basis for further work among the co-legislators. I truly believe that this will be a key step towards making the financial sector work for the planet and for European citizens.


  Bas Eickhout, Rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank all my colleagues for this good debate. Maybe the only point to make is that some colleagues said ‘well, it’s good what you’re doing, but don’t go too fast’. This is a very peculiar reasoning, because we signed the Paris Agreement and we need to be climate-neutral before 2050.

We need investments in achieving that, and those investments are being made today. If we do not get our taxonomy right, we do not give the right signals to the market to shift the trillions from non-sustainable investments to sustainable investments. That needs to be done today. That is what we are talking about, and that is what is so crucial about the votes we are going to have. This is not about rocking a boat; this is about our future economy. Do we want the green jobs in our economy or not?

Other regions are moving; we should do the same. As the Commissioner said, the taxonomy that we are putting in place here today will be a global standard. The rest of the world is watching us, so we need to get this right and we need to get this right today. That is why I plead once more with my Conservative colleagues to really look at a couple of these amendments, where we are making it very clear that when you look at investments, you should not only look at the green niche of the investment. You should look at the broader spectrum of the investments, and they all should go towards greening of our economy.

As soon as an investment delivers on its sustainability performance, it will get a positive signal, and that is what this is about. This is not about forbidding activities; this is about steering the activities towards a green economy so that we can achieve the zero-emission, climate-neutral economy, which will provide the additional amount of jobs that the Commission showed in its analysis. That is what is at stake today. That is worth rocking a boat, ladies and gentlemen!


  Sirpa Pietikäinen, Rapporteur. – Mr President, the financial sector and investors are all on board already. They are willing to move, and they are willing to change the investment structure transparently so that it is more sustainable. Let us give them the right tools.

You all know that the time span of the investment from the decision to invest on something, up to the building construction and up to the use, is tens of years. The worst thing we can do is give the wrong signal to investors – for example, ‘please let’s invest in coal and old—fashioned technologies, and label it as green’. We cannot go back to them after five to ten years, like it is with the 2030 targets on climate reduction, and say ‘look, we got it wrong, now we are changing the rules of the game once again’, and after five or ten years go back and say ‘look, actually, palm oil was a huge mistake, you shouldn’t invest in it’ – because the money and investment is already there.

This means that we have to bear our responsibility. We have to set that kind of a taxonomy that takes other aspects other than just climate on board, that gives the right incentives and guidance for investors and that is reliable from the investment perspective for the upcoming 30 years. We owe this to investors, to our pensioners, and to future generations.


  Przewodniczący. – Debata została zamknięta.

Głosowanie: pkt 8.7 protokołu z dnia 28.3.2019.

(Posiedzenie zostało zawieszone o godz. 11.41 w oczekiwaniu na głosowanie.)



Последно осъвременяване: 8 юли 2019 г.Правна информация - Политика за поверителност