Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-11-Speech-4-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101111.4.4-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you see before you a very happy rapporteur, because I think that we – and I very much emphasise the
have produced a report that will hopefully soon be adopted almost unanimously, as all political groups in Parliament have worked intensively on it and in close cooperation.
The report and the regulations it addresses have a lengthy history in this House. It had its origins, specifically, in the recovery plan launched in 2009 in the wake of the economic crisis. At the time, EUR 4 billion was freed up at European level, and these funds were earmarked specifically for economic recovery. The objective was that that money should also finance energy projects in particular: large-scale energy projects, devoted to carbon capture and storage, to infrastructure, and to a number of large offshore wind energy projects.
At that time, Parliament having of course approved these projects, there were quite a few objections from various quarters and from Parliament itself, especially vis-à-vis the large-scale nature of the undertaking and the question of whether this or that project would create enough jobs. However, the most important criticism regarded energy efficiency. This was followed by a political agreement and the current situation is the result of that agreement.
You would think that if Parliament, the Council and the Commission reach a political agreement about investing all surpluses in energy efficiency, that the report and the negotiations would be easy. That was not the case. We have been through some difficult negotiations, especially with the Council. However, I can say that we – and we did have to reach a compromise, let us be clear about that – were able to score a home run on most of the points. I would like to run through them briefly because they are crucial to a proper understanding of the current situation concerning the funds and how they should be implemented in the very near future.
First of all, this is about renewable energy projects but, in particular, those which focus on energy efficiency. That, Commissioner, is what lies at the heart of the energy debate these days. I am very much in favour of renewable energy, but we know that, if we want really rapid results, we have to invest all our efforts in energy efficiency: it is a good solution if you want to reduce consumption; it helps alleviate the major problem of energy supply and – a very important point – it ensures lower energy costs for our companies and families. That is incredibly important. We are also working on industrial policy and we will definitely get back to you on that.
Secondly, and this is very much linked to energy efficiency, the local level. Very often, Europe works almost exclusively with national Member States, and even the previous recovery plan focused primarily on major projects. Well, this one could not be more different. It focuses on the local level, on cities and municipalities, on small-scale projects which can be implemented immediately, delivering immediate results, and which can thereby have a major impact, not just on energy efficiency but also on jobs. That remains a very important consideration.
Thirdly, funding. The previous major recovery plan consisted of what we call upfront funding; simply subsidising major projects, whether by means of cofinancing or not, because that is specific to Europe. It is the typical way in which Europe works. However, that is not the case with this fund and, for that reason, it is very innovative. The way resources are used here is by providing support in order to get those projects funded through guarantees and other financial means. With the exception of technical assistance, which is still funded through upfront funding, this means that you will have major leveraging. You need to multiply those EUR 146 million by approximately eight in order to get an idea of what the impact could be.
I have now come to my last point, over which we have squabbled for a long time: the cap on money; that is, the money that is available to us. Parliament would have liked to see a different solution; which, indeed, was what we had agreed, let us be clear about that. Any remaining funds had to be invested in this project. We have reached a compromise: all the funds that are left over today have been registered and I firmly believe that this will mean that this project will be assured a long life – and I think that, if we carry on working together as we have done, we will also be able to ensure that it becomes incredibly successful for us.
Just one more second, Madam President. I know I have run out of time. I would once again like to expressly thank everyone who has worked on this, in particular, all the shadow rapporteurs. I was particularly pleased with our cooperation, and I am not saying that out of politeness, but simply because it was an example of very fine and effective cooperation. Thank you."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples