Giorgio CHIARION CASONI

What Giorgio CHIARION CASONI has said (5)

• “For the time being, the assessment leads to a positive assessment. We are still within the provisioning that we set out at the beginning, 35%. Just anecdotally, the revenues so far by far exceed the losses experienced. So we are talking about 1.8 billion of revenues and 600 million of losses. Obviously, things will change, losses will come. So I'm not promising the Parliament that that Efsi will be revenue generating. But just to say at this, at this point in time, revenues exceed losses. But and that's why there are flows that have been generated in FC and that that go back to the budget and now allowed. And one of the proposals of the Commission was to make these flows, uh, accessible for increasing the guarantee under Investeu. And this is currently being scrutinised by the Parliament under the legislative process on the lessons learned from the next MFF, we have done two evaluation of EFC. We have done one evaluation of Investeu that was published in September 2024 and we are currently preparing for the next MFF. So all of that and we take into account not only the experience under FC Investeu, but also, as the honourable member said before the experience under the European Innovation Council Fund and also what happens to us, we would like also to see what happens with other with other programs, because what has been a bit more complicated so far has been the possibility of blending, for example, loans under Investeu and grants under, I don't know, the innovation fund and sometimes they finance the same projects or and to try because there is a need to de-risk private financing and to bring up the, the, the, the overall investment in these areas.”
  Own EU resources · Size of EU budget
• “Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, and also, as I said before, on the on the on the recommendations made by the court, we we mostly accept or partially accept them the way a couple of points on the on the geographical distribution under invest you because this is one area where where we have a currently monitoring the situation. And actually I've been looking this morning at the figures and today and the in terms of ratio between the investment mobilized and the GDP of the country, which is probably a better figure than the absolute amount of investment mobilized nowadays. The the main the main country that is benefiting us at the end of 24 is Portugal, followed by Romania. And most of the smaller countries are actually and the highest, let's say in relative terms beneficiary. So there is a distribution. And this is also thanks to the to two things. One is the fact that there are not only national promotional banks, but also a certain new implementing partners like the Ebrd that are more active in, in, in, in cohesion countries and also the use of the member state compartment that that is that is higher in, in in in cohesion regions.”
  European Banking Union · Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you very much also to the court for the for the report that we welcome and for the excellent, excellent cooperation during the work. We are also supportive, in fact, of the report of the court in their analysis that contributed substantially to addressing investment gaps, and also that the that the Efsi support was relevant in several aspects, as also referred by the court before. So it has allowed the mobilisation of private resources to a great extent. And and it has been a successful instrument supporting approximately 1 million companies in Europe, in particular SMEs. And the court made six recommendations. We either accepted or partially accepted all, if not one, recommendation and the partial acceptance is basically due to the fact that there were some recommendations leading for the next generation of program of programs, and where we cannot now prejudge the design and nor the Colegislators take on these products. But in general, we all welcome the recommendation made by the court, maybe a few points on the on the on the methodology. So the the question on mobilisation of of resources, because we applied the methodology that was agreed by the FCC board and also that is in line also with the new and current financial regulation. So in this respect, we believe that, for example, I'm referring to the main source of of, let's say, a disconnection between our calculations and the calculation referred by the court concerning 77 million of overstatement, according to the court, due to the fact that the funds have not reached the final.”
  EU industrial funding (mechanism level: EU-pooled vs nationally-financed) · EU Financial Regulation 2024/2509 (budgetary rulebook): beneficiary transparency vs operational discretion
• “So that's why we we transparently reported in that in the article 41 five report to the budgetary authority that this is included in blended instrument. But we couldn't disentangle and and as the that that explains a bit the difference of of estimations and other minor points. And I think we also took good note of the of the court. Remarks on the question of cancellations, which indeed may happen. This is normally in the financial world and and we have adapted our, our reporting system. And also in terms of when it comes, I think the court also recognised that there was a good monitoring of key parameters, especially on the financial side. That was very, very, very, let's say orthodox and and to the point, the, the when it comes to operational reporting. Also, we accepted the recommendations made by the court to, to, to to improve our, our scrutinising and procedures in order to, to get a more checklist and so on to check the the reports made by the, by the implementing partners. So with that I would like to to to close and thank the Parliament and the and the court for the good work done. Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Discharge of EU institutions and agencies · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “So if we are currently developing the methodology, also in cooperation with colleagues of the AIB group, and we will we will try to address this, this, this point. Another point, just to make clear that we have always well, first, we have always reported fully correctly, both in budgetary terms and operational terms and very transparently in the article 41.5 reports and in the annual reports of Efsi and and in line with the, with the with the reporting methodology that was requested, as already explained, we are trying to further improve the such reporting under under investigation by also targeting the mobilized investment at the level of disbursements. Nevertheless, there is a limit in data collection points that we can have under for thousands and millions of of SMEs. And and if we want the data collection to be excessive, then it impacts on the simplification exercise, as the honourable member said before. So there is a trade off to be made on that. So we cannot we cannot uh, let's see, let's say we have an excessive reporting on that, on the, on the question of, of in budgetary terms, a couple of points every year we assess the adequacy of the provisioning under Efsi, like we do it under Investeu or other programmes of the Commission.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Discharge of EU institutions and agencies