PARLAMENTO EUROPEU
2014 - 2019
Comissão do Controlo Orçamental
15.1.2015
DOCUMENTO DE TRABALHO
sobre o Relatório Especial n.º 16/2014 do Tribunal de Contas (Quitação 2013)
intitulado "Eficácia da combinação de subvenções das facilidades de
investimento regionais com empréstimos concedidos pelas instituições
financeiras para apoiar as políticas externas da UE"
Comissão do Controlo Orçamental
Relator de parecer: Igor Šoltes
DT\1046078PT.doc
PT
PE541.429v02-00
Unida na diversidade
PT
Introduction
Blending mechanisms combine loans from financial institutions with grants that may take
various forms like direct-investment grants, interest-rate subsidies, technical assistance and
loan-guarantee schemes. Blending gives grant donors the possibility of leveraging their
external cooperation funds by mobilising loans from financial institutions, in particular to
address sub-optimal investment situations that do not attract sufficient funding from market
sources mainly due to their insufficient profitability, excessive risk profiles and location in
indebted countries.
It also allows them to have an impact on the formulation of policies and/or on the way
projects are set up and managed. Furthermore, blending loans and grants can promote
cooperation between stakeholders in development aid especially through partnership with
European financial institutions while enhancing transparency, economies of scale, and the
visibility of aid as well as reduction of transaction costs.
Since 2007, the Commission and the Member States have accelerated the use of blending and
set up eight regional investment facilities that cover the Commission’s entire sphere of
external cooperation. Over the 2007-13 period, the EU allocated 2.106 million euro to such
facilities with a disbursement of 1.205 million euro by the Commission by end 2013.
Development-finance institutions identify projects and apply for grants, which are approved
by executive bodies of the regional investment facilities comprising the Commission, Member
States and other donors. 387 projects were approved by these executive bodies for which the
grants amounted 2.346 million euro, the latter being accompanied by loans totalling 22.152
million euro indicating a zero rate default so far.
If the main projects are public investment sectors, there is predominance for the sector
transport and energy which receive most funding (55%) among the various investment
facilities from the main financial institutions1.
It should be noted that the Commission launched the EU Platform for Blending in External
Cooperation in December 2012 to improve the quality and efficiency of regional investment
facilities, this process of examination is still on-going.
The Court assessed the effectiveness of blending the regional investment facility grants with
loans from financial institutions to support EU external policies by focusing on the following
two questions:
 Have the regional investment facilities been set up and managed well?
 Did the use of blending yield the intended benefits?
This audit, which was the first by the Court in this particular area, was carried out between
May and December 2013 and looked at how the regional investment facilities had performed
since their creation. The Court focused its audit on the EU financial allocations and the role of
the Commission. The audit work consisted of an analytical review, interviews with
Commission staff, a survey of 40 EU delegations (22 of which replied), visits to the four main
1
The four main financial institutions involved in the regional investment facilities from the outset are the EIB,
the EBRD, the Agence française de développement (AFD) and the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW).
PE541.429v02-00
PT
2/9
DT\1046078PT.doc
financial institutions and a detailed examination of a sample of 30 grants awarded to projects
(i.e.15 projects that received grants from the EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund (ITF) and
15 projects that had received grants under the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF), these
two regional investment facilities represent more than 70 % of the grants approved by the
regional investment facilities by the end of 2013). Because of their particular characteristics,
the audit also included an examination of eight projects relating to the creation of
sub-facilities for financing actions with the involvement of local financial institutions.
Court's Findings and Observations
 Have the regional investment facilities been set up and managed well?
The Court assessed whether the regional investment facilities, the procedural framework and
the procedure for assessing grants applications and their implementation and the monitoring
of projects have been set up in an appropriate manner.
The Court found that that the Member States and the Commission have ensured that the eight
regional investment facilities were properly set up and were now firmly established. The
objectives and priority sectors of all the regional investment facilities were aligned with
global EU policy objectives. In addition, the new financial regulation has introduced new
rules on blending which also have positively impacted their regulatory framework and further
improvement regarding this framework was still ongoing with the upcoming adoption of
practical guidelines for the management of these investment facilities.
The Court then stated that both suitable projects were identified enabling sufficient grant
applications to be done in order for the funds allocated to be committed accordingly to the
planned timeframe and that the selected projects were relevant to the development needs of
the regions and countries at stake.
Nevertheless, the Court pointed out that the level of information provided by the financial
institutions before granting approval remained too general to facilitate the decision-making
process by the executive bodies of the regional investment facilities as quantified data were
missing on loan conditions, concessionality and viability. Furthermore, the Court’
examination stressed that the added value of providing a grant was not adequately formulated,
structured or quantified. The Court considered that the Commission has improved its reviews
of grants application over time but there was still room of improvement as regards the level of
information provided in the grant application form. For the project’ review, it was noted that
significant information related to the concessionality, debt sustainability, the grant amount
and viability were still to be improved. Moreover, the definition of criteria for economic
viability of projects and the formulation of guidance to select which type of development
investments should be funded by either grants, loans or a blend of two were lacking. It is also
to be noted that the involvement of the EU delegations should be extended in the phase of the
projects selection.
Beside the selection of projects for grants assistance, the Court also reviewed the selection of
grant type1 and amount. Even though the grant types selected were relevant for the added
1
The most common types of grants are direct-investments grants, interest rates subsidies, technical assistance or
DT\1046078PT.doc
3/9
PE541.429v02-00
PT
value they intended to achieve, a few shortcomings, once grants were approved, have been
nonetheless identified by the Court in the Commission’s management such as (i) the respect
of the minimum concessionality level of 35% requested by the IMF1 as the Commission and
the financial institutions were not able to provide to the Court evidence showing that the
concessionality level was not higher than needed by the IMF and (ii) unnecessarily high
advance disbursements which were transferred before being really needed by beneficiaries
and remaining by large unused for long periods of time contrary to the principles of sound
financial management.
When sub-facilities were used2, the Court’s review showed that the award criteria for subloans and their related eligible activities were vague or too broad as there was no mention of
sectors and priorities concerned with a risk not to be in fine in line with EU priorities.
Concerning the overall Commission’s monitoring of implementation of grants, the Court
found it was in practice varied and in the remit of several stakeholders i.e. the secretariats of
the regional investment facilities for the financial monitoring of the facilities, the EU
delegations which are differently involved in the identification phase of projects and the
financial institutions for which the contractual arrangements for the disclosure of information
were unclear. A dedicated performance monitoring for blending activities was still a limited
practice so far but under examination and currently being structured by the Commission’s
services. Nevertheless, the existing Results Oriented Monitoring system allows selecting
blended projects for assessment looking at the five criteria of relevance, efficiency,
effectiveness, potential impact and likely sustainability. Focus on the added value of the
grants was considered as a missing assessment criteria.
 Did the use of blending yield the intended benefits?
The second Court' audit objective was to evaluate whether the intended benefits of blending
grants and loans have been fully achieved so far.
The Court first analysed whether the need for a grant to enable the loan to be contracted was
demonstrated. The sample of projects carried out by the Court showed that projects financed
by regional investment facilities also attracted other funding from non-European financial
institutions and from beneficiaries. It also revealed that the justification for awarding grants
for blending with loans was clear in certain cases, especially where concessionality criteria
had to be met. However, in other cases, in fact in about 50 % of the projects examined this
necessity of awarding a grant was not evident, the EU grant not being a determining factor in
the achievement of the financing package.
Blended finance offers the grant donor to being involved in the decision-making process in
loan guarantee schemes.
1
The IMF requires that for heavily indebted countries, only contract loans with terms that are substantially more
favorable than loans at market conditions. Such loans are referred to as concessional loans. For heavily indebted
partner counties, the IMF requires the concessionality level to be at least 35%.
2
In some cases, the regional investment facilities allocate funds to different facilities or fund , these ‘subfacilities’ being in charge of sub-actions which involve local financial partners such as, among the eight
reviewed by the Court, the Africa Energy Guarantee Fund (EIB) or the SME Finance Facility (EBRD).
PE541.429v02-00
PT
4/9
DT\1046078PT.doc
particular in the definition of policies as well as in the management of projects. On the basis
of its sample of 30 projects, the Court estimated that the Commission did not fully capitalise
on the potential for a positive influence or impact on the way projects were set up or for a
wider impact on sector policy.
On the positive side, the Court found that regional investment facilities have fostered
coordination between development partners through a framework wherein financial
institutions could discuss their investment plans and also eased the funding of large projects
by combining different sources of funds. The Mutual Reliance Initiative bringing together
AFD, EIB and KfW also contributed to enhance effectiveness in co-financing development
projects with the main advantage of reducing transaction costs for beneficiaries.
The Court finally stated that the visibility of EU support has been rather limited so far
although the Commission started to address the situation by requesting to financial institutions
to define communication policy to improve the visibility of EU grants in blended projects.
The Commission welcomed this special report as well as the recommendations that will
further enhance the management of the blending facilities, an innovative approach to
development cooperation financing. The Commission acknowledged that investment needs in
EU partner countries were substantial and that Government and donor funds were far from
being sufficient to cover these needs. Attract additional public and private was essential in this
context, blending being recognised as an important vehicle for leveraging additional resources
and increasing the impact of EU aid. By bridging financing gaps in investment projects, the
EU grant often enabled projects as a whole and can mobilise more additional financing than
loans from financial institutions.
The Commission recalled the division of responsibilities namely its role for the set-up of the
facilities whereas the management of the projects was carried out in partnership. The
Commission administered the facilities and the development finance institutions were
responsible for the daily management of the projects (the implementation of the budget tasks
has been entrusted to them in compliance with the rules of the indirect management mode laid
down in the Financial Regulation).
The approval process was considered thorough by the Commission as all relevant
stakeholders were adequately involved and the consultation process was adapted to the
projects' specificities. Sufficient information was available during the decision-making
process.
On the issue of the added value, the Commission pointed out that it was assured in all cases.
Projects were submitted to the competent Operational Board only when all the project
components have been clarified and its added value was apparent. The Commission also
specified that the arrangements for advance disbursements were being reviewed in the new
contract templates for financial instruments.
As regards intended benefits, the Commission has devised this set-up taking full account of
the potential benefits of the facilities and considered that its management has been adequate.
DT\1046078PT.doc
5/9
PE541.429v02-00
PT
The Commission specified that the realisation of the potential benefits should take into
account the nature of the grants (e.g. technical assistance) and the results of the
implementation of the projects and estimated that justification for the financing was clear in
all cases. Likewise, the Commission believed that in all cases the priorities of the facilities
have been aligned to EU sector policies for each of the regions. However, the Commission
will look into ways for the achievement of a wider impact on sector policy as well as for
enhancing visibility of EU support.
Recomendações do relator a incluir eventualmente no relatório anual de quitação à
Comissão:
[O Parlamento Europeu]
1. Acolhe favoravelmente o relatório especial dedicado à avaliação da eficácia da
combinação de subvenções das facilidades de investimento regionais com empréstimos
concedidos pelas autoridades financeiras para apoiar as políticas externas da UE e formula
as suas observações e recomendações, como seguidamente expostas;
Observações gerais
2. Incentiva o Tribunal a aprofundar tais atividades de auditoria neste domínio emergente da
cooperação, a fim de prestar regularmente aos decisores políticos uma avaliação
abrangente das questões e riscos em causa;
3. Considera que o interesse crescente pela combinação e as oportunidades proporcionadas
pela utilização de novas facilidades financeiras de investimento é principalmente
motivado pela combinação de importantes desafios em matéria de desenvolvimento com
as sérias limitações de fundos públicos que, portanto, levam ao desenvolvimento de novos
recursos financeiros que combinam subvenções da UE à ajuda com outros recursos que
não as subvenções;
4. Considera que, combinando subvenções com recursos públicos e privados adicionais
(como empréstimos e participações), é possível conseguir um efeito de alavancagem e um
impacto substanciais e políticas mais fortes da UE a favor do desenvolvimento para
desbloquear o financiamento adicional;
5. Salienta que quaisquer novos instrumentos financeiros e combinações têm de permanecer
conformes com os objetivos das políticas de desenvolvimento da UE baseados nos
critérios da Ajuda Pública ao Desenvolvimento (APD) e estabelecidos na Agenda para a
Mudança, i. e., melhorar a qualidade, a eficácia, a sustentabilidade e a rapidez de
implementação das intervenções da UE; considera que tais instrumentos devem centrar-se
sobre prioridades da UE em que o valor acrescentado, económico e não económico, e o
impacto são maiores, e considera igualmente que têm de ser estrategicamente utilizados
em setores onde o apoio financeiro da UE for crucial para a vitalidade do investimento a
combinação possa ser mais utilmente aplicada; lamenta, portanto, que o relatório incida
principalmente sobre os aspetos financeiros da combinação de subvenções das facilidades
de investimento regionais, enquanto que a sua eficácia e eficiência não foram
suficientemente avaliadas;
PE541.429v02-00
PT
6/9
DT\1046078PT.doc
6. Solicita que, como princípio central constante, se evite o risco de incentivos financeiros
que superem os princípios do desenvolvimento (há objetivos financeiros que podem
prevalecer sobre as preocupações de desenvolvimento), e que sejam respeitados os
princípios do desenvolvimento sustentável, como sejam as normas sociais e ambientais e o
acesso a bens públicos de base;
7. Toma nota dos resultados da avaliação da Plataforma de Financiamento Combinado da
UE para a Cooperação externa, com o objetivo inicial de aumentar a eficácia, a
efetividade e a qualidade dos mecanismos e facilidades de investimento regionais, tendo
em conta que a harmonização dos princípios fundamentais, válidos para todas as
facilidades regionais e instrumentos financeiros, será de importância capital para o novo
QFP; solicita à Comissão e ao SEAE que, em conformidade com os resultados da revisão
pós-eleitoral doQFP, prossigam um diálogo estruturado/estratégico sobre a questão,
nomeadamente sobre a forma como a transparência e a responsabilidade pela prestação de
contas devem ser constantemente asseguradas e reforçadas;
8. Recorda que, durante a fase de planeamento, a Comissão deve centrar-se sobre objectivos
sustentáveis, de longo prazo, económicos, sociais e ambientais em domínios onde o
investimento deverá ser implementado;
9. Solicita que, como princípio central, os fundos europeus se concentrem em projetos que
não seriam realizados sem o dinheiro da UE, como os que têm baixa rendibilidade mas
podem resultar numa melhoria nos domínios social, ambiental e dos direitos humanos;
10. Solicita que, como princípio de base, se proceda à monitorização e acompanhamento dos
resultados e dos efeitos a médio/longo prazo dos projetos realizados nos domínios social,
ambiental e dos direitos humanos; considera que as conclusões de tais avaliações de
acompanhamento sejam diretamente utilizadas para informar sobre a consecução dos
objetivos de longo prazo e melhorar a fase de planeamento/seleção de projetos para futuro
financiamento;
11. Solicita que o papel político da Comissão Europeia seja reforçado enquanto órgão
politicamente responsável neste domínio;
12. Solicita a introdução de normas comuns de governação de tais atividades financeiras,
assim como a determinação das melhores práticas e de critérios de elegibilidade e de
avaliação bem definidos para a utilização desses instrumentos financeiros; considera que a
existência de regras coerentes de gestão, como o relato estruturado, e de quadros de
monitorização e condições de supervisão claros ajudarão a reduzir os custos de transação
ou possíveis duplicações de custos;
13. Considera indispensável conceber estruturas adequadas de governação das diversas
facilidades para incentivar a apropriação destes instrumentos pelos países beneficiários, os
beneficiários propriamente ditos e as partes interessadas; recorda que o desenvolvimento
de ajuda pública combinada e canalizada através de facilidades requer uma cooperação
bem estruturada da Comissão Europeia e o SEAE com o BEI, os Estados-Membros e o
Parlamento; solicita uma associação reforçada das delegações da UE ao processo de
DT\1046078PT.doc
7/9
PE541.429v02-00
PT
decisão, nomeadamente na fase de identificação dos projetos, através de contributos para a
avaliação ex ante ou avaliações de impacto e, em termos mais gerais, para assegurar o
peso da UE no diálogo político com os países parceiros e também enquanto interfaces
relativamente à sociedade civil local;
14. Insiste sobre a necessidade de conseguir um elevado nível de transparência e
responsabilização através do acesso a informação orçamental exaustiva e sólida, bem
como aos dados financeiros relativos aos projetos financiados por estas facilidades de
investimento; solicita, a fim de permitir o exercício dos poderes de controlo do
Parlamento, que este último seja regularmente informado sobre a utilização dos referidos
instrumentos e os respetivos resultados, nomeadamente sobre a avaliação da alavancagem
e adicionalidade financeira e não financeira, recordando entretanto a necessidade de
cumprir as disposições do artigo 140.º do Regulamento Financeiro;
15. Apoia as recomendações do Tribunal, como primeiro passo na boa direção, no que diz
respeito à eficácia da combinação de subvenções das facilidades de investimento regionais
com empréstimos concedidos pelas instituições financeiras para apoiar as políticas
externas da UE;
Recomendações do Tribunal
Após 7 anos de experiência com as facilidades de investimento regionais, a Comissão procura
melhorar a sua estrutura e funcionamento, por exemplo, elaborando orientações e participando
na Plataforma de Financiamento Combinado da UE para a Cooperação Externa. Nesse
processo, o Tribunal insta a Comissão a ter em conta as seguintes recomendações.
16. A Comissão deverá garantir que as subvenções da UE sejam atribuídas com base numa
avaliação documentada do valor acrescentado que estas produzem em termos de
concretização dos objetivos da UE em matéria de desenvolvimento, vizinhança e
alargamento. Para tal, deve:
a) garantir que sejam adotadas e executadas orientações adequadas para direcionar a
participação da Comissão em todas as fases do processo de aprovação e acompanhamento;
b) ter um papel mais ativo, em especial ao nível das delegações da UE, na identificação e
seleção dos projetos;
c) garantir que os pedidos de subvenção apresentados aos comités executivos para
aprovação final digam respeito apenas a projetos avançados e contenham informações
exaustivas. Mais especificamente, os pedidos de subvenções devem indicar em pormenor
a necessidade das subvenções e o respetivo valor acrescentado, bem como esclarecer de
que forma foram definidos os montantes;
d) encurtar a duração média do processo de aprovação, revendo a necessidade sistemática
de aprovações provisórias.
17. Considera que a Comissão deverá desembolsar os fundos apenas quando estes forem
efetivamente necessários para o beneficiário.
PE541.429v02-00
PT
8/9
DT\1046078PT.doc
18. Considera que a Comissão deverá melhorar o seu acompanhamento da execução das
subvenções da UE. Para tal, deve:
a) aplicar um quadro de medição dos resultados que inclua indicadores de
acompanhamento do impacto das subvenções da UE;
b) fornecer instruções claras às delegações da UE relativamente ao papel destas no
acompanhamento do apoio da UE aos projetos objeto de financiamento combinado;
c) incluir o Fundo Fiduciário UE-África para as Infraestruturas (ITF) no processo de
acompanhamento orientado para resultados (AOR) e adaptar a metodologia AOR às
características específicas das combinações.
19. Considera que a Comissão deverá aumentar os seus esforços no sentido de garantir que o
financiamento da UE recebe a visibilidade adequada, definindo requisitos claros nessa
matéria para as instituições financeiras e exigindo que as delegações da UE estejam
envolvidas nas ações de visibilidade.
DT\1046078PT.doc
9/9
PE541.429v02-00
PT