The Confindustria Vice-President for supply chains and medium-sized enterprises, Maurizio Marchesini, intervened in hearing on the DDL converting into law DL 2 March 2024, no. 19, containing further urgent provisions for the implementation of the PNRR in the Budget and Treasury Commission of the Chamber of Deputies.

In recent days, the government presented the fourth progress report on the PNRR. One of the most important data in that document concerns the level of resources deployed so far: at the end of 2023, Italy had spent EUR 45.6 billion, compared to EUR 101.9 billion received. Compared to the total of 194.4 billion, which includes new resources REPowerEU151.4 remain to be spent. The report also shows that the use of the resources have so far been incentives to private individuals (almost 27 billion) more than public investments (around 16 billion).

This is significant evidence, which we read from at least two angles.

On the one hand, they confirm the need to accelerate the implementation phase so as to use, by 2026, all the EUR 194.4 billion allocated to Italy. We have a little more than two years and we have to consider that, as a result of remodulation, we have shifted 18 billion of the previous programming forward in the period 2024-2026.

But above all, this is an opportunity that we cannot miss. We would do enormous damage to the country, not least because not using these resources would mean condemning us to zero point growth for the next few years. On top of that, we would thwart any ambition to build a common fiscal capacity, which is necessary to cope with transitions and put Europe in a position to compete with the US and China.

In this context, the measures introduced by the Decree are on the whole positive, precisely because they are geared, on the one hand, to supporting and relaunching private investment in the twin transition and, on the other, to speeding up and making the implementation of the NRP more transparent.

Starting with the investment chapter, the one we believe has the greatest impact on the economy, the establishment of the Plan transition 5.0 is a crucial measure for companies.

Going into the merits of the measure, the 5.0 Plan is consistent with the main indications provided by Confindustria in the constant dialogue it has had with MIMIT in recent months, i.e. defining a certain framework for access to subsidies; strengthening the link between digitalisation and sustainability; and supporting the adaptation of skills.

On resources, against a Budget manoeuvre 2024 lacking on the investment side, 5.0 makes EUR 6.3 billion available to companies, in addition to the remaining EUR 6.4 billion for the continuation of Plan 4.0 until 2025, already allocated in the 2021 Budget Law.

Also positive is the involvement of the GSE (Gestore dei Servizi Energetici), which becomes the reference for access to the facility, as well as for certain forms of control.

At the same time, it should be noted that the operativity of 5.0 is not immediate, but passes through an implementing decree, which is indispensable to make the new measures concrete and whose gestation will not be easy. In view of this step, we would like to highlight a few points of attention as of now, which need to be reflected upon, given also the relevance of the measure in terms of the NRP.

We refer mainly to three profiles: 1) the tight implementation timeframe; 2) the limitations envisaged for certain categories of companies, which carry out activities considered contrary to the DNSH (Do Not Significant Harm) environmental principle; 3) the prohibition of cumulation with the facilities envisaged in the so-called Single SEZ.

 1. The first point concerns the implementation time of 5.0: in fact, we will have less than two years to realise the investments. This implies that, in the coming months, there may be some bottlenecks on the supply side, i.e. the inability of suppliers to complete concentrated orders in a tight timeframe.

2. A second point of attention concerns the limitations envisaged for certain categories of companies, which carry out activities considered contrary to the principle of not causing significant damage to the environment (DNSH). As far as ETS sectors are concerned, we point out that the rule would exclude numerous companies (more than 1,000) in the production of paper, ceramics, steel, non-ferrous metals, glass, cast iron, cement, various chemical products, hydrogen, etc., which represent strategic sectors for the country, as they are at the basis of industrial supply chains and condition its competitiveness. Therefore, companies belonging to these sectors should be included in the 5.0 perimeter in order to support them, through energy efficiency and investments in renewable sources, in the path of reducing emissions, with benefits that would be transmitted downstream to all production chains. Therefore, considering that the implementing decree will also have to indicate the exceptions to the investments that cannot be subsidised, we hope for a constructive dialogue with the government to circumscribe the perimeter of the exclusions at that time.

3. A third point of attention concerns the South, since 5.0 cannot be combined with the concessions - yet to be implemented - provided for in the so-called ZES Unica. It is hard to understand the reasons for this prohibition (without prejudice to overcompensation), if one only considers that 5.0 contains general and not selective measures. Moreover, the DL substantially reduces the refinancing of development contracts, which are much used precisely in the regions of the Mezzogiorno; the overall picture that emerges may not, therefore, be favourable to relaunching investment and reducing the gaps in that area of the country.

In conclusion, some further thoughts on 5.0.

First of all, to reaffirm the centrality of this instrument. Europe has set binding transition targets, so it is essential to accompany companies along this path, based on the criterion of technological neutrality and favouring the evolution of production processes and the raising of digitisation and organisational innovation rates. These are all objectives consistent with the new measure, all the more so if the points of attention we have highlighted are taken into account.

And in this regard, we emphasise the urgency of defining the contents of the implementing decree and thus providing companies, in a timeframe compatible with their investment strategies, with the necessary clarifications on the various open points. Coordination between the various institutional players involved, i.e. MIMIT, the Inland Revenue Agency, and the GSE, will be needed on this from the outset; furthermore, our hope is that a steering committee will be set up with the companies to ensure a broad and continuous comparison over time on the implementation of the facilitation.