6 Amendments of Isabelle THOMAS related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that the scoreboard is supposed to be used by the Investment Committee (IC) to ensure an independent and transparent assessment of the potential and actual use of the EU guarantee and to prioritise projects; calls for Parliament to be able to check that the scoreboard and its indicators are being properly consulted, applied and used; requests that the project selection criteria be properly applied and this process be made more transparent; recalls that the IC must assign equal importance to each pillar of the scoreboard when prioritising projects, irrespective of whether the individual pillar yields a numerical score, or whether it is composed of unscored qualitative and quantitative indicators; criticises the fact that the EIB itself admits that the IC’s experts only make use of the 4th pillar for information purposes, not for decision- making;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that the scoreboard is supposed tomust be used by the Investment Committee (IC) to ensure an independent and transparent assessment of the potential and actual use of the EU guarantee and to prioritise projects; requests that the project selection criteria be properly applied and this process be made more transparent; recalls that the IC must assign equal importance to each pillar of the scoreboard when prioritising projects, irrespective of whether the individual pillar yields a numerical score, or whether it is composed of unscored qualitative and quantitative indicators; criticises the fact that the EIB itself admits that the IC’s experts only make use of the 4th pillar for information purposes, not for decision-making;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers it important to discuss whether the envisaged leverage of 15 is appropriate to enable EFSI to support high quality projects bearing a higher risk; calls on the Commission to present a study exploring the various ways in which a weaker leverage effect could have a bearing on the selection of high-risk projects; invites the EIB to weigh up complementing the volume requirement with secondary goals to be achieved;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes with concern that small projects are deterred from applying for EFSI financing based on their sizePoints out that small projects often encounter difficulties in obtaining the funding they need; notes with concern that small projects are deterred from applying for EFSI financing, or are even declared ineligible for that funding, based on their size; points out that small projects do not reach the threshold for EFSI funding; stresses the need to step up the technical assistance available to these projects from the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) and to enlist the European Investment Bank and national development institutions and banks to support them; points to the significant impact that a small project might nevertheless have on a national or regional scale; believes that the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) is instrumental in advising and accompanying promoters of small-scale projects in the structuring and bundling of projects via investment platforms or framework agreements; calls on the Steering Board to look into this issue and put forward proposals to correct this situation;
Amendment 342 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Notes that awareness of overlaps and competition between EFSI and financial instruments of the EU budget on the part of the Commission and the EIB has led to the adoption of guidelines recommending the combination of EFSI and ESI financing; stresses that this combination of funding should mainly involve EFSI funding and ESIF financial instruments, and only to very limited extents, if at all, involve ESIF grants; points, however, to persistent differences in the eligibility criteria, regulations, timeframe for reporting and the application of state aid rules, which hinder combined usage; welcomes the fact that the Commission has begun to address these in its proposal for a revision of the Financial Regulation; believes that further efforts are required and that the second and third pillars of the investment plan are key to this end;