14 Amendments of Merja KYLLÖNEN related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Notes with concern the Opinion 2/2016 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 1316/2013 and 2015/1017 adopted by the European Court of Auditors on 11 November 20161a, concluding that at this stage there is little evidential base for proposing an extension and increase of EFSI, namely because: (i) the proposal for the extension is launched without a comprehensive impact assessment and too soon for the economic, social and environmental impacts to be measured and to enable a conclusion whether EFSI is achieving its objectives; (ii) it does not respect the better regulation principles; (iii) there is a clear risk of exaggerating the achieved results and impacts; (iv) there is a risk of creating incentives to use unnecessarily complex financing structures or to allocate a risk profile that does not correspond to the real risk of the operation; (v) there is a recognized need to act on geographical imbalances and sectorial concentration; (vi) there is a recognized need for increasing the transparency and clarity both in the EFSI governance and in the selection of EFSI operations; _________________ 1aOpinion pursuant to Article 287(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The full text of the Opinion is available in the European Court of Auditors website: http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocIt em.aspx?did=39677
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a. Believes that it is a matter of legislative responsibility not to carry forward a Proposal for a Regulation that does not have enough evidential base and has received such an overall negative assessment by the European Court of Auditors;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 b (new)
Paragraph -1 b (new)
-1 b. Considers that the serious risks and weaknesses pointed out by the European Court of Auditors must be taken into account and deeply regrets that, when proposing to extend and increase the EFSI Funds without clear evidence of its pertinence, its achieved results and its potential impacts, the Commission has incurred in an example of bad regulation;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 c (new)
Paragraph -1 c (new)
-1 c. Calls on the Commission to withdraw the proposal on the extension of the duration of EFSI and properly take into consideration the findings of the European Court of Auditors, including the need of a comprehensive and cross- sectorial assessment of the EFSI economic, social, environmental and geographical impacts before carrying on any new legislative action;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 d (new)
Paragraph -1 d (new)
-1 d. Asks the Commission to take also into account the remarks made by the European Parliament in the present implementation report when making the assessment and drafting the new legislative proposal;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 e (new)
Paragraph -1 e (new)
-1 e. Expresses doubts about the final added value of creating unnecessarily complex financing instruments and structures and requiring many financial intermediates that inevitably absorb part of the available funding; calls on the Commission to properly assess this cost, explore alternative policy options and only deliver a new proposal for the extension of EFSI if such an added value can be objectively proved, taking into account the current context of limited financial resources;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the establishment of the EFSI bodies and the transparent selection procedure for members of their governance structureNotes that there is an urgent and important need for increasing transparency and clarity both in the EFSI governance structure and in the selection of EFSI operations;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Deplores that the current definitions of "additionality" and "risk" are mostly focused on financial aspects and believes that these definitions need to be reviewed for better reflecting the overall goal of supporting investments that are fully consistent with cross-sector Union policy priorities, namely high quality employment, resource efficiency, climate change adaptation, emissions reduction, sustainable infrastructures and research & innovation;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Specifically calls on the Commission to introduce a mandatory climate action compatibility check applying to every operation prior to its approval;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Recalls that the results for the scoreboard assessment of both approved and rejected operations shall be made public on a transparent and accessible way and on a regular basis;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses doubts about the additionality of some of the first transport projects selected as they could most probably have been financed without the EFSI;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Recalls that transport sector is not only a major greenhouse gas emitter but also the fastest growing sector in energy consumption since 1990; believes that in order to meet international commitments and Union targets, it is crucial to ensure that transport operations funded under the EFSI are clearly aligned towards shifting to sustainable transport modes, improving the energy-efficiency and reducing the high carbon-dependency of the sector; therefore stresses that the EFSI support to airport and motorways infrastructure must be minimized and always accompanied by the investments necessary to mitigate its negative environmental impact; on the other hand, stresses that attention must be paid to the proper maintenance of the comprehensive transport network and to strategic small investments with a high social and territorial added value;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the promising start toAcknowledges that, in view of the extremely high sector and geographical concentration of investments so far, the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) must improve its overall performance; calls on the EIAH to increase its presence in countries in which the EFSI has had difficulties taking hold and where there is a lack of administrative capacity to submit viable projects, in particular in cohesion countries; calls on the EIAH, furthermore, to provide specific advice in order to help specific transport projects wherever there is high risk aversion or the risk is fragmented among investors (such as cross border/multinational projects, long term/revenue infrastructure projects);
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Deplores the lack of data available on the total amount of the signed operations under ‘SME Window’ of the EFSI and related investments, especially with regard to the transport supply chain, in aeronautics and in the railway sector, and the fact that this makes the verification of projects, results, success stories and benchmarks difficult; Recalls that the SMEs are not a sector, so the fact of supporting SMEs must be treated as a key added value to other concurrent specific sector and Union policy requirements;