Activities of Marco VALLI related to 2016/2064(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Implementation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (debate) IT
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments PDF (647 KB) DOC (149 KB)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the implementation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments
Amendments (37)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Investment Plan for Europe iwas conceived as part of a broader strategy aimed at reversing the negative trend observed in public and private investment by mobilising new and private financial liquidity to be injected into the real economy with a view to fostering long- term strategic and sustainable investments across the Union;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the EFSI has failed to tackle the problem of the investment gap in the EU, as the problem of the lack of investment arises from a serious lack of aggregate demand and from the impact of austerity policies; whereas the investment gap in research and development, energy, ICT, education, industry, transport and logistics, water and waste amounts to EUR 655 billion in the EU;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas it is necessary to effect a radical change in the way that investments are approached in Europe, addressing the real causes of the crisis and revising the economic governance framework so as to give a permanent boost to productive investments able to generate added value for the real economy and for society in all European countries;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas the current problem with investment arises from a serious crisis of aggregate demand, which can be tackled only by means of a genuine and massive productive public investment plan which can fund projects particularly in the sectors of R&D, innovation, education and public services;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the EFSI ishas not proved to be a significant tool for contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion as well as supporting job opportunities, namely by providing solid support to SMEs;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas it is important that the EFSIthe EFSI has not so far providesd appropriate contributions in order to adequately respond to market needs and successfully attract significant private sector capital;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the European Court of Auditors has published an opinion which found that 'European Commission plans to increase and extend the investment fund at the heart of the "Juncker Plan" were drawn up too soon and with little evidence that the increase is justified' and whereas the Court of Auditors has also stated that 'the Proposal was launched without a comprehensive impact assessment' and criticised 'the deletion of the provision linking the continuation of EFSI to the results of an independent evaluation';
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas the Court also emphasised ‘the risk that the multiplier effect is overstated’, and that the objectives and results cited were those expected and not ones confirmed by tangible, accurate, clear and immediate statistics;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the EFSI aims atwas conceived as a way of leveraging through the EIB a total of EUR 315 billion in extra investment and new projects in the real economy by 2018;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Laments the fact that EFSI has been unable to tackle the investment gap in Europe; stresses that the problems surrounding investment stem from a deep- seated crisis in aggregate demand and from the effects of austerity policies; believes it necessary to implement a productive public investment plan that can be used in particular to finance projects in the fields of research and development, innovation, education and training, renewable energy and public services;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Deplores the fact that the EFSI increases the risk of a privatisation of profits and a socialisation of losses at the expense of society; stresses that the use of public-private partnerships (PPP) often entails an unbalanced distribution, for the public coffers, of the financial risks and costs associated with high-risk private investment, which is to the detriment of the taxpayer, as public money is being used to co-finance private returns and cover any losses on investments; notes that PPP projects should not be viewed as additional simply because of the financial mechanism used;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that more transparency and publicity on the criteria of major EFSI projects are required in order to increase the trust and attractiveness of markets for the EFSI as an efficientfor ex ante and ex post assessments used for the funding of major EFSI projects are required in order to assess their effectiveness as a funding tool;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Deplores the almost total lack of information and disaggregated statistical data on the projects financed thus far, in particular with regard to the expected impact, benefits and additionality of each individual project; calls on the EIB to publish all available information about, and findings of, impact assessments for operations carried out within the framework of the EFSI; calls furthermore on the EIB to provide a detailed explanation of the added value and additionality of each project financed and of how each one contributes to the achievement of EFSI objectives and the fundamental long-term strategies and objectives of the EU;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that the objective of the EFSI, unlike other current EIB financing instruments, ishould have been to identify distinct, truly additional and innovative and riskier project profiles along with new counterparts from the private sector, as well as to highlight the potential of the EFSI to fund high technology enterprises and future-looking sectors, which should behave been at the core of the funding programme; deplores the fact that no such additionality has so far been identified;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that the considerable EFSI support being provided for energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy projects has been made possible only by cutting ordinary EIB investment in those sectors by an equal amount, thus suggesting that the majority of EFSI loans have not complied with the principle of additionality; takes the view that EFSI- funded loans should be additional to ordinary EIB investment;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Believes it necessary to conduct a thorough independent impact assessment on the results achieved by the EFSI in order to gauge the real economic, social and environmental impact and additionality of the projects financed, as well as the actual capacity of the Fund to achieve the stated objectives; also stresses that it would be worthwhile to improve the calibration of the various assessment criteria for the Scoreboard and considers it important to set minimum thresholds for each of the four criteria on the basis of their importance; considers it vital to monitor more precisely and using clearer and more transparent procedures that use of the EU guarantee is in line with the EFSI admissibility criteria, the additionality requirement and its strategic long-term objectives;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Deplores the fact that EFSI increases the risk of a privatisation of profits and a socialisation of losses at the expense of society; stresses that the use of public-private partnerships (PPP) often entails an imbalanced distribution, for the public coffers, of the financial risks and costs associated with high-risk private investment, which is to the detriment of the taxpayer as public money is being used to co-finance private returns and cover any losses on investments; notes that PPP projects should not be viewed as additional simply because of the financial mechanism used;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Deplores the lack of access afforded by the EIB to information on EFSI; laments the fact that EFSI is based on an opaque governance structure lacking in transparency and accountability; Notes that the Chairperson of the Steering Board has resigned and has been replaced; Deplores the fact that the European Parliament was not notified of this;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the EIB to simplify the application process and stresses the need to strengthen the visibility of, interest in and awareness about the EFSI, especially for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in the Member States;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Deplores the fact that the initial EFSI results show there to be insufficient sectoral and geographical spread, owing to sub-optimal allocation of resources; notes that funding has been allocated for projects with high environmental impact and dubious additionality;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Asks that complete and relevant qualitative management information be provided on the implementation of the EFSI’s stated objectives, showing their effective additionality and impact compared with benchmarks, but also with a view to extension of the EFSI beyond 2017;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Deplores the fact that the EFSI has concentrated mainly on the transport and energy sectors, which altogether have been the beneficiaries of more than 60% of the total number of projects, to the detriment of other key sectors relating to research, development and innovation, human capital and the environment and energy efficiency, which in total account for under 20% of the projects approved; deplores the fact that the list of projects chosen to receive funding under the EFSI includes infrastructure installations with high environmental impact, such as bio- refineries, steelworks, gas reclassification and storage facilities and motorways; calls on the EIB, with reference to the precautionary principle, to withdraw funding wherever there is any suspicion of environmental infringements and damage to society or to local communities;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Asks the EIB to disclose full information on how projects receiving the EFSI guarantee scored when measured against the EFSI scoreboard of indicators and related criteria and weightings, including, inter alia, their contribution to the EFSI objectives, additionality, economic and technical viability and the maximisation of private investment;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Believes that transparency and tax provisions should be increased and reinforced, in particular as regards the provision on tax avoidance and on the funding of companies based in non- cooperative jurisdictions;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Laments the fact that the EFSI is based on an opaque governance structure lacking in transparency and accountability; recalls in this context that the Chair of the Steering Board has resigned and been replaced without the European Parliament's having been informed of the fact;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls urgently on the Commission, in cooperation with the EIB, to draw up an inventory of all EU-backed EIB financing falling under the additionality criteria, and calls on the Commission and EIB to present that inventory before the European Parliament;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Deplores the almost total lack of information and disaggregated statistical data on the projects financed thus far, in particular with regard to the expected impact, benefits and additionality of each individual project; calls on the EIB to publish all available information about, and findings of, impact assessments for operations carried out within the framework of EFSI; calls on the EIB to provide a detailed explanation of the added value and additionality of each project financed and of how each one contributes to the achievement of EFSI objectives and the fundamental long-term strategies and objectives of the EU;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Notes that the considerable EFSI support being provided for energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy projects has been made possible only by cutting ordinary EIB investment in those sectors by an equal amount, thus suggesting that the majority of EFSI loans have not complied with the principle of additionality; takes the view that EFSI- funded loans should be additional to ordinary EIB investment;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Recommends that the additionality parameter be incorporated into the project approval criteria in order to ensure the genuine added value of the operations financed and an efficient use of resources; recommends also that constant internal and external monitoring and communication be performed of additionality in the project portfolio in order to increase transparency;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Notes the slowness of the decision- making procedure. Recommends that the Commission closely monitor and carefully review the procedures involved and look into new methods that will enable these to be simplified;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Believes it necessary to conduct a thorough independent impact assessment on the results achieved by EFSI to gauge the real economic, social and environmental impact and additionality of the projects financed, as well as the actual capacity of the Fund to achieve the stated objectives; also stresses that it would be worthwhile improving the calibration of the various assessment criteria for the Scoreboard and considers it important to set minimum thresholds for each of the four criteria on the basis of their importance; considers it vital to monitor more precisely, and using clearer and more transparent procedures, that use of the EU guarantee complies with EFSI’s admissibility criteria, the additionality requirement and its strategic long-term objectives;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Notes that in order to increase transparency, the results of the Scoreboard evaluation must be published as soon as an operation backed with an EU guarantee is approved by the EIB’s Investment Committee and Management Board;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Notes that 60% of EFSI projects are concentrated mainly in the transport and energy sectors to the detriment of other key sectors relating to research, development and innovation, human capital and the environment and energy efficiency, which in total account for under 20% of the projects approved; deplores the fact that the list of projects chosen to receive funding under EFSI includes infrastructure installations with high environmental impact, such as bio- refineries, steelworks, gas reclassification and storage facilities and motorways; calls on the EIB, with reference to the precautionary principle, to withdraw funding wherever there is any suspicion of environmental infringements and damage to society or to local communities;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Deplores the fact that EFSI provides significant support to new fossil- fuel-based infrastructure projects; laments the fact that up to 2016, EUR 1.8 billion in EFSI funding had been granted for gas reclassification and storage facilities, representing 26% of the overall loans granted to the energy sector; calls once again on the EIB to consider seriously the possibility of gradually withdrawing loans for projects involving the production of non-renewable energy; given the EU’s long-term climate-change objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050, EFSI should serve as a model financial instrument and exclude loans for fossil-fuel-based projects;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17c. Deplores the fact that two thirds of the financial support granted by the EIB to the transport sector under EFSI has been concentrated in high CO2-emitting infrastructure projects, in particular motorways and airports; calls on the EIB not to finance infrastructure projects that are incompatible with the EU’s basic long-term objectives on climate change and energy as set out in the European Strategy for low emission mobility of July 2016;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Condemns the complete lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the Commission and the EIB; calls on the EIB to raise awareness of EFSI by introducing a formal ‘feedback procedure’ to assess the effectiveness of EFSI, involving all the parties concerned (European Parliament, EU public, stakeholders, national promotional banks, investment platforms, project sponsors, etc.);
Amendment 374 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Acknowledges that EFSI alone - and on a limited scale- will probably not be able to close the investment gap in Europe, but that it nevertheless constitutes a central pillar of the EU’s investment plan and signals the EU’s determination to tackle this issue; calls for further proposals to be made on how to permanently boost investment in Europe; is not the ideal instrument with which to address the aggregate demand crisis and the effects of the recession and that it will therefore not be able to close the investment gap in Europe; highlights the concerns expressed by the European Court of Auditors in Opinion No 2/2016 as regards the limited impact of EFSI; calls therefore for a radical change in the way that investments are approached in Europe and for the real causes of the crisis to be addressed by bringing forward proposals on the revisions of the economic governance framework that are needed to give a permanent boost to productive investments able to generate added value for the real economy and for society in all EU countries; stresses in this connection the urgent need to remove the existing budget-related constraints that are paralysing public investments and enable Member States in difficulty to make autonomous use of all the necessary economic policy instruments to counteract the recession and social disintegration, in order to put Europe firmly back on the path of economic recovery and well-being for all citizens;