19 Amendments of Marco ZANNI related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the large investment gap in Europe, which the Commission estimates at a minimum of EUR 200-300 billion a year; highlights in particular, against this backdrop, the market needs in Europe for high-risk financing, for instance in the fields of R&D, energy and ICT; is concerned by the fact that the most recent data on national accounts do not indicate any surge in investment since the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) was launched, leading to risks of continued subdued growth and continuing high unemployment rates; stresses that closing this investment gap is key to reviving growth, fighting unemployment and attaining long-term EU policy objectivesemphasises that EFSI has failed to close that gap, as is shown by the most recent data on national accounts; stresses that there is no need for instruments of this type to restore growth, combat unemployment and overcome the crisis, but that it would be useful to revise the Treaties and reinvest Member States with the necessary flexibility to launch an appropriate public investment plan;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that although EFSI was launched to help resolve difficulties and remove obstacles to financing as well as to implement strategic, transformative and productive investments that provide a high level of added value to the economy, the environment and society, the projects financed do not represent new investments in the real economy, but rather a refinancing of already-existing projects that are of questionable long- term economic and social validity;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls the role of Parliament as foreseen in the regulation, in particular in relation to the monitoring of EFSI implementation; acknowledges, however, that it is too early to finalise a comprehensive assessment of the functioning of EFSI and its impact on the EU economy, but is of the opinion that a preliminary evaluation is crucial in order to identify possible areas of improvement for EFSI 2.0 and thereafterstresses that an assessment of the functioning of EFSI has shown it not to have a significant impact on the EU economy and therefore considers it counterproductive to continue implementing it, so that the scarce resources available can be better concentrated on other priorities;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that although the purpose of EFSI is to ensure additionality by helping to address market failures or suboptimal investment situations and supporting operations which could not have been carried out under existing Union financial instruments, the data available show that most of the projects supported by the fund are lacking in additionality;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. RecallEmphasises that the projects supported by EFSI, while striving to have not created employment, sustainable growth, economic, territorial and social cohesion, are considered to provide additionality if they carry a risk corresponding to EIB special activities, as defined in Article 16 of the EIB Statute and by the credit risk policy guidelines of the EIB; underlines that EIB projects carrying a risk lower than the minimum risk under EIB special activities may also be supported by EFSI only if use of the EU guarantee is required to ensure additionalitynd have not been run based on the principle of additionality, but have primarily served large companies in a few specific geographical areas;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. NotStresses that, while all projects approved under EFSI are presented as ‘special activities’, anvarious independent evaluation has found that some projects could have been financed otherwiseassessments have shown that EFSI- financed projects could have been financed via the structural funds, by the EIB or using other available instruments; it therefore follows that an extension of EFSI is unnecessary;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that, as provided for in the regulation, prior to a project being selected for EFSI support, it has to undergo due-diligence and decision- making processes both in the EIB and the EFSI governance structures; observes that project promoters have expressed a wish for swift feedback and enhancedStresses that project promoters have encountered a lack of transparency in EFSI, in relation to both to the selection criteria and as regards the amount and type/tranche of possible EFSI support; criticises the current lack of clarity, which deters project promoters from applying for EFSI support; calls for the decision- making process to be made more transparent in respect of the selection criteria and financial support and to be speeded up;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. ConsidersDeplores the fact that the criteria according to which projects are assessed are unclear and lack transparency; requests further information from the EFSI governing bodies on the evaluations carried out on all projects approved under EFSI accordingly, in particular as regards their additionality and contribution to growth and job creation as defined in the Regulation;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Acknowledges that it may take some years to prepare new innovative projects, that the EIB is under pressure to achieve the EUR 315 billion goal and therefore had no option but to launch EFSI activities immediately, is concerned, however,Stresses that the EIB, when implementing EFSI, has thus far drawn on its existing project pipeline with lower risk projects to a large extent, thereby reducing its own conventional financing; fearels that EFSI does not provide any complementary financing for high-risk innovative projects; underlines that even though a project qualifies as a special activity, this does not necessarily imply that it is risky, however the classification as a special activity might also stem from the fact that its financing has been structured in an artificially risky fashion, implying that very low-risk projects can also easily end up as high-risk projects, but is essentially limited to refinancing existing projects, as was broadly anticipated;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Acknowledges that it may take some years to prepare new innovative projects, that the EIB is under pressure to achieve the EUR 315 billion goal and therefore had no option but to launch EFSI activities immediately, is concerned, however,Stresses that the EIB, when implementing EFSI, has thus far drawn on its existing project pipeline with lower risk projects to a large extent, thereby reducing its own conventional financing; fearels that EFSI does not provide any complementary financing for high-risk innovative projects; underlines that even though a project qualifies as a special activity, this does not necessarily imply that it is risky, however the classification as a special activity might also stem from the fact that its financing has been structured in an artificially risky fashion, implying that very low-risk projects can also easily end up as high-risk projects, but is essentially limited to refinancing existing projects, as was broadly anticipated;
Amendment 177 #
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 size and the architecture of EFSI itself; 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) ishas not been 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 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that EFSI is a demand- driven instrument, which should, however, be guided bywas created to satisfy the need to finance certain existing or envisaged projects, without in any way adhering to the political objectives set out in the regulation and defined by the Steering Board;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes that all sectors defined in the EFSI Regulation have been covered by EFSI financing; points out, however, that certain sectors are under- represented; notes that this might be due to the fact that certain sectors already offered better investment opportunities in terms of shovel-ready, bankable projects when EFSI started up; invites the EIB against this backdrop to discuss how to improve sectorial diversification, linking it to the goals set out in the Regulation as well as the issue of whether EFSI support should be extended to other sectorsPoints out that a large proportion of EFSI funding is concentrated in the traditional infrastructure sector, without taking into consideration the economic and social profile and the environmental sustainability of the projects selected;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Observes that the EFSI governance structures have been implemented in full within the EIB; considers that, with a view to improving the efficiency and accountability of EFSI, options for making the EFSI g, which again goes to show that EFSI has no added value overn ance structure completely separate from that of the EIB should be discussedd above action taken by the EIB;
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Attaches the utmost importance to the operation ofConsiders that the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH); considers that has failed in its mission to act as a single point of entry to comprehensive advisory and technical assistance throughout all stages of the project cycle largely responds to the growing need for technical assistance support among authorities and project promoters;
Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Notes thatConsiders it regrettable that, despite the disappointing results, the Commission has proposed an extension of EFSI, both in terms of duration and financial capacity, and that this would have an further impact on the EU budget; expresses its intention to put forward alternative financing proposalsbelieves it essential, therefore, to concentrate the resources available on other programmes and projects with clear added value, which EFSI has shown it does not have;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Recalls that Member States were invited to contribute to EFSI in order to broaden its capacity, thereby enabling it to support more higher-risk investments; regretstresses that despite such investment being considered as a one-off measure within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary provisions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, Member States did not take this initiative; requests information from the EIB and the Commission as to whether they have undertaken efforts in the believes this clearly shows that EFSI is not the ideal instrumeantime to convincpromote Member States to contribute to EFSI, and whether they might be able to attract other investors; invites the Commission and the EIB to step up their efforts in this direction investment, which actually needs to be able to free itself from all these absurd budget-related constraints;
Amendment 339 #
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; points, however, to persistent differences in the eligibility criteria, regulations, timeframe for reporting and the application of state aid rules, which hinder combined usageare being created between EFSI, the EIB and other instruments within and outwith the EU budget, creating a vast array of financing that is far from transparent and of questionable effectiveness; wbelcomieves 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 endrefore that a general reorganisation is needed based around the principles of efficiency and democratic accountability;
Amendment 378 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Acknowledges that EFSI alone - and on a limited scale- will probablyhas not been able to close the investment gap in Europe, butand 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 Europeshould therefore not be extended;