17 Amendments of Rosa D'AMATO related to 2016/2302(INI)
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’s reporting exercise, which provides strong evidence that European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds investment through grants and financial instruments resulted in solid impact and visible results bybut points out that, as regards employment, no data are available concerning the nature of the jobs created by means of ESI Funds investments, in EU regions, which amounted to EUR 347.6 billion, excluding national co-financing and additionally leveraged resourcesparticular whether the employment in question is precarious or temporary;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the existing European Investment Bank (EIB) Cohesion Policy operations visible in annual reports and sector reports, revealing the impact on SMEs and mid-caps, infrastructure, research and innovation, the environment, energy and agriculture; concludes that EIB lending in support of Cohesion Policy for the period 2007-2013 is estimated at EUR 147 billion, which represents roughly 38 % of all lending in the EU;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomNotes the fact that in 2014- 2020 the EU is expected to invest EUR 454 billion through ESI Funds, and with national co- financing for the investment in the form of grants and financial instruments the sum is expected to rise to EUR 637 billion;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges that both the volume and the quality of financial instruments (in the form of microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital) under Cohesion Policy’s shared management increased; highlights the two main reasons for this trend – the 2007-2013 period provided valuable experience and lessons regarding ESI Funds implementation through grants and financial instruments, while the 2014-2020 MFF reflects the post-crisis need for more financial instruments owing to fiscal limitations; draws attention, however, in this context, to a potentially dangerous increase in the propensity to accept risk;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the fact that crucial regulatory changes in programming, implementation and management of lower- risk financial instruments, such as direct links to and coverage of all 11 thematic objectives, compulsory ex-ante assessment, and creation of tailor-made and off-the- shelf solutions and reporting mechanisms, contribute to the implementation of such financial instruments;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recognises that financial instruments offer advantages such as leverage andthe revolving effects as well as higher risk investments, including private capital through high-quality bankable projects; acknowledges that financial instruments come with certain disadvantages: slower implementation, higher complexity, and high management fees and implementation costs; notes that grants represent preferable investments in some policy areas, such as the ones covered by the ESF;
Amendment 68 #
8a. Points out that the leverage effect attributed to high-risk financial instruments is a given and that the tangible impact on the capacity to attract private investment can only be assessed in the medium, or even the long, term;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that intervention logic is not a dividing line but a meeting point of grants and financial instruments so that Cohesion Policy can ensure better coverage of beneficiaries and investment gaps through a variety of measures; points out that intervention logic is a bottom-up approach in ESI Funds programming and that Member States should continue setting the share of financial instruments which do not have an overly high risk profile in respective operational programmes;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that the positive experience of using financial instruments in the 2007- 2013 programming period was accompanied by a number of performance issues: late start of operations, inaccurate market assessment, diverging regional uptake, overall low disbursement rates, low leverage effect, problematic revolving, high management costs which are not always justified or justifiable and fees and inadequately large endowments;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that implementation delays will affect disbursement rates, revolving and leverage; recalls the fact that delays in the 2007-2013 period contributed irreversibly to sub-optimal performance of ERDF and ESF financial instruments; emphasises that all necessary steps should be taken to mitigate the negative effects of delayed implementation, especially regarding the risk of limited use and impact;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. WelcomNotes the Commission’s actions in optimising regulation; emphasises that, despite the improvements, complexity still exists and issues such as the long set-up time and the administrative burden for recipients are disincentives to use financial instruments; calls on the Commission to work closely with the EIB and the EIF to make access to ESI Funds microcredit, loans, and guarantees, equity and venture capital as easy as using grants;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Welcomes the existing technical assistance practices provided by the Commission and the EIB Group through the fi-compass platform; regrets that the on-the-ground support services to authorities and especially to recipients of financial instruments, including EFSI, are limited; calls for a joint technical assistance plan by the Commission and the EIB comprising financial and non-financial advice as well as capacity building, targeted at national authorities as well as fund managers;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recognises that both grants and non-high-risk financial instruments have their specific roles in Cohesion Policy but that they share the same focus pursued by the 11 thematic objectives, which is to achieve the five headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Highlights that some financial instruments perform better in well- developed regions and metropolitan areas, while grants address regional structural issues; notes that increasing the share of low-risk financial instruments should not influence the grant appropriations as this would hinder the balance; emphasises that in a number of public policies grants have to dominate, while only non-high-risk financial instruments can play complementary roles;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that existing experience in delivery of ESI Funds indicates that the funding mix of grants and low-risk financial instruments addresses country- specific realities as well as the gaps in social, economic and territorial cohesion; emphasises that the funding mix cannot result in a one-size-fits-all solution owing to a number of factors: geographic region, policy area, beneficiary type and size, administrative capacity, market conditions, business environment and fiscal and economic stance;