20 Amendments of Fabio DE MASI related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the large investment gap, in Europeglobal terms, within the EU, 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 financat the main barrier to business investment is not difficulty in accessing, 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 ratesinancing but rather the lack of demand resulting from austerity measures, that have meant a sharp drop in workers’ disposable income and in public consumption and investment; argues, therefore, that it is not surprising 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; believes that only an increase in workers’ income and public investment will be able to avoid risks of continued weak growth, or even recession, and continuing high unemployment rates, but warns that if this is to be brought about, it is urgent to reverse austerity measures, repeal the budget deficit and public debt limits, and create a broad public investment plan; stresses that closing this investment gap is key to reviving growth, fighting unemployment and attaining long-term EU policy objectives; poverty and promoting social, economic and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that EFSI was, which aspired to be an ‘Investment Plan for Europe’, was in theory 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; considers, however, that in practice this investment plan is nothing more than a financing model resting on public guarantees, and thus helping to promote public-private partnerships;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Draws attention to the fact that, in the particular case of infrastructure, this model of investment financing will help to increase the cost of investment on the one hand, albeit with some delay, while on the other hand contributing to the privatisation of fundamental sectors of the economy;
Amendment 42 #
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 opiniontakes the view that a preliminary evaluation is crucial; ins order to identify possible areas of improvement for EFSI 2.0 and thereafterf the opinion, therefore, that the proposal to extend the duration of EFSI to 2020, increasing the amount targeted to EUR 500 billion, is premature and lacks foundation;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that, while all projects approved under EFSI are presented as ‘special activities’, an independent evaluation has found that some projects could have been financed otherwise; notes that these evaluations, together with the risk profile of the operations financed by the EIB under EFSI, indicate a failure to comply with the additionality criterion;
Amendment 115 #
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 enhanced transparency in relation to both the selection criteria and 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 165 #
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; invites the EIB to weigh up complementing the volume requirement with secondary goals to be achieved; points out that this ratio represents a highly subjective estimate that can only be evaluated a posteriori, and that can on no account be used as a basis for extrapolation for the purpose of publishing values of the investment made or to be made under the financial instruments that have been created;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Argues that the selection of a project cannot be based solely on the inherent financial risk or the financial profitability associated with it; calls, therefore, for a comprehensive assessment to be made which should include, among other factors, its economic importance for the country and/or region where the project is to be carried out, the specific development needs of the country and/or region, social externalities (including the creation of new jobs), and its contribution to social, economic and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Condemns the possibility that any undertaking or group of undertakings using tax havens or practising social dumping might have access to Community funds, including EFSI; calls, therefore, for this concern to be addressed when revising Regulation (EU) 2015/1017;
Amendment 205 #
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,Points out 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 sectors;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Proposes discussing means of enhancing the transparency of EFSI governance structures for Parliament, involving representatives of the Member States, and the addition of a further full member to the SB representing the European Parliament; urges the EFSI governance bodies to share information with the EP on a proactive basis;
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Welcomes that by the end of 2016, all 28 countries received EFSI funding; underlines, however,Underlines that as of 30 June 2016, EU-15 had received 91% whereas EU-13 had only received 9% of EFSI support; regretscondemns the fact that EFSI support has mainly benefitted a limited number of countriesthose EU countries with higher levels of gross domestic product and gross fixed capital formation;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Acknowledgesgain condemns the fact that GDP and the number of projects approved are linked; recognises that larger Member States are able to take advantage of more developed capital markets and are therefore more likely to benefit from a market-driven instrument such as EFSI; underlines that lower EFSI support in EU-13 may be attributable to other factors, such as the small size of projects, and competition from the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF); observes with concern, however, direct proportion; deplores the disproportionate benefit to certain countries and underlines the need to diversify geographical distribution further, especially in crucial sectors such as modernising and improving the productivity and sustainability of economies; calls, therefore, for a change to the regulation whereby the geographical distribution of part of the investment would be based on cohesion criteria favouring the weakest, least developed and diverging economies;
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Stresses that, due to a very strong uptake reflecting the high market demand, the SME Window was further reinforced by EUR 500 million from the IIW Debt Portfolio under the existing legislative framework; welcomes that, due to the flexibility of the EFSI Regulation, the additional financing was granted to benefit SMEs and small mid-caps; intends to monitor closely the allocation of the guarantee under the two windows; believes that micro enterprises and SMEs should benefit from positive discrimination to the detriment of mid-caps;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Notes that the Commission has proposed an extension of EFSI, both in terms of duration and financial capacity, and that this would have an impact on the EU budget; expresses its intention to put forward alternative financing proposalsserious reservations regarding this proposal, since there has not yet been any solid, thorough and impartial assessment indicating the need for the programme to be extended;
Amendment 334 #
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; regretnotes 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 effornotes that this reflects the severe budgetary constraints ion the meantime to convince 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 directionMember States imposed by the European institutions, forcing cuts in public investment and making it impossible for them to participate in EFSI;
Amendment 343 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. NotesCondemns the fact 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 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;
Amendment 356 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Is deeply concernedDeplores the fact that that the EIB has been pushing via EFSI to support projects that have been structured using firms in tax havens; urges the EIB and the EIF to refrain from making use of or engaging in tax avoidance structures, in particular aggressive tax planning schemes, or practices which do not comply with EU good governance principles on taxation, as and to cancel all ongoing projects that make uset out in the relevant Union legislation, including Commission recommendations and communicationf these structures;
Amendment 360 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. Calls for a ban on EFSI financing for any entity which practices tax evasion and avoidance and/or makes use of tax havens, and for any entity where those holding the capital concerned, or their spouses or lineal ascendants or descendants who directly or indirectly hold at least a 10% stake in the capital or voting rights, practice tax evasion and avoidance and/or make use of tax havens;
Amendment 376 #
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 maPoints out that EFSI’s results fall far below the Commission’s expectations; notes that, leaving aside the financial instruments provided on the ground and the agreements with banks, little information is available on the investment made and its externalities; stresses that the need for investment is far from being met, and therefore advocates a broad public investment plan geared to social, economic and territorial cohesion; in this context, insists that the extension of EFSI should be decided on how to permanently boost investment in Europely if a solid, thorough and impartial assessment indicates the need for such an extension;