27 Amendments of Eva KAILI related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the investment mobilised by EFSI to date, which amounts to EUR 169.98.8 billion and accounts for 524 % of the total target investment to be mobilised by 2018;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that there is still an investment gap in the EU, and acknowledges that EFSI can help to close it; reminds however that EFSI support should only go to sustainable projects ensuring additionality and boosting the real economy, in line with the sustainable development goals and the Paris Agreement; notes with regret that not all supported projects so far comply with those criteria and stresses that full compliance and the appropriate due diligence procedure is needed before support is granted;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets the lack of official information on the amount of used guarantee; notes, however, that unofficial information indicates a multiplier of 14.1; calls on the EIB to make the exact multiplier public and to use the OECD calculation methodologyThe multipliers are published and explained in the website of EIB, however the Bank should re-assess the optimality of the current multiplier and amend it as it reflects the current investment realities in the diverse investment map of the EU;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets the lack of official information on the amount of used guarantee; notes, however, that unofficial information indicates a multiplier of 14.1; calls on the EIB to make the exact multiplier public and to use the OECD calculation methodology;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Regrets that many stakeholders are still unaware of EFSI, its possibilities or the ways to apply for EFSI support; moreover noticed that some beneficiaries, which were in fact already enjoying EFSI support, were unaware of that, due to lack of transparency of the financial intermediary passing on the support from EFSI; is of opinion that the lack of awareness on the availability of EFSI support, as well as the unawareness of actually benefitting from EFSI support are both missed opportunities for the EU; urges that an enhanced communication strategy needs to be put in place;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. NotWelcomes that, by the end of 2016 EFSI support was attributed to all EU Member States; notes however that according to the EY 2016 independent evaluation, EU-15 received over 90 % of EFSI support and the 13 new Member States received about 9 %; recalls that three Member States should not account for more than 45 % of total EFSI funding and regrets the unbalanced allocation of EFSI support until now; therefore calls on the EFSI Steering Board to continuously monitor sectoral and geographical spread with specific attention to boosting sustainable transition in all Member States;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, according to the EY 2016 independent evaluation, which refers to the period up to June 2016, EU-15 received over 90 % of EFSI support and the 13 new Member States received about 9 %; recalls that three Member States should not account for more than 45 % of total EFSI funding and therefore calls on the EFSI Steering Board to continuously monitor sectoral and geographical spread;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that 310 % of the EFSI funding was used for SMEs, 223 % for energy projects, 21 % for RDI and 10 % for the digital sector; regrets, however, the lack of information regarding the additionality of the projects funded;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Reminds that additionality is a key principle for projects to receive EFSI support; addressing market failures, supporting operations which could not be financed by other public or private funds and mobilising additional investments in the real economy, fostering the sustainable transition; notes however that not all projects supported carry this additional characteristic and that some projects could have been financed otherwise;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses that EFSI support may not lead to rebranding of projects which would have been already supported by the EIB; notes that EFSI support is granted to a high amount of energy projects, but that the number of supported energy projects via the EIB's existing financing mechanisms has dropped to a large extent at the same time;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Notes that, in the energy segment, a lot of EFSI support was granted to renewable, yet mature and large scale projects; argues that, although these projects contribute to reaching the EU's climate and energy goals, EFSI was not designed to support these type of mature business-as-usual projects; instead EFSI should focus on less mature, innovative, risky and small scale projects and technologies, which can have huge effects in the real economy and are in desperate need of technical and financial support;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Is of opinion that more support should be given to energy efficiency projects by earmarking at least 20% of EFSI financing for energy efficiency projects; prioritizing small scale, innovative projects in the buildings sector, with special attention for projects eliminating social inequalities and fighting energy poverty;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that National Promotional Banks are not well established in all Member States and that their limited geographical spread poses additional barriers to the EFSI geographical coverage; considers that the establishment of National Promotional Banks should be a high EFSI priority in order to address regions where support is neededfor the Member-States. Know-how and technical assistance should be given to Member States to establish National Promotional Institutions. National Promotional Institutions are paramount in the facilitation of the financing of regions where support is needed with the EFSI instrument, as well as for the harmonization of the investment map of Europe; calls on the EIB and the Commission to ensure that cooperation with National Promotional Banks areis high in the priorities of the European Advisory Investment Hub; calls on the Commission to encourage and support the establishment of National Promotional Banks in regions where their presence is limited;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the inclusion of National Promotional Banks, and their cooperation with the EIB is not sufficiently established so far, moreover stresses that National Promotional Banks are not well established in all Member States and that their limited geographical spread poses additional barriers to the EFSI geographical coverage; considers that the establishment of National Promotional Banks and their higher degree of inclusion should be a high EFSI priority in order to address regions whbetter incorporate know-how of local markets, and address undere support is neededed regions; calls on the EIB and the Commission to ensure that National Promotional Banks are high in the priorities of the European Advisory Investment Hub; calls on the Commission to encourage and support the establishment of National Promotional Banks in regions where their presence is limited;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that National Promotional Banks are not well established in all Member States and that their limited geographical spread poses additional barriers to the EFSI geographical coverage; considers that the establishment of regional or National Promotional Banks should be a high EFSI priority in order to address regions where support is needed; calls on the EIB and the Commission to ensure that regional or National Promotional Banks are high in the priorities of the European Advisory Investment Hub; calls on the Commission to encourage and support the establishment of regional or National Promotional Banks in regions where their presence is limited;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Emphasizes the crucial role of the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) for the success of EFSI; notes with regret that it was not able to function to its full extend so far; stresses that the necessary means, with a minimum of EUR 20 000 000 per annum, should be provided for the EIAH to cover its costs and be able to fulfil and intensify its actions and services, emphasizes as well the importance of solving the problem of staff shortage as quickly as possible in order for the EIAH to take up all of its assigned tasks and responsibilities;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. EFSI is an important tool for the improvement of the investment inefficiencies of the EU Member States. It is created to bridge the gaps between EU- 15 and EU-13 and not to widen them. Apart of its financial and economic significance it is also a political tool which signals that EU is a coherent and solid body that all its parts move with one, and only one, speed;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Advisory Hub to collaborate with the appropriate national institutions in order to achieve more balanced geographical and sectorial coverage; calls on the EIB to strengthen its advisory capacity and on the European Commission to enhance communication and dissemination efforts to increase the uptake of EFSI in all Member States and regions;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Underlines the important responsibility of the EIAH to bring EFSI to the local level and its role as a one- stop-shop for technical and financial advice to identify, prepare and develop projects, as well as its mission to proactively aggregate small scale projects and set up investment platforms; stresses that these tasks are not sufficiently achieved and should be intensified over the coming period;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Reminds that one of the aims of EFSI and the EIAH was to boost small scale, innovative and risky projects by amongst others bundling them, possibly via investment platforms, into larger clusters which are more investment ready; notes however with regret that EFSI supports predominantly larger projects and that stakeholders with smaller, innovative, or riskier projects do not find their way to EFSI funding; urges that these barriers are tackled without delay;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Reminds that the EIAH should put a particular focus on projects concerning energy efficiency, TEN-T and urban mobility
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 d (new)
Paragraph 9 d (new)
9d. Notes that very few stakeholders are aware of the existence of the EIAH or the services it can provide, therefore stresses the need for a better communication and awareness raising campaign;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Regrets that investment platforms are slow to emerge and not yet operational,; stresses their role in aggregating multiple smaller projects concerning the same topic or bundling and facilitating cross- border projects; is of opinion that higher attention and support should be given to boost the functioning of the investment platforms, as their underperformance is currently hampering the development of bundled or cross- border projects;
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the need for transparency in the selection of EFSI operations, especially the need for information concerning additionality and the reasondecision making process for granting the EU guarantee;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Criticises the lack of transparency on the decision making procedure and on the applied selection criteria when choosing projects for EFSI support; especially as regards to the application the scoreboard; is concerned that not all projects which were already granted support lived up to the predetermined criteria; urges for the correct and equal application of all the criteria listed in the scoreboard and demands greater transparency and open communication on the selection and decision making processes and the application of the scoreboard on each project supported;
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is of the opinion that further evaluation, in order for all stakeholders to judge ofn the original EFSI regulation would have been desirablesuccesses and problems of EFSI so far, greater transparency on the projects supported and the decision procedure applied, a more in depth study and a further evaluation was indispensable, especially before the adoption of the proposed EFSI extension; hopes that the conclusions of this report will be duly taken into consideration in the final elaboration of EFSI II Regulation.
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is of the opinion that furthe four evaluation of the original EFSI regulation would have been desirable before the adoption of the proposed EFSI extension; hopes that the conclusions of this report will be duly taken into consideras already provided regarding EFSI touch significant aspects that must be taken into consideration and amended accordingly, especially regarding the regional diversification, sectorial diversification, additionally, transparency of the selection process of the steering and investment committees, before the adoption inof the final elaboratproposed extension of EFSI II Regulation.