18 Amendments of Jean-Paul DENANOT related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 11 #
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, particularly among young people and the new generations; stresses that closing this investment gap is key to reviving growth, facilitating the establishment of SGIs through which investments can be made, in particular in vulnerable areas, fighting unemployment and attaining long-term EU policy objectives;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that 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; stresses that EFSI should not lead to the commercialisation of SGIs, but contribute to their continuity and sustainability.
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the purpose of EFSI is to ensure additionality by helping to address market failures or suboptimal investment situations that are not optimal for the private and public sectors and supporting operations which could not have been carried out under existing Union financial instruments;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on the Commission to draw up a guide for organisations running projects in order to promote synergies between ESIF and EFSI and thereby ensure increased additionality;
Amendment 111 #
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; calls for investment to be stepped up in the social services, healthcare, housing and education sectors, in particular by making it possible to combine different sources of funding;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that the scoreboard is supposed to be used by the Investment Committee (IC) to ensure an independent and transparent assessment of the potential and actual use of the EU guarantee and to prioritise projects; calls for Parliament to be able to check that the scoreboard and its indicators are being properly consulted, applied and used; requests that the project selection criteria be properly applied and this process be made more transparent; recalls that the IC must assign equal importance to each pillar of the scoreboard when prioritising projects, irrespective of whether the individual pillar yields a numerical score, or whether it is composed of unscored qualitative and quantitative indicators; criticises the fact that the EIB itself admits that the IC’s experts only make use of the 4th pillar for information purposes, not for decision- making;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that the scoreboard is supposed to be used by the Investment Committee (IC) to ensure an independent and transparent assessment of the potential and actual use of the EU guarantee and to prioritise projects; requests that the project selection criteria be made transparent and properly applied and this process be made more transparent; recalls that the IC must assign equal importance to each pillar of the scoreboard when prioritising projects, irrespective of whether the individual pillar yields a numerical score, or whether it is composed of unscored qualitative and quantitative indicators; criticises the fact that the EIB itself admits that the IC’s experts only make use of the 4th pillar for information purposes, not for decision- making;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that the scoreboard is supposed tomust be used by the Investment Committee (IC) to ensure an independent and transparent assessment of the potential and actual use of the EU guarantee and to prioritise projects; requests that the project selection criteria be properly applied and this process be made more transparent; recalls that the IC must assign equal importance to each pillar of the scoreboard when prioritising projects, irrespective of whether the individual pillar yields a numerical score, or whether it is composed of unscored qualitative and quantitative indicators; criticises the fact that the EIB itself admits that the IC’s experts only make use of the 4th pillar for information purposes, not for decision-making;
Amendment 166 #
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; calls on the Commission to present a study exploring the various ways in which a weaker leverage effect could have a bearing on the selection of high-risk projects; invites the EIB to weigh up complementing the volume requirement with secondary goals to be achieved;
Amendment 173 #
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 sizePoints out that small projects often encounter difficulties in obtaining the funding they need; notes with concern that small projects are deterred from applying for EFSI financing, or are even declared ineligible for that funding, based on their size; points out that small projects do not reach the threshold for EFSI funding; stresses the need to step up the technical assistance available to these projects from the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) and to enlist the European Investment Bank and national development institutions and banks to support them; 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) is 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 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that EFSI is a demand- driven instrument, which should, however, be guided by the political objectives set out in the regulation and defined by the Steering Board; stresses, in that connection, that certain sectors – in particular social services and personal services that are in great need of funding – should be given priority;
Amendment 197 #
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, such as social, health and education services, 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; notes, further, that this situation could have been brought about by a lack of information and technical know-how in these sectors about the conditions governing the awarding of EFSI funding; 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 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. draws attention, in that context, to the strategic importance of regional and local promotional banks, and calls on the Commission to consider how their work can be coordinated with that of national banks;
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Urges the EFSI governing bodies to pay greater attention to investment platforms with a view to maximising the benefits that the latter can bring in overcoming investment barriers, especially in EU-13; invites the EIB to provide stakeholders with more information on the platforms and the conditions and criteria governing their establishment;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Acknowledges 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), the possible synergies with which must be developed and clearly established; observes with concern, however, 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;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Is pleased that the EIAH has been up and running since September 2015, moving through a quick implementation phase; acknowledges that, due to the limited period of its existence and a shortage of staff at the initial stage, not all EIAH services have been fully developed and that activity has predominantly focused on providing support for project development and structuring, policy advice, and project screening; calls for EIAH to recruit experts from various areas in an effort to better target its advice, communication and support for the sectors which cannot currently exploit the full potential of EFSI (in particular the social, healthcare, housing and education and training sectors);
Amendment 342 #
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; stresses that this combination of funding should mainly involve EFSI funding and ESIF financial instruments, and only to very limited extents, if at all, involve ESIF grants; 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;