23 Amendments of Dominique RIQUET related to 2012/2027(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, since the beginning of the 2000s, the EU institutions have developed a series of innovative financial instruments based on arrangements combining grantsfunding from the Union budget with public and/or private funding in order to boost the volume of investment available for realising the Union’s strategic objectives;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the introduction of IFIs at European level was seen as a way of enabling the Union to stimulate investment in the real European economy in line with the Union’s objectives at a time when, against the background of a constant fall in the volume of resources allocated to the Unionits budget, its political ambitions, and thus its needs, were steadily growing;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that the ultimate purpose of and the rationale for IFIs is that they should act as a catalyst which makes it possible, on the basis of a contribution from the Union budget, to mobilise funding – public and/or private – for projects which can secure no support, or only inadequate support, from the market; points out that intervention by the public sector thus makes it possible to reduce the risk-related costs, or to by defraying part of those costs, thereby facilitating the implementation of the projects concerned;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that this variety is matchjustified by the rangediversity of areas covered (support for SMUs, energy, climate change, employment and micro-credit, research and innovation, transport infrastructure, information technologies);
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that investments which arethere are three types of investment situation: 1) optimal, where the investment is certain to generate a return must beand allows financeding by the market, whilst those which are not should remain eligibl2) sub-optimal, in which there is a return but it is not sufficient to secure financing by the market and justifies the use of an IFI, and 3) investment characterised by little or no return, which necessitates intervention by the Union in the form of grants, which may be combined with IFIs if the project permits;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates that the increased use of IFIs in the Union budget mustshould not turn into a strategy to reduce the size of the Union budget but to optimise its use, and welcomes the fact that in its communication on IFIs, as referred to above, the Commission acknowledges that ‘the intention behind an increased use of innovative financial instruments is (…) not to replace grant funding with financial instruments’;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Notes that under these conditions there is sometimes a lack of visibility surrounding the effect of Union budget action on economic operators and citizens;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that hitherto IFIs have developed in an ad hoc, un, depending on requirements, IFIs have developed in accordance with different strategic objectives and resources and not always in a coordinated manner, which has given rise to problems of overlapping;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to create platforms for the equity and debt instruments; notes that these platforms are designed to simplify and standardise the IFIs implemented under the Union budget and make them more coherent in overall termsfact that Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [the new financial regulation] will be the main legislative framework for the definition, design and use of IFIs, thereby ensuring compliance with the objectives and interests of the Union;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Takes the view that the introduction of innovative IFIs under the umbrella of the Union will help put finance at the service of the real economy for projects with European added value;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Emphasises that since the mid-1990s public investment in the EU has been steadily falling and that this trend has become more pronounced since the start of the financial crisis in 2008; notes, further, that private investooject promoters are facing a credit squeeze and are finding it more difficult to borrow money on the capital markets; is convinced, therefore, that a return to coordinated, sustainable, intelligent and inclusive growth throughout the EU is contingent on the continued development of IFIs at Union level;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Reiterates that IFIs are intended to help or facilitate projects regarded as fundamental to the achievement of the Union’s strategic objectives get off the ground and must thereforeand therefore make it possible to take better account of and fit in with programme time scales;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Considers that innovative IFIs should focus on projects with high European added value, given the limited resources available at Union level;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)
Paragraph 27 b (new)
27b. Takes the view that innovative IFIs can facilitate the implementation of public-private partnerships by attracting more private capital for public infrastructure projects;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Emphasises the importance of ex ante assessments in identifying situations of market failure or sub-optimal investment conditions and in verifying that the instrument does not distort competition within the internal market and does not violate the rules on State aid; calls on the Commission to propose relevant criteria to govern the role and use of ex ante assessments;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Regards it as essential, as part of a results-based approach, that a reasonable number of simple qualitative and/or quantitative indicators should be incorporated into the ex ante and ex post assessments, both on the financial performance of the instrument and on its contribution to achieving the Union’s objectives; takes the view that this requirement must not serve to impose an excessive administrative burden on project managers; emphasises in this respect the break in continuity in the use of an innovative IFI that may ensue from its requisite ex post assessment;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Emphasises the importance of being extremely careful to ensure that the involvement of the EU budget in instruments where this is not immediately visible can be fully appreciated both by operators and citizens; thus urges the Commission to take measures to ensure adequate communication about this type of intervention by the European budget;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Stresses that the leverage effect and the multiplier effect vary considerably from one area of intervention to another; takes the view that the European legislator must not set too specific a target for the leverage effect, since the latter is, by itsargets that are too uniform in this field, since these effects are, by their very nature, determined to a large extent by economic circumstances and the characteristics of the area concerned;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Emphasises that the scope for implementing IFIs is still vague and likely to change quickly; notes, accordingly, the need for the highest possible degree ofat the creative capacity or capacity for flexibility and adaptability to local circumstances should be as high as possible; proposes, therefore, that it should be possible for the budgetary authority to adjust the annual amount allocated to each instrument if this is likely to facilitate the achievement of the purposes for which it was created;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Reiterates that the reinvestment of revenuesinterest and other income generated by the instrument in that instrument (‘reflows’) shouldmust be the principle governing all IFIs and that any exception to this rule shouldmust be duly substantiated;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Takes the view that the innovative nature of IFIs requires the establishment of a framework for the coordination of public financial institutions that will be delegated the power of budgetary implementation of the IFIs, and which would involve representatives of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Takes the view that if the critical mass of a given innovative IFI is sufficient, this could be very attractive for the private capital market due to the reduction in risk resulting from the sizeable volume of the project portfolio and the possible fluidity of trade in the markets;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 b (new)
Paragraph 41 b (new)
41b. Emphasises the need to ensure that the possible emergence of a ‘mixed financial economy’ does not result in innovative IFIs becoming complex derivatives that can be securitised or diverted from their original purpose;