25 Amendments of Dominique RIQUET related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the investment mobilised by EFSI to date, which, which on 31 January 2017 amountsed to EUR 169.98.8 billion (the total approved EIB financing being EUR 31.5 billion) and accounts for 524% of the total target investment to be mobilised by 2018;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets the linadequacky of officialthe real- time information on the amount of used guarantee; notes, however, that unofficial inform that several evaluations indicates a multiplier of 14.1; calls onleverage effect of 14.1; points out that the EIB tohas makde the exact multiplier public and to use the OECD calculation methodology; 14; __________________ 1d http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/ efsi_2015_report_ep_council_en.pdf.
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that as at 31 January 2017 the main beneficiaries awere, per volume: the UK, Spain, France, Germany and Italin absolute terms: Italy, Spain, France, the UK and Germany (73% of the total mobilised investment), per capita: Finland, Ireland, Estonia, Spain, and Italy, and Luxembourg, and, per share of GDPin terms of GDP (in EUR m): Estonia, Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal, Italy and GreeceLithuania and Portugal;
Amendment 25 #
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 to complement structural reforms in EU Member States to modernise their economies to create growth and jobs;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, according to the EY 2016 independent evaluation covering the period from July 2015 to June 20161 a, EU-15 received over 90% of EFSI support and the 13 new Member States received about 9%; points out that the volume of EFSI operations has changed greatly since then; recalls that three Member States should not account for more than 45% of the total EFSI funding under the EFSI Infrastructure and Innovation Window1 b at the end of the first investment period (mid-2018) and therefore calls on the EFSI Steering Board to continuously monitor sectoral and geographical spread; __________________ 1aAd-hoc audit of the application of the Regulation 2015/1017. 1b Strategic Orientation adopted by the EFSI Steering Board in December 2015: http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/ efsi_steering_board_efsi_strategic_orient ation_en.pdf.
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Asks for European Added Value to be considered as a major criterion in the selection process and for the EFSI to be in line with EU policy goals, in particular cross-border projects and, other projects pre- identified in the CEF and other EU flagship initiatives in the field of transport (such as ERTMS and SESAR);
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that only 10 projects under the IIW and two under the SMEW, corresponding to nine Member States, benefited fromConsiders that blending EU grants with financial instruments can also make for the necessary additionality and encourage investors to submit projects that might not have bleended EFSI/ESIF funding; encourages a timely adoption of the Financial Regulation and Omnibus Regulation revision that would allow the simplification of the combined ESIF and EFSI funds in order to avoid competition and overlaps and to ensure complementarity carried out otherwise; calls on the EIB and the Commission to promote the use of EU grants (under various EU arrangements, for instance the CEF, Horizon 2020, and the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)) in combination with EFSI in order to improve the financial profile of infrastructure projects providing European added value;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. In order to improve the performance of the EFSI at both national and regional level, there is a need to step up cooperation between the EIB, which steers the EFSI, and the national and regional promotional banks.
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes with concern that the small number of transport projects in the EFSI would seem to be evidence of this sector’s difficulty in obtaining funding mostly or exclusively from private investors, even wherwhile CEF funding has been almost exhausted and no alternative EU funding is available until 2020;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that only 11 projects under the IIW and two under the SMEW, corresponding to nine Member States, benefited from blended EFSI/ESIF funding; encourages a timely adoption of the Financial Regulation and Omnibus Regulation revision that would enable EFSI to be combined more simply and to optimum effect with all other EU grant arrangements (for example ESIF, the CEF, and H2020) in order to avoid competition and overlaps and to ensure complementarity;
Amendment 44 #
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 assessmentwelcomes the Commission’s evaluation on the use of the EU guarantee and the functioning of the guarantee fund; regrets however that its proposal for the extension of the funcdurationing of EFSI and its impact on the EU economy, but is of the opinion that a preliminary evaluation is crucial in order to identify possible areas of improvement for EFSI 2.0 and thereafterfor increasing the EU guarantee is not accompanied by a comprehensive evidence-based impact assessment, which is in contradiction to better regulation guidelines;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that, under the two windows, 310% of the EFSI funding was used for SMEs, 223% forin the energy projsectsor, 21% for RDI and 10% for the digital sector; regrets, however, the lack of information regarding the additionality of the projects fundedin the RDI sector and 10% in the digital sector;
Amendment 50 #
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 and supporting operations which could not have been carried out under existing Union financial instruments; notes however that there is a need for further clarification of the concept of additionality; recalls that EIB’s Special Activities operations are currently automatically considered as providing additionality and requires that EIB demonstrates and documents in a systemic way that all EFSI guaranteed projects meet the additionality criteria as set out in Article 5(1) of the Regulation (EU) 2015/2017;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls for European added value to be considered a major criterion in the selection procedure and for EFSI to be in line with EU policy goals;
Amendment 70 #
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 needed; 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 limitedMaintains that, in order to improve EFSI’s performance at both national and regional level, there needs to be closer cooperation between the EIB, which runs EFSI, and National and Regional Promotional Banks;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Notes, however, 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 finance the support that some regions need;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. CPoints to the promising start to the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH); calls on the EIAH to increase its presence in countries in which the EFSI has had difficulties in taking hold and which lack the administrative capacity to submit viable projects, and in cohesion countries in particular; calls on the EIAH, furthermore, to provide specific advice in order to aid given projects wherever there is a high degree of risk aversion or the risk is fragmented among investors (as can be the case with, for example, cross-border/multinational projects or long-term infrastructure/revenue-generating projects); 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 to enhance communication and dissemination efforts to increase the uptake of EFSI in all Member States and regions;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. RegretNotes that the investment platforms are slow to emerge and not yetprovided for under the EFSI Regulation need more time to become operational, hampering and that the development of cross-border projects; is meanwhile being hampered; points out, however, that 21 platforms have been set up to date1 c; __________________ 1c EIB.
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that the Managing Director (MD) is responsible for the day-to-day management of EFSI, the preparation and chairing of meetings of the IC and for external representation; recalls that the MD is assisted by the Deputy Managing Director (DMD); regrets that, in practice, the respective roles, especially that of the DMD, have not been clearly identified; invites the EIB to reflect on spelling out the tasks of the MD and the DMD more clearly in order to ensure transparency and accountability; suggests that the MD, assisted by the DMD, could be explicitly put in charge of setting the agenda of the IC meetings, of carrying out an initial screening of the projects presented by the EIB as well as being made explicitly accountable for the decisions of IC experts; suggests, furthermore, that the MD should devise procedures for tackling potential conflicts of interest within the IC, report to the Steering Board (SB), propose sanctions for breaches as well as the means to implement them; believes that the authority of the MD and the DMD in carrying out these tasks would be enhanced by enjoying greater autonomy vis-à-vis the EIB; invites the EIB accordingly to explore options for increasing the independence of the MD and the DMD;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls that diversified investments with a geographical or thematic focus should be made possible by helping to finance and bundle projects and funds from different sources; notes with concern that the first investment platform was only set up in the third quarter of 2016; requests the EIB and the EIAH to promote the use of investment platforms as a way to achieve geographic and thematic diversification of investments;
Amendment 295 #
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); 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 andby improving the productivity and sustainability of economies with a key focus on technological development;
Amendment 338 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 13
Subheading 13
Complementarities with other EU financing sources and policies
Amendment 349 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Believes that without the implementation of structural reforms, particularly concerning the improvement of the business environment, to complement EFSI operations, EFSI will fall short of its potential; stresses, therefore, that EFSI financing and investment operations on the territory of a Member State should only be approved if the relevant Member State has made substantial progress in implementing country specific recommendations under the European Semester;
Amendment 380 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
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 made on how to permanently boost investment in Europe, such as completing the single market in services, digital and energy, and establishing a genuine Capital Markets Union;