Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | CONT | RIVELLINI Crescenzio (EPP) | STAVRAKAKIS Georgios (S&D), STAES Bart (Verts/ALE), CZARNECKI Ryszard (NI), SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo (GUE/NGL), ANDREASEN Marta (EFD), EHRENHAUSER Martin (NI) |
Opinion | ECON | ||
Opinion | ITRE | ||
Opinion | REGI | KLEVA KEKUŠ Mojca (S&D) |
Legal Basis RoP 076
Activites
-
2012/10/08
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
- A7-0307/2012
-
2012/09/26
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- 2012/06/11 Amendments tabled in committee
- 2012/05/07 Committee draft report
-
2012/04/18
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2012/03/27
Non-legislative basic document
-
N7-0052/2012
summary
PURPOSE: to present the Special report of the European Court of Auditors (No 2/2012) on the efficiency of financial instrument for SMEs co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. CONTENT: the European Court of Auditors (ECA) concludes in its special report (No. 2/2012) that the effectiveness and efficiency of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) spending on financial instruments for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were hampered by the regulatory framework being inappropriate for the different types of financial instruments used. There were widespread delays in the funds reaching the recipient SMEs and the supported actions were ineffective in leveraging in private investment. SME financing gap assessments, when prepared, suffered from significant shortcomings. In addition, some recipient SMEs were charged unjustified management fees by the financial intermediaries used. The ECA's performance audit shows that the Structural Funds regulatory framework used for this SME support through financial instruments was originally designed for grant spending, and thus unfit to take into account the specific characteristics of the debt and equity instruments used. There were weaknesses in: the provisions for leveraging and 'recycling' the funds, the justification for amounts allocated to financial engineering measures, the conditions to justify the recourse to preferential private sector treatment, and the eligibility conditions for working capital. Court recommendations: the ECA makes a number of recommendations to the Commission to improve the regulatory framework for these instruments, as well as for managing efficiency and effectiveness. These include: ensuring that Member State proposals are justified by gap assessments of sufficient quality to be used when approving the measures; providing a reliable and technically robust monitoring and evaluation system; exploring the possibility of supplying Member States with simplified and tested structures and instruments to speed up implementation and reduce management costs; defining and setting minimum requirements for leverage and 'recycling' of funds. If these recommendations cannot be implemented under the Cohesion policy framework then the special report concludes that consideration should be given to finding more effective ways of providing this type of support to small and medium sized enterprises.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/regional_policy/index_en.htm', 'title': 'Regional Policy'}, HAHN Johannes
-
N7-0052/2012
summary
Documents
Amendments | Dossier |
23 |
2012/2060(DEC)
2012/06/11
CONT
17 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 4 a (new) - having regard to the opinion No 7/2011 of the Court of Auditors on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/20061, ________________ 1 OJ C 47, 17.2.2012, p. 1.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13.
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Deplores that, in some cases,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Is worried about the lack of information in the Member States on access for SMEs to sources of finance; supports the recommendation by the Court of Auditors that, in order to optimise the size of the supply of SME finance, it is necessary to raise as much as possible the stakeholders’ awareness of the specific SME financing needs.
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21a. Believes that matters to be covered by delegated acts, which are meant to cover non-essential elements of Union legislation, should not deal in reality with key elements of the future Cohesion scheme1; ________________ 1 Such as the adoption of a Common Strategic Framework; the adoption of detailed rules on financial instruments; the responsibilities of Member States concerning the procedure for reporting irregularities and recovery of sums unduly paid; the conditions of national audits; the accreditation criteria for managing authorities and certifying authorities;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Strongly recommends that the
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Shares the opinion that the Commission should explore the possibility of supplying to the Member States off-the-shelf financial engineering structures and instruments for SMEs (e.g. grants with royalties, dedicated investment vehicles) only where these would result in speeding up implementation and in reducing management costs, though in such a way that this precondition does not excessively impair SMEs’ opportunities of making use of those funding schemes; stresses the importance of ensuring that financial engineering continues to remain flexible in order to adapt to both regional disparities and market changes;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Takes the view that the Commission should propose a common definition of multiplier effect, standard concepts of
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Asks the
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Underlines that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of the Union economy, generating employment, innovation and wealth; notes however that SMEs
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Urges the Commission to submit an integrated, clarifying proposal as soon as possible on the problems caused by the current range of definitions of SMEs, which vary in the EU according to the different purposes or objectives, and to propose possible ways of remedying the situation;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses the importance of simplifying administrative procedures as regards access to financing and of reducing co- financing requirements;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 – indent 1 – the SME financing gap assessments, if available, suffered from significant shortcomings and such gap assessments were not systematically made public;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Notes with concern that the previous annual implementation reports, monitoring committees and operational program indicators have been considered as inadequate or inappropriate to the targets and purposes of financial instruments; welcomes the developments in the reporting and monitoring activity registered with JEREM
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Recognizes the potential of innovative financial engineering instruments to build up capital and enhancing investments, as opposed to grants consistently perceived to be excessively cumbersome and bureaucratic by their beneficiaries; underlines that financial engineering instruments could play an important role in achieving the Europe 2020 Strategy's objectives by attracting funding from other investors in areas of strong Union's interest;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12.
source: PE-491.184
2012/07/18
REGI
6 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Special Report No 2/2012 of the Court of Auditors on financial instruments (FI) for small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs) co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF); is of the opinion that such an audit report would be of great value also at the end of the legislative period 2007 - 2013, enabling further conclusions regarding performance of FI for SMEs co- financed by the ERDF; considers also that the drafting of such a report at the end of this legislative period will make it possible to avoid repeating errors, while at the same time increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of future financial engineering measures co-funded by the ERDF;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recognizes that at the time of fiscal constraint and reduced lending capacity of the private sector, SMEs should be targeted with strengthened European support to continue generating employment, innovation and growth; notes that particular attention must be given to SMEs generating sustainable development at local level in order to avoid any distorsion of competition between them; notes that cohesion policy, as the major investment instrument
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recognizes that at the time of fiscal constraint and reduced lending capacity of the private sector, SMEs
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses that lack of access to finance has led to a fall in the number of start- ups, which means that the role of financial instruments co-funded by the ERDF in stimulating entrepreneurship is assuming ever increasing importance;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Acknowledges that the Court's audit reviewed a sample of projects involving FI measures co-financed by the ERDF during the 2000-2006 and the 2007-2013 programming periods and points out that the limited number of projects analysed and Member States concerned might fail to represent a complete picture of the use of ERDF funds throughout the EU; takes the view that any audit report at the end of 2007-2013 programming period should take account of funding specifically earmarked for SMEs in outermost regions so as to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the utilisation of these funds within the Union;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Supports the Court's call for clearer definition of the concept of leverage in FI; underlines, nonetheless, that in the light of the pressure to deliver higher leverage, it is important to recall that FI in cohesion policy are generally financing projects in less developed regions and regions with economic difficulties, with the aim of improving situations of market failure and sub-optimal investment, thus FI in cohesion policy do not only focus on short- term profitability but also on high socio- economic benefits, especially at regional level; points at multi-level governance and shared management in design and delivery of the programmes as the fundamental concepts behind cohesion policy that enable regional and national authorities to partake in planning and implementation of programmes; stresses, therefore, that the legislative framework needs to maintain a certain level of flexibility also when it comes to definitions and requirements of leverage effect;
source: PE-494.503
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
activities/5/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-307&language=EN
|
procedure/title |
Old
Special Report No 2/2012 (2011 discharge): Financial instruments for SMEs co-financed by the European Regional Development FundNew
Special report 2/2012 (2011 discharge): Financial instruments for SMEs co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund |
activities/1/committees/3/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de186040fb8127435bdbfc9New
4f1ac4c4b819f25896000033 |
activities/1/committees/3/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
KLEVA MojcaNew
KLEVA KEKUŠ Mojca |
activities/4/committees/3/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de186040fb8127435bdbfc9New
4f1ac4c4b819f25896000033 |
activities/4/committees/3/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
KLEVA MojcaNew
KLEVA KEKUŠ Mojca |
committees/3/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de186040fb8127435bdbfc9New
4f1ac4c4b819f25896000033 |
committees/3/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
KLEVA MojcaNew
KLEVA KEKUŠ Mojca |
activities/2/date |
Old
2012-06-04T00:00:00New
2012-05-07T00:00:00 |
activities/2/docs |
|
activities/2/type |
Old
Deadline AmendmentsNew
Committee draft report |
activities/3 |
|
activities/3/date |
Old
2012-03-27T00:00:00New
2012-06-11T00:00:00 |
activities/3/docs |
|
activities/3/type |
Old
DateNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/5 |
|
activities/7 |
|
activities/6/committees |
|
activities/6/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/3 |
|
activities/3/date |
Old
2012-06-11T00:00:00New
2012-05-07T00:00:00 |
activities/3/docs/0/title |
Old
PE491.184New
PE489.375 |
activities/3/docs/0/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Committee draft report |
activities/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE491.184New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE489.375 |
activities/3/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Committee draft report |
activities/5/date |
Old
2012-10-23T00:00:00New
2012-06-11T00:00:00 |
activities/5/docs |
|
activities/5/type |
Old
EP 1R PlenaryNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/8 |
|
activities/2/committees/0/shadows/4/group |
Old
ECRNew
NI |
activities/5 |
|
committees/0/shadows/4/group |
Old
ECRNew
NI |
activities/6/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Plenary |
activities/7 |
|
activities/6/date |
Old
2012-10-25T00:00:00New
2012-10-23T00:00:00 |
activities/2/committees/0/shadows |
|
committees/0/shadows |
|
activities/1/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
PURPOSE: to present the Special report of the European Court of Auditors (No 2/2012) on the efficiency of financial instrument for SMEs co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. CONTENT: the European Court of Auditors (ECA) concludes in its special report (No. 2/2012) that the effectiveness and efficiency of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) spending on financial instruments for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were hampered by the regulatory framework being inappropriate for the different types of financial instruments used. There were widespread delays in the funds reaching the recipient SMEs and the supported actions were ineffective in leveraging in private investment. SME financing gap assessments, when prepared, suffered from significant shortcomings. In addition, some recipient SMEs were charged unjustified management fees by the financial intermediaries used. The ECAs performance audit shows that the Structural Funds regulatory framework used for this SME support through financial instruments was originally designed for grant spending, and thus unfit to take into account the specific characteristics of the debt and equity instruments used. There were weaknesses in:
Court recommendations: the ECA makes a number of recommendations to the Commission to improve the regulatory framework for these instruments, as well as for managing efficiency and effectiveness. These include:
If these recommendations cannot be implemented under the Cohesion policy framework then the special report concludes that consideration should be given to finding more effective ways of providing this type of support to small and medium sized enterprises. New
PURPOSE: to present the Special report of the European Court of Auditors (No 2/2012) on the efficiency of financial instrument for SMEs co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. CONTENT: the European Court of Auditors (ECA) concludes in its special report (No. 2/2012) that the effectiveness and efficiency of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) spending on financial instruments for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were hampered by the regulatory framework being inappropriate for the different types of financial instruments used. There were widespread delays in the funds reaching the recipient SMEs and the supported actions were ineffective in leveraging in private investment. SME financing gap assessments, when prepared, suffered from significant shortcomings. In addition, some recipient SMEs were charged unjustified management fees by the financial intermediaries used. The ECA's performance audit shows that the Structural Funds regulatory framework used for this SME support through financial instruments was originally designed for grant spending, and thus unfit to take into account the specific characteristics of the debt and equity instruments used. There were weaknesses in:
Court recommendations: the ECA makes a number of recommendations to the Commission to improve the regulatory framework for these instruments, as well as for managing efficiency and effectiveness. These include:
If these recommendations cannot be implemented under the Cohesion policy framework then the special report concludes that consideration should be given to finding more effective ways of providing this type of support to small and medium sized enterprises. |
procedure/legal_basis |
|
procedure/subject/0 |
3.45.02 Small and medium-sized enterprises SMEs, craft industries
|
activities/2/committees/3/date |
2012-06-21T00:00:00
|
activities/2/committees/3/rapporteur |
|
committees/3/date |
2012-06-21T00:00:00
|
committees/3/rapporteur |
|
activities/3 |
|
activities/3/date |
Old
2012-10-23T00:00:00New
2012-05-07T00:00:00 |
activities/3/docs |
|
activities/3/type |
Old
EP 1R PlenaryNew
Committee draft report |
activities/7 |
|
activities/6/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Plenary |
activities/7 |
|
activities/8 |
|
activities/1/docs/0/text |
|
activities/3 |
|
activities/3/date |
Old
2012-09-11T00:00:00New
2012-05-07T00:00:00 |
activities/3/docs |
|
activities/3/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee draft report |
activities/6/date |
Old
2012-07-09T00:00:00New
2012-10-23T00:00:00 |
activities/6/type |
Old
EP 1R CommitteeNew
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/5/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Committee |
activities/7 |
|
activities/3/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE489.375
|
activities/3 |
|
procedure/legal_basis |
|
activities/1/commission/0 |
|
other/0 |
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|