2016/2302(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the second pillar of the common agricultural policy (rural development) is a crucial element in preserving and strengthening social and territorial cohesion and must be protected and enhanced in the next round of CAP reform;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas ~~the current crisi~~dependency on farm support payments in the agricultural sector, has resulted in a lack of profitability with ~~income losses~~a lack of supply chain accountability and increased price instability, and has led many farmers to ~~give up farming, and this sector requires more support~~question the validity of the CAP direct payments model;

Amendment 11 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the current crisis in the agricultural sector~~, a lack of profitability with income losses and increased price instability, has led many farm~~ has its roots in the inequality in the food chain; whereas this must be addressed in a meaningful manners to ~~give up farming, and this sector requires more support~~underpin the viability of farming;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the current crisis in the agricultural sector, a lack of profitability with income losses and increased price instability, has led many farmers to give up farming, and this sector requires ~~more support~~further restructuring which will improve farmers' bargaining position in the supply chain and will promote and enhance climate- smart and environmentally-friendly production which improves the quality of soil, preserves biodiversity and thereby ensures Europe's long-term food security;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

C a. Whereas although some argue that financial instruments should in particular be used in less-developed regions in order to help unlock their development potential, in reality the appetite for private sector engagement is rather low due to the lack of bankable projects in these regions;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the EU agricultural sector must be supported in future to remain globally competitive;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the potential advantages offered by the financial instruments available under the European Fund for Rural Development, whether in the form of loans, guarantees or capital funds, believes however that the norms of prudent lending should not be abandoned;

Amendment 18 #

Philippe LOISEAU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the ~~poten~~theoretical advantages offered by, and also the complexity of, the financial instruments available under the European Fund for Rural Development, whether in the form of loans, guarantees or capital funds;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the role of and the potential advantages offered by the financial instruments available under the European Fund for Rural Development, whether in the form of loans, guarantees or capital funds;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the second pillar of the common agricultural policy (rural development) is a crucial element in preserving and strengthening social and territorial cohesion and avoid a rural exodus;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the potential advantages offered by the financial instruments available under the European Fund for Rural Development, whether in the form of loans, guarantees or capital funds; stresses the need to diversify existing financial instruments as closely as possible in line with the needs of European farmers;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Observes that, in reality, rural development is a European policy whose purpose is to help rural areas in the European Union to overcome disadvantage, and therefore it is a fundamental element of European cohesion; considers, therefore, that, as the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy, rural development should continue to be pursued after 2020 as well, and that appropriate Union funding should be provided for it, which means more than at present;

Amendment 22 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Hannu TAKKULA, Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Notes the potential offered to agricultural and rural micro, small and medium-sized enterprises via loans provided through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, highlights however that the full potential benefits of the leverage provided by these instruments has not been realized;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Encourages a greater involvement of regional and local authorities in the distribution and use of funds which is essential for improving farmers' position and reiterates the importance of the LEADER programme in that context;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that in ~~many situations access to credit poses an obstacle to investmen~~the first instance, lack of profitability in the farming enterprise poses an obstacle to investment, in addition to a lack of access to credit, in particular for young farmers, either because of the high costs or because of the guarantees that the financial system requires;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that in many situations access to credit poses an obstacle to investment, in particular for young farmers, either because of the high costs or because of the guarantees that the financial system requiresHighlights that access to finance and capital,either because of the high costs or because of the guarantees that the financial system requires, is one of the biggest challenges facing farmers and rural entrepreneurs in all sectors, hampering innovation and competitiveness on-farm and in the wider rural economy;

Amendment 26 #

Philippe LOISEAU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that in many situations access to credit, and hence the affordability of land, poses an obstacle to investment, in particular for young ~~farmers~~people and for the many farmers in difficulty, either because of the high costs or because of the guarantees that the financial system requires;

Amendment 27 #

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that in many situations lack of access to credit poses an obstacle to investment and reduces interest in this activity, in particular for young farmers, either because of the high costs or because of the guarantees that the financial system requires;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that, in many situations, access to credit poses an obstacle to investment, in particular for young farmers, and also for small farmers and newly established farmers, either because of the high costs or because of the guarantees that the financial system requires;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that in many situations access to credit poses an obstacle to investment, in particular for young farmers, either because of the high costs or because of the guarantees that the financial system requires; believes that more effective implementation of financial instruments would help promote policies designed to improve access to credit;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas account must be taken of the respective regions' specialities, characteristics and differences and of the need to make small farms more competitive and viable, to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation and to curb depopulation and population ageing in rural areas;

Amendment 30 #

Daciana Octavia SÂRBU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on the Member States to facilitate access to credits for young farmers and for small agricultural holdings;

Amendment 31 #

Tibor SZANYI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Points out that active organizations in rural development (such as Local Action Groups) might face difficulties in accessing bank guarantees - which is a prerequisite for benefits from advance payments on running and animation costs - considers therefore that a guarantees program on those advances would be beneficial;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Notes the harsh financial situation farmers find themselves in as food prices have been kept low unlike prices in all other sectors of the economy;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Particularly notes that farmers' average annual incomes in the EU have remained unchanged, or in some cases have declined, over the past 10 years, compared to continuously increasing production costs and an increase in farm debt;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Calls therefore upon the Commission and the Member States to take seriously the need for remunerative prices for produce;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Emphasises that EU cohesion policy and the associated financial instruments and grants must continue to underpin the policy of promoting the creation of infrastructure, schools and colleges, healthcare, social care and childcare facilities, high-speed internet access and the establishment and development of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in rural areas;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes that the European Investment Bank (EIB) has started working with a number of lenders in certain Member States to promote generational turnover in the agricultural sector; calls on EIB national contacts to activate financial instruments already in place to facilitate access to credit for young farmers;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. stresses that financial instruments and subsidies must be effectively coordinated to stimulate investment, especially in agricultural innovation;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Underlines the importance of informing farmers better about the European Investment Bank's key role in supporting and developing the rural economy and how to benefit from innovative financial instruments ;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Questions the proposed reliance on loans in a climate of extreme debt amongst farmers, who often stand little chance of paying off that debt;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas rural areas are often isolated and suffer from infrastructural shortcomings that undermine the development of building activity and agricultural production;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Calls for the establishment by the EIB of a multi-regional investment platform for agriculture eligible for Rural Development Programme (RDP) funding, which could subsequently leverage additional public and private funding and enhance the impact of EAFRD funding;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Notes also long-running pressure in the farming sector to 'grow or perish'; expresses concern that 2.4 million farms in the EU disappeared between 2005 and 2010, most of which are small farmers, and the resulting disappearance of a large number of jobs in rural areas;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that, up to now, the level of use made of CAP financial instruments has been low, and calls for consideration to be given to this area with the aim of ensuring that these instruments are better suited to the agricultural sector and further simplifying the procedures~~, and creating public advice platforms~~; suggests that existing credit providers could be leveraged to deliver CAP-backed financial instruments in order to minimise bureacracy and utilise existing accountability expertise;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that, up to now, the level of use made of CAP financial instruments has been low, and calls for consideration to be given to this area with the aim of ensuring that these instruments are better suited to the agricultural sector and further simplifying the procedures, and creating public advice platforms, believes however that consideration must be given to the substantial loans that farmers already draw down to complement funds received under the second pillar;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that, up to now, the level of use made of ~~CAP~~these financial instruments has been low, and calls for consideration to be given to ~~this area with the aim of ensuring that these instruments are better suited to the agricultural sector and further simplifying the procedures,~~further actions to ensure that the opportunities available via these instruments are communicated clearly and regularly to agricultural sector, rural actors and cre~~ating public advice platform~~gional authorities;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that, up to now, the level of use made of CAP financial instruments has been low, and calls for consideration to be given to this area with the aim of ensuring that these instruments are better suited to the agricultural sector and further simplifying the procedures, ~~and creating~~such as organizing and conducting information campaigns sending common messages at European level, accompanied by the launch of public platforms for the exchange of best practices and public advice platforms;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that, up to now, the level of use made of CAP financial instruments has been low, and calls for consideration to be given to this area with the aim of ensuring that these instruments are better suited to the agricultural sector and further simplifying the procedures, and creating public advice platforms; notes that complex rules diminish the attractiveness of funding in the agricultural sector and stresses the need for reasonable conditionality to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Welcomes and encourages maximum participation by the European Investment Bank in the establishment of these financial instruments;

Amendment 48 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Hannu TAKKULA, Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Regrets the low use of the crisis reserve, which is mainly due to budgetary rules, in particular the annuality rule, and to the discretion that the Commission enjoys when it comes to releasing funds from the reserve; calls, therefore, for the crisis reserve to be constituted outside the EU budget and for it to serve as source of funding for crisis management tools ;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Highlights the importance of a stronger promotion of financial possibilities in order to encourage their use for the public and private sector; calls for a better presentation of the results achieved, especially on the regional and local level;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the traditional European production model needs to be preserved and enhanced, based on small and medium-sized family farming as a guarantee of our agriculture’s social and environmental sustainability;deleted

Amendment 50 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Hannu TAKKULA, Hilde VAUTMANS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Notes that in response to the needs of specific sectors such as young farmers, loans can be combined with EAFRD grants in order to facilitate investment and encourage growth, which benefits the wider rural economy as well as the agriculture sector;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that delays in payments that farmers are entitled to under the CAP are avoided;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Notes that information and training in relation to financial instruments at the regional level is necessary in order to increase awareness of these financial options and stresses that Member States and regional authorities have a key role to play in facilitating and communicating these options to rural communities and enterprises;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the ~~complementary~~enhanced nature of these instruments ~~in relation to subsidi~~compared to subsidies, which tend to be capitalised into land values or rents or extracted through high input or low output prices, and draws attention to the need to ensure th~~at the former do not replace the latter, which would be extremely damaging for farming and~~eir increased uptake for the benefit of the commercial development of European agricultural businesses, whereas direct grant payments may be more appropriately used to meet true market failure for example in the case of works to enhance or to prevent damaging the rural environment;

Amendment 54 #

Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the complementary nature of these instruments in relation to ~~subsidies~~income support and draws attention to the need to ensure that the former do not replace the latter, which would be extremely damaging for farming and the rural environment;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the complementary nature of these instruments ~~in relation to subsidies and draws attention to the need to ensure that the former do not replace the latter, which would be extremely damaging for farming and the rural environment~~and the importance of a continued mix of grants, financial instruments and repayable assistance as an effective and efficient form for support for competitiveness and cohesion in rural areas and regions;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the complementary nature of these instruments in relation to subsidies and draws attention to the need to ensure that the former do not replace the latter, which would be extremely damaging for farming and the rural environment; European Union support and the financial instruments must be applied together in rural development policy;

Amendment 57 #

Ulrike MÜLLER, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the complementary nature of these instruments in relation to subsidies and draws attention to the need to ensure that the former do not replace the latter, which would be extremely damaging for farming and the rural environment; points out that the balanced use of both types of funding helps enhance project performance and ensure increased accountability regarding investment spending in rural areas;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the complementary nature of these instruments in relation to subsidies and draws attention to the need to ensure that the former do not replace the latter, which would be extremely damaging for farming and the rural environment; emphasises that grant funding will continue to be essential in order to achieve the EAFRD objectives;

Amendment 59 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Hannu TAKKULA, Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes the differing strengths and disadvantages offered by both grants and financial instruments to the sector in terms of accessibility, complexity, risk, implementation costs and their applicability in meeting specific challenges or broader developmental goals;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the traditional European production model needs to be preserved ~~and enhanced~~, enhanced and supported in its transition to innovative, resource-efficient and climate-smart ways of production, based on small and medium-sized family farming as a guarantee of our agriculture’s social and environmental sustainability;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Reaffirms the difference between public funds being used for public goods or benefits for whole communities or society as a whole on one hand, and investment in infrastructure on private holdings on the other;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Considers that loans are not appropriate for certain types of rural development measures for example where whole communities benefit, as in CLLD (community led local development) or LEADER approaches, or society in general benefits, as in agri-environmental measures;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4 c. Notes the difference between larger scale infrastructure projects financed by the structural and cohesion funds on one hand, and smaller scale investments and grants made to improve 'soft' infrastructure on the other, e.g. bringing soils back to life; notes that the smaller investments can be equally if not more effective and less costly and that this approach has been adopted in other related fields of expenditure such as development aid and flood defences;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for them to be implemented through local decision making in such a way that they can support collective or indvidual projects geared to financing basic infrastructure based on locally identified needs, for example in the field of irrigation, transport, processing, marketing ~~and forestry development~~, vertical integration, innovation and forestry development, and towards farm level market adjustment, such as changing farm outputs or management systems to better match consumer demands, with maturity-based financial instruments that require commercial viability and reflect the actual economic position for each project.

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for them to be implemented in such a way that they can support collective projects encouraging agricultural producer associations geared to financing basic infrastructure in the field of irrigation, transport, processing, storage marketing and the development of short supply chains or forestry development, with maturity-based financial instruments that reflect the actual economic position for each project.

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for them to be implemented in such a way that they can support collective projects geared to financing basic infrastructure in the field of irrigation, transport, processing, marketing and forestry development, ~~with~~and, in addition, agricultural product marketing measures carried out by farmers and their cooperatives, to that end using maturity- based financial instruments that reflect the actual economic position for each project.

Amendment 66 #

Philippe LOISEAU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for them to be implemented in such a way that they can support ~~collective~~ projects geared to financing basic infrastructure in the field of irrigation, transport, processing, marketing and forestry development, with maturity-based financial instruments that reflect the actual economic position for each project.

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for them to be implemented in such a way that they can support collective projects geared to financing basic infrastructure in the field of irrigation, transport, processing, marketing and forestry development, including transborder projects, with maturity-based financial instruments that reflect the actual economic position for each project. calls for measures to encourage public-private partnerships to increase the number of climate change investment projects in a bid to meet EU environmental objectives.

Amendment 68 #

Ulrike MÜLLER, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for them to be implemented in such a way that they can support collective projects geared to financing basic infrastructure in the field of irrigation, transport, processing, closed production cycles, marketing and forestry development, as well as the development of wood and non-wood forest products, with maturity-based financial instruments that reflect the actual economic position for each project.

Amendment 69 #

Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for them to be implemented in such a way that they can support not only platforms for financing individual businesses but also collective projects geared to financing basic infrastructure in the field of irrigation, transport, processing, marketing and forestry development, with maturity-based financial instruments that reflect the actual economic position for each project.

Amendment 7 #

Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the traditional European production model needs to be preserved and enhanced, based on small and medium- sized family farming as a guarantee of our agriculture’s social and environmental sustainability and the viability of rural areas;

Amendment 70 #

Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for them to be implemented in such a way that they can support ~~collective~~ projects geared to financing basic ~~infrastructure~~provision in the field of ~~irrigation, transport, processing, marketing~~agriculture, horticulture and forestry ~~development~~, with maturity-based financial instruments that reflect the actual economic position for each project.

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for them to be implemented in such a way that they can support both collective projects and region-specific projects geared to financing basic infrastructure in the field of irrigation, transport, processing, marketing and forestry development, with maturity-based financial instruments that reflect the actual economic position for each project.

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for them to be implemented in such a way that they can support collective projects geared to financing basic infrastructure in the field of irrigation, transport, processing, marketing and forestry development, with maturity-based financial instruments that reflect the actual economic position for each project.; notes however the administrative complexity involved in making loans to and collecting debt from a collective or group of farmers, and so urges a streamlined, simplified approach; finds that if the loan approach is too complex, awarding grants to collectives may be more appropriate;

Amendment 73 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Hannu TAKKULA, Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Criticises the fact that loans are provided in developing and transition countries using EU public-private funds via the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Institutions and Export Credit Agencies of EU Member States for animal housing which is not in line with EU rules and higher animal welfare standards1a _________________ 1a ref: http://www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/investments -in-suffering.pdf

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Considers that given the current situation of the European agricultural sector, it is necessary, for the period after 2020, to increase the possibilities of financing projects without lowering non- refundable financial contributions;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission, in close cooperation with the European Investment Bank, to create a new financial instrument to provide export credit for European Union goods as soon as possible;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Considers that, rather than reducing evaluation obligations by authorities, we need additional data to be gathered and analysis to be carried out to justify the use of financial instruments and to prevent their undetermined and 'blank-check' use;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Stresses that improving significantly the evidence base must be a pre-requisite for promoting or even requesting an increased use of financial instruments;

Amendment 78 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5 c. Considers that the leverage effect of financial instruments, which is regularly used as key argument in their favour, is often lower than estimated;

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Believes that the supposed greater extent to which financial instruments mobilise private capital is often overstated and that in many cases the leverage effect of grants is not much lower than that of financial instruments;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas in certain regions, such as mountain areas and islands, agriculture is the main economic activity and its development is of fundamental importance for achieving the territorial cohesion objectives;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Recital Б b (new)

Bc. whereas EU cohesion policy has a significant role in the achievement of social, economic and territorial cohesion and of multi-layered agriculture and regions within the Union, which will enhance regional flexibility and potential for development and growth, and whereas there is a need for policies and tools to that end;

source: 597.684

2017/01/31 BUDG 42 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Marco ZANNI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that the ultimate purpose of financial instruments (FIs) is to act in situations of market failure or suboptimal investment as a catalyst making it possible to mobilise funding for projects which cannot secure adequate support from the market; insists that the funding channelled through the EU- supported FIs should play a social role and not be limited to satisfying private interests onlyDeplores the uncontrolled proliferation of financial instruments (FIs) which, placed outside the EU budget, evade all forms of democratic scrutiny and lack the necessary transparency, in terms of both reporting and performance; stresses that by preventing the necessary competitiveness adjustments to asymmetric shocks, the euro is the primary cause of the social and economic divergences between Member States; points out that the adoption of socially responsible policies is, first and foremost, up to the Member States, which must be able to invest in the growth of their own economies, in support for their SMEs and in job creation;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)

(1) Regrets the fact that local public enterprises are being penalised under the current definition of SMEs at European level, under which they are not guaranteed access to the funding that they need in order to fulfil their general interest tasks;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that FIs, both those subject to shared management and those subject to central management, have hitherto not managed to attract any private capital; calls on the Commission to provide an assessment regarding this shortcoming;

Amendment 12 #

Monika VANA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Emphasises that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) must not substitute the EU's cohesion policy;

Amendment 13 #

Monika VANA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Believes that the main aim of projects financed under the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) should be to deliver on the Europe 2020 targets by creating quality jobs, inclusive sustainable real-economy growth and a dynamic labour market in Europe that benefits society as a whole and is sustainable in economic, social and environmental terms, and hence to reduce inequalities and enhance the well-being of everyone;

Amendment 14 #

Marco ZANNI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that, according to estimations, allocations in FIs from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) would almost double between 2007-2013, when they amounted to EUR 11.7 billion, and 2014- 2020, when they would amount to EUR 20.9 billion; ~~notes that the FIs would therefore~~is concerned about the increasing use of FIs which already represent 6 % of the overall cohesion policy allocation in 2014-2020, compared with 3.4 % in 2007-2013;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that, according to estimations, allocations in FIs from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) would almost double between 2007-2013, when they amounted to EUR 11.7 billion, and 2014- 2020, when they would amount to EUR 20.9 billion; notes that the FIs would therefore represent 6 % of the overall cohesion policy allocation in 2014-2020 of 351,8billion, compared with 3.4 % of the allocated 347 billion in 2007-2013;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Notes that the allocations from the Cohesion Fund amounts to approximately 75 billion euros, representing 11,8% of the total FI's allocations in the 2014-2020 period; welcomes the allocation increase from 70 billion euros in the 2007-2013 period to 75 billion in the 2014-2020 period; highlights that allocation to the Cohesion Fund should not be diminished taking into consideration that approximately 34% of the EU's population live in a region that receives aid from the Cohesion Fund;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Calls on the Commission to study new ways of debureaucratization of the funds accessing procedure in order to increase the absorbption rates and further provide easier and transparent access of Member States to the EU's financial instruments;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Notes that the Commission is working closesly with it's Member States to improve how the funds are invested and managed; calls on the Commission to further engage local authorities in consultations regarding the evolution of financial instruments;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Takes note of the total volume of EUR 5 571.63 million of operational programme contributions committed to FIs by 21 Member States by 31 December 2015 in the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), EUR 5 005.25 million of which are from the ERDF and CF; points out that in the previous programming period a significant number of ERDF and ESF financial instruments turned out to be excessive and, at the end of 2014, the disbursement of the appropriations assigned to them continued to be highly problematic;

Amendment 2 #

Jan OLBRYCHT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that the ultimate purpose of financial instruments (FIs) is to ~~act in situations of market failure or suboptimal investment as a catalyst making it possible to mobilise funding for projects which cannot secure adequate support from the market; insist~~provide a complementary way of financial support from the EU budget as compared to subsidies and grants with the aim of addressing one or more policy objectives of the Union; notes that in the ~~funding channelled through~~2014-2020 programming period the ~~EU-~~FI support~~ed FIs should play a social role and not b~~ under cohesion policy can be provided for all thematic objectives and all ESI Funds which constitutes an extension of the eli~~mited to satisfying private interests only~~gibility compared to the previous financial perspective; notes furthermore that the support can take form of tailor- made or off-the-shelf instruments;

Amendment 20 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Notes that by 31 December 2015, only one Member State reported its intention to combine support from FIs with grants on the basis of Art.37 CPR and that Member State's intention for contribution to FI under Art. 38(1) and Art.39 CPR was very low. Observes that the correct implementation of FIs still causes challenges due to inconsistent rules (cohesion policy, state aid, public procurement regulations) and believes that there is scope for more synergies between the use of FIs and other types of support;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Welcomes that approximately 90% of the EIB available funding promotes sustainable growth and job creation in Member States; criticizes the EIB's treatment differences towards certain under developed regions taking into consideration that in 2015 Spain, Italy, France, UK, Germany and Poland were in the lead with approximately 365 EIB signed operations while the rest of the Member States, together, only amount to approximately 170 EIB signed operations;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is alarmed by the significant delays in the implementation of the programmes; urges the ~~Member States to tackle promptly all causes of delay, particularly late designation of managing authorities~~European Commission to ensure tailor made technical assistance to the Member States and Regions for preparation of project pipelines, simplification and acceleration of the financial management and control system, for contracting and monitoring procedures and for structural reforms which will improve business and investment climate, in order to avoid a repetition of the accumulated backlog of unpaid invoices in the second half of the current MFF, which could seriously impact other EU-funded policies as well;

Amendment 23 #

Jan OLBRYCHT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is alarmed by the significant delays in the implementation of the ~~programmes; urges~~cohesion policy operational programmes under the current financial perspective; urges the Commission to identify the causes of the delays and the Member States to tackle them promptly ~~all causes of delay, particularly late designation of manag~~, particularly when it comes to the designation of managing, certifying and auditing authorities,; i~~n order to avoid~~s seriously concerned about the strong possibility of a repetition of the accumulated backlog of unpaid invoices in the second half of the current MFF, which could seriously impact other EU-funded policies as well;

Amendment 24 #

Nicola CAPUTO, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is alarmed by the significant delays in the implementation of the programmes; takes the view that challenges such as migration and security, and current or future political developments in the EU, including the practical implications of Brexit, should not have an adverse effect on investments made under the cohesion policy; urges the Member States to tackle promptly all causes of delay, particularly late designation of managing authorities, in order to avoid a repetition of the accumulated backlog of unpaid invoices in the second half of the current MFF, which could seriously impact other EU-funded policies as well;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is alarmed by the significant delays in the implementation of the programmes; urges the Member States to tackle promptly all causes of delay, particularly late designation of managing authorities, in order to avoid a repetition of the accumulated backlog of unpaid invoices in the second half of the current MFF, which could seriously impact other EU-funded policies as well; recalls the fact that delays in the 2007-2013 period contributed irreversibly to sub-optimal performance of ERDF and ESF financial instruments; emphasises that all necessary steps should be taken to mitigate the negative effects of delayed implementation, especially regarding the risk of limited use and impact;

Amendment 26 #

Claudia ȚAPARDEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is alarmed by the significant delays in the implementation of the programmes; urges the Member States to tackle promptly all causes of delay, particularly late designation of managing authorities, in order to avoid a repetition of the accumulated backlog of unpaid invoices in the second half of the current MFF, which could seriously impact other EU-funded policies as well; recognises that some Member States have limited experience in utilising financial instruments and involving the private sector and, as such, recommends that the Commission provide technical assistance with project writing and implementation.

Amendment 27 #

Nicola CAPUTO, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes the Commission’s actions in optimising regulation; emphasises that, despite the improvements, complexity still exists and issues such as the long set-up time and the administrative burden for recipients are disincentives to use financial instruments; calls on the Commission to work closely with the EIB and the EIF to make access to ESI Funds microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital as easy as using grants;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to carry out a comparative analysis of the implementation costs of grants and financial instruments (in central and shared management) for the 2014-2020 programme period with a view to establishing their actual levels; notes that such information would be particularly relevant with a view to preparing the legislative proposals for the post-2020 period; calls for a complete performance evaluation before the end of 2019 in order to consider the future of such instruments;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Invites the Commission to continue and present annual reports containing concrete information regarding the financing and implementing of financial instruments for the programming period 2014-2020, highlighting the areas that need improvement and offering recommendations in a timely fashion based on the evolutions of the programme;

Amendment 3 #

Georgios KYRTSOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that the ultimate purpose of financial instruments (FIs) is to act ~~in situations of market failure or suboptimal investment as a catalyst making it possible to mobilise funding for projects which cannot secure adequate supp~~complementarily to grant financing from the EU budget in order to effectively address EU´s policy objectives and to act as a catalyst fort f~~rom the market; insist~~urther investments; considers that the funding channelled through the EU- supported FIs ~~should play a social role and not be limited to satisfying private interests only~~can help towards the direction of mobilising financing for projects which cannot secure adequate support from the market;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Stresses the need for more information sessions to be provided to the managing authorities by the Commissions Expert Groups such as EGESIF to ensure better data coverage in reporting requirements, provide advice on tackling the issues causing significant delays in implementation of programmes, an exchange of experience and encourage good practice in the implementation of the programme thus avoiding a high backlog of unpaid bills in the second part of the 2014-2020 MFF;

Amendment 31 #

Nicola CAPUTO, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4 c. Calls on the Commission to introduce the equal pay for equal work mechanism by amending the existing framework in order to eliminate the regional wage gap for European experts accordingly to their country of residence; deplores the existing differences that go up to 10 times in the payment schemes of researchers in Horizon 2020 and calls for a fair treatment;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Points to the challenges that FIs represent for democratic control, timely and transparent reporting and accountability; emphasises that further harmonisation is needed for the rules that concern combining different ESI Funds, as well as for the rules that concern the funding mix of ESI Funds and instruments such as Horizon 2020 and EFSI; believes that the revision of the Financial Regulation and the ‘omnibus regulation’ could provide an opportunity to streamline the reporting on FIs and thus provide a better basis to assess additionality and complementarity between different forms of EU support, particularly between cohesion funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI).

Amendment 33 #

Marco ZANNI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Points to the challenges that FIs represent for democratic control, timely and transparent reporting~~Highlights the vulnerabilities which characterise FIs in terms of both democratic control and reporting, transparency and accountability; believes that the revision of the Financial Regulation and the ‘omnibus regulation’ cshould ~~provide an opportunity to streaml~~necessarily be geared to restorineg the reporting on FIs and thus provide a better basis to assess additionality and complementarity between different forms of EU support, particularly between cohesion funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)central role of national parliaments, by establishing more stringent and effective control and assessment parameters for the evaluation of European public spending.

Amendment 34 #

Monika VANA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Points to the challenges that FIs represent for democratic control, timely and transparent reporting and accountability; believes that the revision of the Financial Regulation and the ‘omnibus regulation’ could provide an opportunity to streamline the reporting on FIs and thus provide a better basis to assess additionality and complementarity between different forms of EU support~~, particularly between cohesion funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)~~.

Amendment 35 #

Georgios KYRTSOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Points to the challenges that FIs represent for~~Notes that the use of FIs needs to safeguard the democratic control, timely and transparent reporting and accountability; believes that the revision of the Financial Regulation and the ‘omnibus regulation’ could provide an opportunity to streamline the reporting on FIs and thus provide a better basis to assess additionality and complementarity between different forms of EU support, particularly between cohesion funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI).

Amendment 36 #

Alfred SANT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Points to the challenges that FIs represent for democratic control, timely and transparent reporting and accountability, as well as in the implementation of rules governing FIs at a local level; believes that the revision of the Financial Regulation and the ‘omnibus regulation’ could provide an opportunity to streamline the reporting on FIs and thus provide a better basis to assess additionality and complementarity between different forms of EU support, particularly between cohesion funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI).

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Points to the challenges that FIs represent for democratic control, timely and transparent reporting and accountability; stresses the importance of having access to data concerning the use of budgetary resources by the ESI Funds and obtaining an assessment of the results achieved; believes that the revision of the Financial Regulation and the ‘omnibus regulation’ could provide an opportunity to streamline the reporting on FIs and thus provide a better basis to assess additionality and complementarity between different forms of EU support~~, particularly between cohesion funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)~~.

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Points to the challenges that FIs represent for democratic control, in particular by the European Parliament, as well as for timely and transparent reporting and for accountability; believes that the revision of the Financial Regulation and the ‘omnibus regulation’ could provide an opportunity to streamline the reporting on FIs and thus provide a better basis to assess additionality and complementarity between different forms of EU support, particularly between cohesion funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI).

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Points to the challenges that FIs represent for democratic control, timely and transparent reporting and accountability; believes that the revision of the Financial Regulation and the ‘omnibus regulation’ could provide an opportunity to streamline the reporting on FIs and thus provide a better basis to assess additionality and complementarity between different forms of EU support, particularly between cohesion funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), stresses the importance of active and efficient use of EU budget, therefore welcomes all measures to avoid overlapping between EU instruments and to insure full coherence and synergy.

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that the ~~ultimate~~main purpose of financial instruments (FIs) is to act in situations of market failure or suboptimal investment as a catalyst making it possible to mobilise funding for projects which cannot secure adequate support from the market; insists that the funding channelled through the EU-supported FIs ~~should~~must play a social role ~~and not be limited to satisfying private interests on~~in support of the real economy, in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and the Europe 2020 strategy, and should not be limited to satisfying private interests only; stresses the importance of an independent ex ante evaluation of the projects to be funded, in order to identify real investment requirements and consequent added value; points out that the use of FIs must not be to the detriment of the normal monitoring procedures provided for when the EU budget is used directly;

Amendment 40 #

Jan OLBRYCHT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. In view of preparing the proposal for the next MFF, encourages the Commission to conduct an in-depth analysis of the use of the financial instruments since the beginning of the current programming period; stresses that when assessing a financial instrument, the leverage dimension cannot be the only evaluation criteria; is of the firm opinion that the possibility of a combination of various EU resources under harmonised management rules would help optimise the synergies between available sources of financing at EU level; encourages the Commission to reflect on a proper balance between the grants and FI in the next financial perspective and underlines that increasing use of financial instruments should not lead to a reduction in the Union budget;

Amendment 41 #

Georgios KYRTSOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. 5 a. Underlines that synergies and complementarities between EFSI and ESIF are instrumental in exploiting their full potential and maximising the impact of investments in the Member States and their regions; notes the Commission guidelines to combine EFSI and ESIF finances, but underlines the persistent difficulties linked to the eligibility criteria, timeframe for reporting and application of state aid rules that hinder their combined usage; welcomes the opportunities provided to further address these problems in the Commission proposals for the revision of the Financial Regulation, as well as for EFSI 2.0;

Amendment 42 #

Alfred SANT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Recalls that the upward social and economic convergence of the different regions in the EU should remain a main priority of the EU's Cohesion policy; points out that an assessment of the funding mix between FIs and other instruments should also be based on whether and how the mix contributes positively or negatively to the goal of reducing the cleavage between centre and periphery; in this spirit, emphasises on the need for further funding designed for the Union's peripheral regions aimed at slowing down the growing socioeconomic cleavage between the European centre and its peripheral regions.

Amendment 5 #

Isabelle THOMAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 7 #

Isabelle THOMAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 8 #

Alfred SANT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that the ultimate purpose of financial instruments (FIs) is to act in situations of market failure or suboptimal investment as a catalyst making it possible to mobilise funding for projects which cannot secure adequate support from the market; insists that the funding channelled through the EU-supported FIs should play a social role and not be limited to satisfying private interests only, especially in the field of financial or non- financial services of general interest; emphasises that grant components are a major asset in encouraging beneficiaries to apply for additional funds from private investors; points out, furthermore, that the performance of FIs cannot be assessed on the basis of an appraisal of their financial impact alone;

source: 597.736

2017/02/06 REGI 182 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2016 on European Territorial Cooperation – best practices and innovative measures (2015/2280(INI),

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas local and regional authorities have encountered technical difficulties in implementing this type of instrument;

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 p (new)

10p. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop and implement specific training on the various Financial Instruments for potential beneficiaries in sectors of regional and local economies;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 q (new)

10q. Highlights the importance of continuing to work within a simple, clear and transparent legal framework, striking the right balance between control, effective implementation and accountability that does not increase the administrative burden on beneficiaries and makes the financial instruments attractive to public and private investors;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 r (new)

10r. Stresses the importance of running a comprehensive information campaign on the financial instruments at EU, Member State and regional level with a view to allowing access to them for investors of all sizes;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 s (new)

10s. Calls on the Commission to encourage and provide guidance to Member States on the use of these instruments, together with the community-led local development (CLLD) and integrated territorial investment (ITI) initiatives;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 t (new)

10t. Emphasises the need to follow the Commission’s recommendation to ascertain, by the end of the 2014-2020 programming period, the precise degree of leverage possible under each of the financial instruments, broken down by country and region, and distinguishing clearly between public and private contributions;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes that ESI Funds implementation delays ~~will~~may affect disbursement rates, revolving and leverage; recalls the fact that delays in the 2007-2013 period contributed irreversibly to sub- optimal performance of ERDF and ESF financial instruments; emphasises that implementation delays due to the late start of the programming period may harm the performance of ESI Funds financial instruments, which could lead to inaccurate evaluation conclusions at the end of the period; calls, therefore, for all necessary steps should be taken by the Member States to mitigate the negative effects of delayed implementation, especially regarding the risk of limited use and impact of financial instruments;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Notes that implementation delays will affect disbursement rates, revolving and leverage;~~ recalls the fact that delays in the 2007-2013 period contributed irreversibly to sub-optimal performance of ERDF and ESF financial instruments; emphasises that all necessary steps should be taken to mitigate the negative effects of delayed implementation, especially regarding the risk of limited use and impact;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes that some implementation delays ~~will~~did affect originally foreseen disbursement rates, revolving and leverage; recalls the fact that delays in the 2007-2013 period contributed ~~irreversibly~~ to sub-optimal performance of ERDF and ESF financial instruments; emphasises that all necessary steps should be taken to mitigate the negative effects of delayed implementation, especially regarding the risk of limited use and impact;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes that implementation delays will affect disbursement rates, revolving and leverage; recalls the fact that delays in the 2007-2013 period contributed irreversibly to sub-optimal performance of ERDF and ESF financial instruments; emphasises that all necessary steps should be taken to mitigate the negative effects of delayed implementation, especially regarding the risk of limited use and impact; calls on the Commission to take appropriate measures to ensure that the Member States maintain the renewable nature of the funds for the prescribed period of eight years following the end of the eligibility period for the 2014-2020 programming period;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Reminds that the future of recycled funds is also becoming an important topic, as the re-usable resources from financial instruments established under the previous period are becoming available for reinvestment;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas regions with low population density encounter difficulties in attracting investment;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes with concern the significant differences across the EU regarding the penetration of financial instruments, including ESI Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI); calls for urgent and concrete proposals by the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament aimed at effectively overcoming the existing concentration of projects supported by EFSI and other EU funded financial instruments in the Union's top performing economies thus undermining the objectives of Cohesion Policy; emphasises that the overall success of such instruments depends on how easy they are to use and the ability of the Member States to manage investments through them;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes the significant differences across the EU regarding the penetration of financial instruments, including ESI Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI); recommends that the regional authorities run information and preparation programmes for beneficiaries on how to harness financial instruments; emphasises that the overall success of such instruments depends on how easy they are to use and the ability of the Member States to manage investments through them;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes the significant differences across the EU regarding the penetration of financial instruments, including ESI Funds and the first result of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI); emphasises that the overall success of such instruments depends on how easy they are to use and the ability of the Member States to manage investments through them;

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes the significant differences across the EU regarding the penetration of financial instruments, including ESI Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI); emphasises that the overall success of such instruments depends on how easy they are to use and the ability of the Member States to manage investments through them; calls on the Commission to ensure the exchange of knowledge and experience when working with financial instruments and to carry out obligatory ex-ante assessments, which will include an analysis of the impact, advantages and disadvantages of similar instruments, when developing new financial instruments;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes the significant differences across the EU regarding the penetration of financial instruments, including ESI Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI); emphasises that the overall success of such instruments depends on how easy they are to use and the ability of the Member States to manage investments through them; calls on the Commission, in order to reduce the current significant disparities in the distribution of financial instruments, to present programmes which are tailor- made and take into account circumstances and differences in the Member States;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Stresses that the success of financial instruments depends on a number of factors and that it is not possible to draw general, universal conclusions about their efficiency based on one criteria, such as level of development; stresses that, in the most highly developed regions or those in transition, management and implementation costs could be disproportionate to the scale of the operational programmes, and that these tools could come into conflict with more attractive national or regional instruments; stresses, therefore, that the primary focus of financial instruments should be the sectors and actions they can support;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s actions in optimising regulation; ~~emphasises that, despite the improvements, complexity still exists and issues such as the long set-up time and the administrative burden for recipients are disincentives to use financial instruments;~~ calls on the Commission to work closely with the EIB and the EIF to make access to ESI Funds microcredit, loans, and guarantees~~, equity and venture capital~~ as easy as using grants;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)

Ad. whereas financial instruments must operate on a non-discriminatory basis, comply with the principles of sound financial management and complement traditional instruments such as subsidies, in order to improve the quality of spending and help optimise financial resources, placing them at the service of the real economy;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Welcomes~~Takes the view that the Commission’s actions ~~in optimising regulation; emphasises that, despite the improvements,~~have added to the regulatory burden weighing down beneficiaries and project organisers ; emphasises that complexity still exists and issues such as the long set-up time and the administrative burden for recipients are disincentives to use financial instruments; calls on the Commission to work closely with the EIB and the EIF to make access to ESI Funds microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital as easy as using grants;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’s actions in optimising regulation; emphasises that, despite the improvements, complexity still exists and issues such as the long set-up time and the administrative burden for recipients are disincentives to use financial instruments; calls on the Commission to work closely with the EIB and the EIF to make access to ESI Funds microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital ~~as easy as using grant~~simpler, and to explain it in detail both to management structures in Member States and to end-users;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’s actions in optimising regulation; emphasises that, despite the improvements, complexity still exists and issues such as the long set-up time and the administrative burden for recipients are disincentives to use financial instruments; calls on the Commission to work closely with the EIB ~~and~~, the EIF and managing authorities to make access to ESI Funds microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital ~~as easy as using grants~~significantly easier;

Amendment 123 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’'s actions in optimising regulation; emphasises that, despite the improvements, complexity still exists and issues such as the long set-up time and the administrative burden for recipients are disincentives to use financial instruments; calls on the Commission to work closely with the EIB and the EIF to ~~mak~~ease access to ESI Funds microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital ~~as easy as using grants~~;

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’s actions in optimising regulation; emphasises that, despite the improvements, complexity still exists and issues such as the lack of flexibility, the long set-up time and the administrative burden for recipients are disincentives to use financial instruments; notes a lack of management capacity among beneficiaries resulting in a lesser take-up of financial instruments and recommends in this respect that investment partnerships be improved through closer involvement of the beneficiaries; calls on the Commission to work closely with the EIB and the EIF to make access to ESI Funds microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital as easy as using grants;

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’s actions in optimising regulation; emphasises that, despite the improvements, complexity still exists and issues such as the long set-up time and the administrative burden for recipients are disincentives to use financial instruments; calls on the Commission to work closely with the EIB and the EIF to make access to ESI Funds in combination with EFSI (i.e. for blending activities), microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital as possibly easy as using grants;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’s actions in optimising regulation; emphasises that, despite the improvements, complexity still exists and issues such as the long set-up time and the administrative burden for recipients are disincentives to use financial instruments; calls on the Commission to work closely with the EIB and the EIF to make access to ESI Funds microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital as easy as using grants while ensuring the same level of transparency, reporting and control;

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Notes that specific provisions limit flexibility in operations with financial instruments; points out that state aid rules appear to be particularly burdensome, especially when combining grants with financial instruments; calls on the Commission to explore further options to simplify state aid compliance on all three levels - managing authorities, fund of funds and financial intermediaries; calls for a level playing field in state aid rules concerning all financial instruments in order to avoid preferential treatment of certain sources of funding as compared to others, especially in the field of SME support;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Points out that there are inherent fixed costs associated with the use of financial instruments that certain structures or enterprises cannot afford, given their size;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Highlights the importance of auditing financial instruments, including an audit of the EIB Group’s operations on Cohesion Policy; ~~calls~~notes that audit activities have access to the entire ESI Funds cycle; calls on the Commission and national authorities to identify simplification and synergy opportunities through the audit process; calls, therefore, on the Commission to focus on further capacity building, audit methodology and guidance;

Amendment 13 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Recital A e (new)

Ae. whereas obstacles to access to credit frequently represent a serious barrier to investment, chiefly where young people are concerned;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Highlights the importance of performance auditing of financial instruments, including an audit of the EIB Group’s operations ~~on Cohesion Policy~~; calls on the Commission also to focus on a comparative analysis of grants and financial instruments, further capacity building, audit methodology and guidance;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Expresses concern about the finding of audit works that the use of financial instruments facilitates bypassing the automatic de-commitment rule, as Cohesion Policy resources can be parked in financial instruments instead of being invested in the real economy;

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Points out that combining grants and financial instruments has unexplored potential; emphasises that alongside guidance to authorities, further harmonisation is needed for the rules that concern combining different ESI Funds, as well as for the rules that concern combining the ESI Funds with instruments such as Horizon 2020 and EFSI; calls for easing the regulatory burden by facilitating the above- mentioned combining of allocations from more than one programme to the same financial instrument, as well as enabling combinations of microfinance instruments in ESF operations; calls for further promotion of combining grants with financial instruments; stresses that grant components can be used as a first loss piece and can therefore make the funding structure more attractive to beneficiaries and private sector investors;deleted

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Points out that combining grants and financial instruments has unexplored potential; emphasises that alongside guidance to authorities, further harmonisation is needed for the rules that concern combining different ESI Funds, as well as for the rules that concern combining the ESI Funds with instruments such as Horizon 2020 and EFSI; calls for ~~easing the regulatory burden by facilitating~~better regulation as regard the above- mentioned combining of allocations from more than one programme to the same financial instrument, as well as enabling combinations of microfinance instruments in ESF operations; ~~calls for further promotion of combining grants with financial instruments;~~ stresses that grant components can be used as a first loss piece and can therefore make the funding structure more attractive to beneficiaries and private sector investors;

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Points out that combining grants and financial instruments has unexplored potential; emphasises that alongside guidance to authorities, further harmonisation is needed for the rules that concern combining different ESI Funds, as well as for the rules that concern combining the ESI Funds with instruments such as Horizon 2020 and EFSI; calls for easing the regulatory burden by facilitating the above-mentioned combining of allocations from more than one programme to the same financial instrument, as well as enabling combinations of microfinance instruments in ESF operations; calls for further promotion of combining grants with financial instruments; stresses that ~~grant components can be used as a first loss piece and can therefore make the funding structure more attractive to beneficiaries and private sector investors~~, when grants are combined with financial instruments, the highest risk-taking tranche shall be covered by the financial instrument;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Points out that combining grants and financial instruments has unexplored potential; emphasises that alongside guidance to authorities, further harmonisation is needed for the rules that concern combining different ESI Funds, as well as for the rules that concern combining the ESI Funds with instruments such as Horizon 2020 and EFSI; calls for easing the regulatory burden by facilitating the above-mentioned combining of allocations from more than one programme to the same financial instrument, as well as enabling combinations of microfinance instruments in ESF operations; calls for further promotion of combining grants with financial instruments; stresses that ~~grant components can be used a~~combination of ESI Funds grants and fi~~rst loss piece and can therefore~~nancial instruments with other funding sources can make the funding structure more attractive to beneficiaries and private sector investors due to improved risk sharing;

Amendment 137 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Points out that combining grants and financial instruments has unexplored potential; emphasises that alongside guidance to authorities, further harmonisation is needed for the rules that concern combining different ESI Funds, as well as for the rules that concern combining the ESI Funds with instruments such as Horizon 2020 and EFSI; calls for easing the regulatory burden by avoiding complex rules arising from pointless red tape and by facilitating the above- mentioned combining of allocations from more than one programme to the same financial instrument, as well as enabling combinations of microfinance instruments in ESF operations; calls for further promotion of combining grants with financial instruments; stresses that grant components can be used as a first loss piece and can therefore make the funding structure more attractive to beneficiaries and private sector investors;

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Points out that combining grants and financial instruments has unexplored potential; emphasises that alongside guidance to authorities, further simplification and harmonisation is needed for the rules that concern combining different ESI Funds, as well as for the rules that concern combining the ESI Funds with instruments such as Horizon 2020 and EFSI; calls for easing the regulatory burden by facilitating the above-mentioned combining of allocations from more than one programme to the same financial instrument, as well as enabling combinations of microfinance instruments in ESF operations; calls for further promotion of combining grants with financial instruments at the final beneficiary stage; stresses that grant components can be used as a first loss piece and can therefore make the funding structure more attractive to beneficiaries and private sector investors;

Amendment 139 #

Michela GIUFFRIDA, Mercedes BRESSO, Andrea COZZOLINO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Emphasises the need for the more effective provision of information to beneficiaries about the opportunities offered by financial instruments and the scope for combining them with grants; calls on the EIB and local and regional authorities to work together to launch information, communication, training and advisory campaigns regarding access to financial instruments;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A f (new)

Af. whereas financial instruments can play a significant role in maximising efficiency in the implementation of regional policy – a clear priority given the current economic and financial context;

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Insists on maintaining or increasing democratic scrutiny over financial instruments; rejects any sort of simplification which reduces reporting, control or audit standards without safeguarding availability and public access to information;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Welcomes the existing technical assistance practices provided by the Commission and the EIB Group through the fi-compass platform; regrets that the on-the-ground support services to authorities and especially to recipients of financial instruments~~, including EFSI,~~ are limited; calls for a joint technical assistance plan by the Commission and the EIB comprising financial and non-financial advice as well as capacity building, targeted at national authorities as well as fund managers;

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Welcomes~~Notes that the existing technical assistance practices provided by the Commission and the EIB Group ~~through~~, including the fi-compass platform are in need of improvement; regrets that the on-the- ground support services to authorities and especially to recipients of financial instruments, including EFSI, are limited; calls for a joint technical assistance plan by the Commission and the EIB comprising financial and non-financial advice as well as capacity building, targeted at national authorities as well as fund managers;

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Welcomes the existing technical assistance practices provided by the Commission and the EIB Group through the fi-compass platform; regrets that the on-the-ground support services to authorities and especially to recipients of financial instruments, including EFSI, are limited; calls for a joint technical assistance plan by the Commission and the EIB ~~comprising~~, especially in the case of major projects, along with financial and non- financial advice as well as capacity building, targeted at national authorities as well as fund managers;

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Welcomes the existing technical assistance practices provided by the Commission and the EIB Group through the fi-compass platform; regrets that the on-the-ground support services to authorities and especially to recipients of financial instruments, including EFSI, are limited; stresses the necessity of tailor- made and country-specific education and training of relevant stakeholders in order to maximize the effectiveness of financing and minimize the number of mistakes; calls for a joint technical assistance plan by the Commission and the EIB comprising financial and non-financial advice as well as capacity building, targeted at national authorities as well as fund managers;

Amendment 145 #

Jens NILSSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Welcomes the existing technical assistance practices provided by the Commission and the EIB Group through the fi-compass platform; regrets that the on-the-ground support services to authorities and especially to recipients of financial instruments, including EFSI, are limited; points out that technical assistance should primarily be used to assist local or regional stakeholders, not to finance national authorities’ activities; calls for a joint technical assistance plan by the Commission and the EIB comprising financial and non-financial advice as well as capacity building, targeted at national authorities as well as fund managers;

Amendment 146 #

Michela GIUFFRIDA, Mercedes BRESSO, Andrea COZZOLINO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Welcomes the existing technical assistance practices provided by the Commission and the EIB Group through the fi-compass platform; regrets that the on-the-ground support services to authorities and especially to recipients of financial instruments, including EFSI, are limited; calls for a joint technical assistance plan by the Commission and the EIB comprising financial and non-financial advice as well as capacity building, targeted at national authorities as well as fund managers; capacity building in the area of financial instruments developed throughout the period of 2014-20 should facilitate and improve the use of financial instruments post 2020;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Welcomes the existing technical assistance practices provided by the Commission and the EIB Group through the fi-compass platform; regrets that the on-the-ground support services to authorities and especially to recipients of financial instruments, including EFSI, are limited; calls for a joint technical assistance plan by the Commission and the EIB comprising financial and non-financial advice as well as capacity building, targeted at national authorities as well as fund managers and beneficiaries;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Notes the increased use of financial instruments in the 2014-20 period and the opportunities these instruments could bring to leverage in additional resources; points out that there is a strong need to facilitate further the use of financial instruments in the context of complementarity with the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and other financial programmes and initiatives.

Amendment 149 #

Hannu TAKKULA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Recognises that challenges such as migration and security or ongoing and future political developments in the EU should not negatively affect the ~~investments through Cohesion Policy or its goals and expected results~~ambitions and expected results of the Cohesion Policy, especially after the current programming period;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A g (new)

Ag. whereas, according to the assessment of the implementation of financial instruments in the period 2007- 2013, a new approach is needed to the allocation and use of financial instruments and the submission of accounts, based on performance, best practice and flexibility, with a view to the effective achievement of cohesion policy objectives;

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Is convinced that the use of grants or financial instruments has to be based on evidence relating to their thematic orientation, targets set and results achieved; Insists that equal standards should apply to and success should be measured with the same set of indicators for both forms of support; Considers that the disbursement rate is not sufficient for assessing the effectiveness of financial instruments; Urges the Commission to provide for an equal reporting framework which also allows to generate much- needed evidence;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Encourages a greater involvement of regional local authorities in the distribution and use of funds;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Considers that a level playing field needs to be provided for grants and financial instruments without giving certain privileges to one of them which may put disadvantages on the other one;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Recognises that both grants and financial instruments have their specific roles in Cohesion Policy ~~but that~~and they share the same focus pursued by the 11 thematic objectives, which is to achieve the five headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy; highlights the benefits linked with financial instruments as leverage resources and increased impact of ESI Funds' programmes, efficiency and effectiveness gains due to revolving nature of funds, which stay in the programme area for future use for similar objectives, thus moving away from "grant dependency" culture and attracting private sector support to public policy objectives.

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Recognises that both grants and non-high-risk financial instruments have their specific roles in Cohesion Policy but that they share the same focus pursued by the 11 thematic objectives, which is to achieve the five headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy;

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Recognises that both grants and financial instruments have their specific roles in Cohesion Policy ~~but~~and that they sharould explicitly have the same focus pursued by the 11 thematic objectives, which is to achieve the five headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy;

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Recognises that both grants and financial instruments have their specific roles in Cohesion Policy but that they share the same focus pursued by the 11 thematic objectives, which is to achieve the five headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy; stresses that financial instruments must be promoted when they have added value and on the basis of the sectors and actions they can support, but that financial engineering should not become an end in itself;

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Considers of utmost importance that both forms of support meet the requirement to be accountable to the public interest and be bound to policy priorities and objectives; rejects any form of dominance of financial market interests;

Amendment 158 #

Martina MICHELS, Martina ANDERSON, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Highlight~~Notes that financial instruments perform better in well- developed regions and metropolitan areas, while grants address regional structural issues; notes that increasing the share of financial instruments should not influence the grant appropriations as this would hinder the balance; emphasises that in a number of public policies grants have to dominate, while financial instruments can play complementary role a number of public policies grants might be employed, while financial instruments can play complementary role, in full compliance with appropriate ex-ante assessment and market analysis;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Highlights that financial instruments perform better in well- developed regions and metropolitan areas, while grants address regional structural issues; ~~notes that increasing the shar~~underlines that the subsidy system plays an important role in fostering territorial development in particular in areas where the market has failed and where territorial cohesion challenges are a real issue and points at the complementary nature of subsidies and financial instruments; emphasizes that an increasing volume of financial instruments should not ~~influence~~negatively affect the grant appropriations ~~as this would hinder the balance~~or lead to a crowding out effect on the EU's budget allocated to cohesion policy as this could further territorial disparities; emphasiszes that in a number of public policies grants have to dominate, while financial instruments can play complementary roles;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A h (new)

Ah. whereas it is important for all the partners involved in implementing financial instruments to have the necessary experience, skills and technical assistance to guarantee their success, and for the Commission to provide management authorities with information, training and support in understanding and implementing these instruments;

Amendment 160 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Highlights that financial instruments could perform better in well- developed regions and metropolitan areas, ~~while~~and that grants address regional structural issues, but that no general conclusions can be drawn about the link between the efficiency of financial instruments and level of development; notes that increasing the share of financial instruments should not influence the grant appropriations as this would hinder the balance; emphasises that in a number of public policies grants have to dominate, while financial instruments can play complementary roles;

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Highlight~~Notes that financial instruments perform better in well- developed regions and metropolitan areas, while grants address regional structural issues; underlines the significance of geographical and regional balanced financing therefore calls on the Commission to make additional effort in order to ensure it; notes that increasing the share of financial instruments should not influence the grant appropriations as this would hinder the balance; emphasises that in a number of public policies grants have to dominate, while financial instruments can play complementary roles;

Amendment 162 #

Jens NILSSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Highlights that financial instruments ~~perform better~~work well in well- developed regions ~~and metropolitan areas, while grants address regional structural issue~~, but points out that they can also play an important role in the development of less well-developed regions; notes that increasing the share of financial instruments should not influence the grant appropriations as this would hinder the balance; emphasises that in a number of public policies grants have to dominate, while financial instruments can play complementary roles;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Highlights that some financial instruments perform better in well- developed regions and metropolitan areas, while grants address regional structural issues; notes that increasing the share of low-risk financial instruments should not influence the grant appropriations as this would hinder the balance; emphasises that in a number of public policies grants have to dominate, while only non-high-risk financial instruments can play complementary roles;

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Highlights that financial instruments perform better in well- developed regions and metropolitan areas, while grants address regional structural issues; notes that increasing the share of financial instruments should not influence the grant appropriations as this would hinder the balance; considers that the combined use of these two forms of financing will help increase responsibility in respect of expenditure; emphasises that in a number of public policies grants have to dominate, while financial instruments can play complementary roles;

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Highlights that financial instruments perform better in ~~well- developed~~ regions and metropolitan areas where financial markets are better developed, while grants address regional structural issues; notes that increasing the share of financial instruments should not influence the grant appropriations as this would hinder the balance; emphasises that in a number of public policies grants have to dominate, while financial instruments can play complementary roles;

Amendment 166 #

Hannu TAKKULA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Highlights that financial instruments perform better in well- developed regions and metropolitan areas, while grants address regional structural issues; notes that increasing the share of financial instruments should not influence the grant appropriations as this would hinder the balance; emphasises that in a number of public policies, like research and innovation, grants have to dominate, while financial instruments can play complementary roles;

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Highlights that financial instruments performed so far better in well- developed regions and metropolitan areas, while grants address regional structural issues; notes that increasing the share of financial instruments should not influence the grant appropriations as this would hinder the balance; emphasises that in a number of public policies grants have to dominate, while financial instruments can play complementary roles;

Amendment 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Highlights that financial instruments perform better in well- developed regions and metropolitan areas, while grants address regional structural issues; notes that increasing the share of financial instruments should not influence the grant appropriations as this would hinder the balance; emphasises that in a number of public policies grants have to dominate, while financial instruments can play complementary roles; calls on the Commission to draft guidelines for implementing the provisions that allow the continued use of financial instruments from one programming period to the next;

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Highlights the importance of a stronger promotion of financial possibilities in order to encourage their use for the public and private sector; calls for a better presentation of the results achieved, especially on the regional and local level;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A i (new)

Ai. whereas the term financial instruments covers a variety of instruments, and their assessment and decisions on their use require constant detailed analysis on a case-by-case basis, linked to an assessment of the specific needs of local and regional economies or of a particular target group;

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)

19b. Considering the current situation of the cohesion and economic development, it's necessary, for the period after 2020, to increase the possibilities of financing projects without lowering non - refundable financial contributions;

Amendment 171 #

20. Recalls that existing experience in delivery of ESI Funds indicates that the funding mix of grants and financial instruments addresses country-specific realities ~~as well as the gaps in social, economic and territorial cohesion~~; emphasiszes that the funding mix ~~cannot result in a one-size-fits-all solution owing to a number of factors: geographic region, policy area, beneficiar~~must be a result of an appropriate assessment and market analysis, the decision to set up a financial instrument should be also preceded by typhe an~~d size, adm~~alysis of existing inistr~~ative capacity, market conditions, business environment and fiscal and economic stance~~uments at national/regional/local level in order to promote complementarity of support;

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Recalls that existing experience in delivery of ESI Funds indicates that the funding mix of grants and financial instruments addresses country-specific realities as well as the gaps in social, economic and territorial cohesion; emphasises that the funding mix cannot result in a one-size-fits-all solution owing to a number of factors: geographic region, policy area, beneficiary type and size, administrative capacity, market conditions, the existence of competing instruments, business environment and fiscal and economic stance;

Amendment 173 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Recalls that existing experience in delivery of ESI Funds indicates that the funding mix of grants and low-risk financial instruments addresses country- specific realities as well as the gaps in social, economic and territorial cohesion; emphasises that the funding mix cannot result in a one-size-fits-all solution owing to a number of factors: geographic region, policy area, beneficiary type and size, administrative capacity, market conditions, business environment and fiscal and economic stance;

Amendment 174 #

Herbert DORFMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Stresses that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) offer potentially significant resources and a wide range of tools and options for macro-regional strategies; calls for greater synergies in order to coordinate and generate complementarities between the ESIFs and other funds and instruments, particularly Horizon 2020, the Connecting Europe Facility, the LIFE programme, the programme COSME for SMEs, Interreg programmes and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI).

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Stresses that all regions should be able to decide on the implementation of financial instruments and intervention sectors on a voluntary basis and according to local needs; opposes binding quantified targets for the use of financial instruments;

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Considers the broader use of financial instruments (FIs) as flexible mechanisms to be used alongside grants also in Interreg programmes; calls on the Commission and the EIB to make the financial instruments more coherent with the objectives of European Territorial Cooperation post 2020;

Amendment 177 #

Martina MICHELS, Martina ANDERSON, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Stresses that the Commission should take account of the European Court of Auditors’ recommendation that it should provide a definition in the financial regulation of the leverage of financial instruments applicable across all areas of the EU budget;

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Points out that financial instruments must be accessible for possible users on more advantageous terms compared to standard commercial loans;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. Highlights that financial instruments, if implemented effectively, can significantly increase the impact of financing; stresses, in this regard, the need for clear, consistent and focused rules on FIs to help simplify the preparation and implementation process post 2020; draws attention to the opportunity to benefit from specific expertise and know-how from the EIB;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A j (new)

Aj. whereas ongoing and detailed data collection is needed on the application of financial instruments in order to assess their added value in cohesion policy, as regards both safeguarding the European Union’s financial interests when compared with other financing methods, and their effectiveness in implementing cohesion policy objectives;

Amendment 180 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. Asks the Commission to provide the Member States with further guidance on the suitability of the provisions of ERDF and ESF financial instruments aimed at attracting more private capital without exposing taxpayers to greater risk;

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)

20c. Calls on the European Commission to ensure an adequate State Aid framework conducive to the use of EU financial instruments, to develop guidelines and standard procurement procedures for PPP, with a view to simplify the use of FIs, as well as to boost long-term investments and providing certainty to project promoters and investors.

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)

20c. Calls on the Commission to come up with guidelines enabling continued use of the financial instruments in the next programming period;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A k (new)

Ak. whereas it is necessary to pay attention to and remedy the shortcomings and gaps identified by the European Court of Auditors in the regulatory framework governing financial instruments in the period 2007-2013, with particular regard to the provisions relating to attracting additional investment and the recycling of funds; the scope of the amounts allocated to the financial instruments; possible unjustified preferential treatment for the private sector; and the lack of clarity in the treatment of ‘current assets’;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)

- having regard to the Commission's summary report of December 2015 entitled 'Summary of data on the progress made in financing and implementing financial engineering instruments for the programming period 2014-2020 in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council,

Amendment 20 #

Al. whereas a balance needs to be struck between promoting private sector involvement and safeguarding public funding and interests;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A m (new)

Am. whereas one of the most problematic aspects of the monitoring process concerns the identification of suitable, precise and differentiated indicators on financial instruments and their implementation, which is the only way of evaluating their real impact on cohesion policy;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A n (new)

An. whereas extending the use of these instruments in the post-2020 programming period would be a positive step;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A o (new)

Ao. whereas shortcomings in assessing market needs must be avoided since this could lead to the overcapitalisation of these instruments, thus reducing or eliminating their real impact;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s reporting exercise, ~~which provides strong evidence that European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds investment through grants and financial instruments resulted in solid impact and visible results by~~but points out that, as regards employment, no data are available concerning the nature of the jobs created by means of ESI Funds investments, in ~~EU regions, which amounted to EUR 347.6 billion, excluding national co-financing and additionally leveraged resources~~particular whether the employment in question is precarious or temporary;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s reporting exercise, which p~~rovides strong evidence~~uts at EUR 347.6 billion the total volume of investment under thate European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds ~~through grants and financial instruments resulted in solid impact and visible results by investments in EU regions, which~~, not including national cofinancing and additional resources mobilised as a result of the leverage effect; points out that almo~~unted to EUR 347.6 billion, excluding national co- financing and additionally leveraged resourc~~st all EU investments are funded using national contributions from the Member States;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes~~Recognizes that, although the financial instruments were designed before the financial and economic crisis and were not the most convenient ones for an economic context of crisis, the Commission’s reporting exercise~~, which~~ provides strong evidence that European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds investment through grants and financial instruments resulted in solid impact and visible results by investments in EU regions, which amounted to EUR 347.6 billion, excluding national co-financing and additionally leveraged resources;

Amendment 27 #

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’'s reporting exercise, which provides strong evidence that ~~European~~ Structural ~~and Investment (ESI)~~Funds and the Cohesion Funds investment through grants and ~~financial instruments resulted in solid impact and~~in certain cases through financial instruments led to visible results by investments in EU regions, which amounted to EUR 347.6 billion, excluding national co-financing and additionally leveraged resources;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s reporting exercise, which provides strong evidence that European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds investment through grants and financial instruments resulted in solid impact and visible results by investments in EU regions, which amounted to EUR 347.6 billion, excluding national co- financing and additionally leveraged resources; Considers that obligations for reporting on grants or financial instruments differ widely thus unnecessarily increasing administrative burden for ESIF beneficiaries;

Amendment 29 #

Jens NILSSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s reporting exercise, which provides strong evidence that European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds investment through grants and financial instruments resulted in solid impact and visible results by investments in EU regions, which amounted to EUR 347.6 billion, excluding national co-financing and additionally leveraged resources; notes that the more the local and regional level is involved in the development and implementation of programmes, the better the results;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 a (new)

- having regard to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Notes the existing European Investment Bank (EIB) Cohesion Policy operations visible in annual reports and sector reports, revealing ~~the impact o~~investments in SMEs and mid-caps, infrastructure, research and innovation, the environment, energy and agriculture; ~~conclud~~observes that EIB lending in support of Cohesion Policy for the period 2007-2013 is estimated at EUR 147 billion, which represents roughly 38 % of all lending in the EU, regrets, however, the lack of information in the EIB reports about results achieved through such investments in the cohesion policy area;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Notes the existing European Investment Bank (EIB) Cohesion Policy operations visible in annual reports and sector reports, revealing the impact on SMEs and mid-caps, infrastructure, research and innovation, the environment, energy and agriculture; ~~concludes~~points out that EIB lending in support of Cohesion Policy for the period 2007-2013 is estimated at EUR 147 billion, which represents roughly 38 % of all lending in the EU;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Notes the existing European Investment Bank (EIB) Cohesion Policy operations visible in annual reports and sector reports, revealing the impact on SMEs and mid-caps, infrastructure, research and innovation, the environment, energy and agriculture; concludes that EIB lending in support of Cohesion Policy for the period 2007-2013 is estimated at EUR 147 billion, which represents roughly 38 % of all lending in the EU;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Notes that in 2014- 2020 the EU is expected to invest EUR 454 billion through ESI Funds, and with national co-financing for the investment in the form of grants and financial instruments the sum is expected to rise to EUR 637 billion; points out that these funds cannot prevent the fall in public investment or growing regional disparities in the EU; points out that the Commission had put the lack of public investment in EU Member States at EUR 300 billion;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that in 2014- 2020 the EU is expected to invest EUR 454 billion through ESI Funds, and with national co- financing for the investment in the form of grants and financial instruments the sum is expected to rise to EUR 637 billion;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the fact that in 2014- 2020 the EU is expected to invest EUR 454 billion through ESI Funds, and with national co-financing for the investment in the form of grants and financial instruments the sum is expected to rise to EUR 637 billion; emphasises that proper coordination of these forms of financing will help increase project performance and responsibility in respect of investment expenditure;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Points out that during the current period 2014-2020 there is also a strong need to focus on better combination of grants with financial instruments, in order to enhance the EU's competitiveness, to achieve better coherence between different strategies, especially in the fields of energy, transport connectivity, communications and the digital economy and their links with regional and urban strategies, as well as with the developed smart specialization strategies;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Acknowledges that Stability and Growth Pact rules, which are based on the objective of keeping the public deficit below 3% of GDP, only end up reducing public investment in the Member States and local communities, as is the case in Portugal, where it fell by 19.5% during the first semester of 2016;

Amendment 38 #

Michela GIUFFRIDA, Mercedes BRESSO, Andrea COZZOLINO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission, as it is not always clear to some members of the public that a given investment has come from European Union funds, to survey the possibilities of raising the profile of such investments and of making it clearer that EU funding is involved;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Acknowledges that financial instruments can complement grants, but emphasises the need to ensure that they do not replace them;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)

-A. whereas financial engineering instruments have been introduced at a late stage of the adoption of the 2007- 2013 legislative package for Cohesion Policy leaving managing authorities largely without preparation to consider them in their operational programmes; whereas, as a consequence, the Commission stepped-up its support scheme for those authorities through awareness raising and by providing guidance and advisory services;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Acknowledges that~~Highlights that, at the end of the 2014 exercise, the European Commission registered 1 025 operational financial instruments, classified in 73 funds and 952 specific funds, from which 90% were for business, 6% for urban development projects and 4 for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Points out that financial support to enterprises amounted to € 8,47 billion in 879 funds, mainly through loans and, to a lesser extent, guarantees and risk capital; Recalls that the Management Authorities are the ones that must decide about the type of financial instrument more appropriate for its implementation. States that in the financial period 2014- 2020 both the volume and the quality of financial instruments (in the form of microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital) under Cohesion Policy’s shared management increased; highlights the two main reasons for this trend – the 2007-2013 period provided valuable experience and lessons regarding ESI Funds implementation through grants and financial instruments, while the 2014-2020 MFF reflects the post-crisis need for more financial instruments owing to fiscal limitations;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Acknowledges that ~~both~~ the volume ~~and the quality~~ of financial instruments (in the form of microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital) under Cohesion Policy’s shared management increased; highlights the two main reasons for this trend – the 2007-2013 period provided valuable experience and lessons regarding ESI Funds implementation through grants and financial instruments, while the 2014-2020 MFF reflects the post-crisis need for more financial instruments owing to fiscal limitations; draws attention, however, in this context, to a potentially dangerous increase in the propensity to accept risk;

Amendment 42 #

Martina MICHELS, Martina ANDERSON, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Acknowledges that both the volume and the quality of financial instruments (in the form of microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital) under Cohesion Policy’'s shared management increased reaching EUR 21,5 billion or 4,7 % of the total ESIF envelope; highlights ~~the two main~~some of the reasons for this trend – the 2007-2013 period provided valuable experience and lessons regarding ESI Funds implementation through grants and financial instruments, while the 2014- 2020 MFF reflects the post-crisis need for more financial instruments owing to ~~fiscal limitations~~imposed austerity;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Acknowledg~~Notes that both the volume and t~~he quality~~ypes of financial instruments (in the form of microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital) under Cohesion Policy’s shared management increased; highlights the two main reasons for this trend – the 2007-2013 period provided valuable experience and lessons regarding ESI Funds implementation through grants and financial instruments, while the 2014- 2020 MFF reflects the post-crisis ~~need for more financial instruments owing to fiscal limitations~~fiscal limitations and massive cutbacks in public funding for cohesion policy grants owing to austerity policy ;

Amendment 44 #

Daniel BUDA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Acknowledges that ~~both~~ the volume ~~and the quality~~ of financial instruments (in the form of microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital) under Cohesion Policy’s shared management increased; highlights the two main reasons for this trend – the 2007-2013 period provided valuable experience and lessons regarding ESI Funds implementation through grants and financial instruments, while the 2014-2020 MFF reflects the post-crisis need for more financial instruments owing to ~~fiscal limitation~~the austerity policies the Commission is imposing on the Member States;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Acknowledges that both the volume and the quality of financial instruments (in the form of microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital) under Cohesion Policy’s shared management increased; highlights the two main reasons for this trend – the 2007-2013 period provided valuable experience and lessons regarding ESI Funds implementation through grants and financial instruments, while the 2014- 2020 MFF reflects the post-crisis need for more financial instruments owing to fiscal limitations; reiterates the importance of using simplified financial instruments that are more easily accessible, which will help make them more attractive;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the fact that crucial regulatory changes in programming, implementation and management of financial instruments, such as ~~direct links to and coverage of~~a broadening and covering its use to all 11 thematic objectives of the cohesion policy, compulsory ex-ante assessment which allows to determine the existence of a market failure to be covered by the public authorities, and creation of tailor-made and off-the- shelf solutions and reporting mechanisms, contribute to the implementation of financial instruments;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the fact that crucial regulatory changes in programming, implementation and management of financial instruments, such as direct links to and coverage of all 11 thematic objectives, compulsory ex-ante assessment, and creation of tailor-made and off-the- shelf solutions and reporting mechanisms, contribute to the ~~implementation of financial instruments~~positive impact of financial instruments; calls, however, for efforts in ensuring that the changes in question do not affect financial instruments' attractiveness and implementation speed;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Stresses that crucial regulatory changes in programming, implementation and management of financial instruments, such as direct links to and coverage of all 11 thematic objectives, compulsory ex-ante assessment, and creation of tailor-made and off-the- shelf solutions and reporting mechanisms, contribute to delays in the implementation of ~~financial instruments~~ESIF;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the fact that crucial regulatory changes in programming, implementation and management of financial instruments, such as direct links to and coverage of all 11 thematic objectives, compulsory ex-ante assessment, and creation of tailor-made and off-the- shelf solutions and reporting mechanisms, c~~ontribute to~~an have a critical impact on the attractiveness and speed of the implementation of financial instruments;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A a (new)

-Aa. whereas the co-legislators agreed on additional provisions governing financial instruments for the legislative framework 2014-2020 in view of extending their scope and clarifying concepts, responsibilities and procedures thus responding to legal uncertainties generated during the 2007-2013 period;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the fact that crucial regulatory changes in programming, implementation and management of lower- risk financial instruments, such as direct links to and coverage of all 11 thematic objectives, compulsory ex-ante assessment, and creation of tailor-made and off-the- shelf solutions and reporting mechanisms, contribute to the implementation of such financial instruments;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the fact that crucial regulatory changes in programming, implementation and management of financial instruments, such as direct links to ~~and coverage of all 11~~the thematic objectives, compulsory ex- ante assessment, and creation of tailor- made and off-the- shelf solutions and reporting mechanisms, contribute to the implementation of financial instruments;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that the successful implementation of financial instruments also requires strengthening administrative capacities at national level, regional and local level, particularly a combination of expertise on the cohesion policy regulations, financial products, state aid and public procurement;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes with concern that the expected leverage of ESIF supported financial instruments is comparatively low taking into account the existing liquidity in European banks. Calls on the Commission and on the Member States to ensure that public funds are used in the best interest of final beneficiaries;

Amendment 54 #

Michela GIUFFRIDA, Mercedes BRESSO, Andrea COZZOLINO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that ~~although they are 6.~~ financial instruments are not and end in themselves but a different way of implementation compared with subsidies and that both are supporting the same Cohesion Policy objectives; underlines that however, ESI Funds’ grants and financial instruments under shared management have different intervention logic and application addressing territorial development needs or market needs;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 56 #

Martina MICHELS, Martina ANDERSON, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that although they are supporting the same Cohesion Policy objectives, ESI Funds’ grants and financial instruments under shared management have different intervention logic and application addressing territorial development needs or market needs, and stresses the importance of providing information to potential beneficiaries and of correlating objectives at local, regional and cross-border level, where appropriate;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recognises that grants have some strengths as compared to financial instruments: supporting projects that do not necessarily generate revenue, providing funding to projects that for various reasons cannot attract private or public funding, targeting specific beneficiaries, issues and regional priorities, and lower complexity of use owing to existing experience and capacity; acknowledges that in some cases grants are bound to limitations: difficulties in achieving project quality and sustainability, risk of substituting public funding in the long-run and a crowding- out effect for potential private investment even when projects may have a revolving naturerisk of substituting national or regional public funding, complexity of implementation, deadweight effects in the private sector;

Amendment 58 #

Michela GIUFFRIDA, Mercedes BRESSO, Andrea COZZOLINO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recognises that grants have some strengths as compared to financial instruments: supporting projects that do not necessarily generate revenue, providing funding to projects that for various reasons cannot attract private or public funding, targeting specific beneficiaries, issues and regional priorities, and lower complexity of use owing to existing experience and capacity; acknowledges that in some cases grants are bound to limitations: ~~difficulties in achieving project quality and sustainability,~~ risk of substituting public funding in the long-run and a crowding-out effect for potential private investment even when projects may have a revolving nature;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recognises that, depending on the type of the project, grants have some strengths as compared to financial instruments: supporting projects that do not necessarily generate revenue, providing funding to projects that for various reasons cannot attract private or public funding, targeting specific beneficiaries, issues and regional priorities, and lower complexity of use owing to existing experience and capacity; acknowledges that in some cases grants are bound to limitations: difficulties in achieving project quality and sustainability, risk of substituting public funding in the long-run and a crowding-out effect for potential private investment even when projects may have a revolving nature;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A b (new)

-Ab. whereas experience in the use and implementation of financial instruments to date is mixed, and a comprehensive assessment of their results and achievements is pending;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recognises that grants have ~~some~~various strengths as compared to financial instruments: supporting projects that do not necessarily generate revenue, providing funding to projects that for various reasons cannot attract private or public funding, targeting specific beneficiaries, issues and regional priorities, and lower complexity of use owing to existing experience and capacity; acknowledges that in some cases grants are bound to limitations: difficulties in achieving project quality and sustainability, risk of substituting public funding in the long-run and a crowding-out effect for potential private investment even when projects may have a revolving nature;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recognises that grants have some strengths as compared to financial instruments: supporting projects that do not necessarily generate revenue, providing funding to projects that for various reasons cannot attract private or public funding, targeting specific beneficiaries, issues and regional priorities, and lower complexity of use owing to existing experience and capacity; acknowledges that in some cases grants are bound to limitations: difficulties in achieving project quality and sustainability, risk of substituting public funding in the long-run and a crowding-out effect for potential private investment even when projects may have a revolving nature and a capacity to generate revenues to repay a loan-based financing;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recognises that grants have some strengths as compared to financial instruments: supporting projects that do not necessarily generate revenue, providing funding to projects that for various reasons cannot attract private or public funding, targeting specific beneficiaries, issues and regional priorities, and lower complexity of use owing to existing experience and capacity; acknowledges that in some cases grants are bound to limitations: difficulties in achieving project quality and sustainability, risk of substituting public funding in the long-run and a crowding-out effect for potential private investment even when projects may have a revolving nature and a capacity to generate revenues to repay loan-based financing;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Recognises that financial instruments offer advantages such as leverage and revolving effects ~~as well as higher risk investments, including private capital~~, attraction of private capital as well as coverage of specific investment gaps through high- quality bankable projects; acknowledges that financial instruments come with certain disadvantages: slower implementation in some regions, higher complexity, and ~~high management fees and implementation cost~~in some cases higher implementation costs, including management fees; notes that grants represent preferable investments in some policy areas, such as ~~the ones covered by the ESF~~certain types of public infrastructure, social services or, in general, projects that do not generate revenue;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Recognises that financial instruments offer advantages such as leverage and revolving effects as well as higher risk investments, including private capital through high-quality bankable projects; acknowledges that financial instruments come with certain disadvantages: slower implementation, higher complexity, and high management fees and implementation costs; n~~otes that grants represent preferable investments in some policy areas, such as the ones covered by the ESF~~evertheless points out that grants combined with financial instruments could potentially increase their attractiveness and thus help the instruments to provide long-term growth potential;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Recognises that financial instruments offer advantages such as ~~leverage and~~the revolving effects as well as higher risk investments, including private capital ~~through high-quality bankable projects~~; acknowledges that financial instruments come with certain disadvantages: slower implementation, higher complexity, and high management fees and implementation costs; notes that grants represent preferable investments in some policy areas, such as the ones covered by the ESF;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Recognises that financial instruments offer advantages such as leverage and revolving effects as well as higher risk investments, including private capital through high-quality bankable projects; acknowledges that financial instruments come with certain disadvantages: slower implementation, higher complexity, and ~~high management fees and implementation cost~~implementation costs that include also management fees; notes that grants represent preferable investments in some policy areas, such as the ones covered by the ESF;

Amendment 67 #

Hannu TAKKULA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Recognises that financial instruments offer advantages such as leverage and revolving effects as well as higher risk investments, including private capital through high-quality bankable projects; acknowledges that financial instruments come with certain disadvantages: slower implementation, higher complexity, and high management fees and implementation costs; notes that grants represent preferable investments in some policy areas, such as the ones covered by the ESF and the research and innovation policy;

Amendment 68 #

8a. Points out that the leverage effect attributed to high-risk financial instruments is a given and that the tangible impact on the capacity to attract private investment can only be assessed in the medium, or even the long, term;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Notes that the chronic overestimation of projected leverage effects can mostly be put down to institutional investors’ disenchantment with projects of public interest which, being such, are less profitable;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas delays in implementation of the 2014-2020 period may not yet allow to draw substantiated conclusions on the functioning and effectiveness of the new provisions on financial instruments; whereas the Commission already proposes modifications to the rules in force without an impact assessment;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Highlights that intervention logic is not a dividing line but a meeting point of grants and financial instruments so that Cohesion Policy can ensure better coverage of beneficiaries and investment gaps through a variety of measures; points out th~~at intervention logic is a bottom-up approach in ESI Funds programming and that Member States should continue setting the share of financial instruments in respective operational programm~~e importance of the ex-ante evaluation on programme level, which evaluates the appropriateness of the proposed priorities and actions with the needs assessment, and takes into consideration the most appropriate option of financial instruments or grants as delivery tools to contribute to the selected priorities;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Highlights that intervention logic is not a dividing line but a meeting point of grants and financial instruments so that Cohesion Policy can ensure better coverage of beneficiaries and investment gaps through a variety of measures consistent with local and regional specific priorities; points out that intervention logic is a bottom-up approach in ESI Funds programming and that Member States should continue setting the share of financial instruments in respective operational programmes;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Acknowledges that for the current programming period 2014-2020, the choice of the financial instruments has been defined according to an appropriate ex-ante assessment and taking into consideration that the choice of the financial instruments depends on the market failures, suboptimal investment situations and investment needs to be addressed, as well as the acceptable level of risk;

Amendment 76 #

Martina MICHELS, Martina ANDERSON, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that the ~~positive~~ experience of using financial instruments in the 2007- 2013 programming period was accompanied by a number of troublesome performance issues: late start of operations, inaccurate market assessment, diverging regional uptake, overall low disbursement rates, low leverage effect, problematic revolving, high management costs and fees and inadequately large endowments; notes with concern that almost in the middle of the current programming period only around 20% of the amounts committed to financial instruments have been paid into the instruments; calls on the Commission to take urgent measures in order to avoid the repetition of the same problems accompanying the financial instruments in the previous programming period;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that the partly positive experience of using financial instruments in the 2007- 2013 programming period whas ~~accompanied by~~to be seen in contrast to a number of performance issues: late start of operations, inaccurate market assessment, diverging regional uptake to the advantage of more developed regions, overall low disbursement rates, low leverage effect, ~~problematic~~unsuccessful revolving, ~~high~~ management costs and fees that were high in relation to the support provided and significantly higher than for private-sector funds and inadequately large endowments;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recognizes the importance of using financial instruments in Cohesion Policy operations; welcomes the fact that reporting on the implementation of financial instruments in 2015 reveals progress, despite the late start of the current programming period; notes, however, that implementation progress of ESI Funds financial instruments is very divergent between and within the EU Member States; recalls that the positive experience and impact of using financial instruments in the 2007- 2013 programming period was accompanied by a number of performance issues: late start of operations, inaccurate market assessment, diverging regional uptake, overall low disbursement rates, low leverage effect, problematic revolving, high management costs and fees and inadequately large endowments; recalls that by 2015 a number of the observed shortcomings were mitigated through targeted measures;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that the positive experience of using financial instruments in the 2007- 2013 programming period was accompanied by a number of performance issues due in part to the lack of sufficient relevance experience at that time with the use of financial instruments in the context of cohesion policy: late start of operations, inaccurate market assessment, diverging regional uptake, overall low disbursement rates, low leverage effect, problematic revolving, high management costs and fees and inadequately large endowments; however, also recalls that after various extensions of implementation deadlines for the financial instruments belonging to the 2007-2013 programming period, a number of the original shortcomings were adequately addressed and rectified during the following two years (i.e. until end of 2015);

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the Omnibus proposal represents the only opportunity for a range of mid-term improvements of the system that govern the current programming period;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that the positive experience of using financial instruments in the 2007- 2013 programming period was accompanied by a number of performance issues: late start of operations, inaccurate market assessment, diverging regional uptake, overall low disbursement rates, low leverage effect, problematic revolving, high management costs which are not always justified or justifiable and fees and inadequately large endowments;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that the ~~positive~~mixed experience of using financial instruments in the 2007- 2013 programming period was accompanied by a number of performance issues: late start of operations, inaccurate market assessment, diverging regional uptake, overall low disbursement rates, low leverage effect, problematic revolving, high management costs and fees and inadequately large endowments;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Recalls that in 2007-2013 period an important lesson was learnt when it comes to financial instruments, the regulatory framework was not adapted to a significant growth of financial instruments in cohesion policy, and had to be adapted during the programming period, there have been cases with unjustified over allocation of funds which remained unused for a long time; Stresses, furthermore, that some managing authorities and financial institutions involved in the process did not have the capacity and know-how to effectively utilize financial instruments, caused delays in setting up financial instruments and reduced their effectiveness;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Is concerned of the challenges relating to the leverage effect of financial instruments; considers that the Commission should base its methodology for calculating leverage on methodologies used by international organisations such as the OECD in order to provide for a more robust benchmark;

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Stresses that the use of financial instruments is a tool designed to support cohesion policy objectives and not an end in itself, and for this reason they should not replace grants;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Reaffirms the need to work towards policies supporting young people’s enterprise development and the removal of all unnecessary barriers to setting up a business, chiefly those related to financing or access to credit and markets;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Highlights that early experiences also suggest the need to simplify some administrative procedures, for instance related to public procurement in the selection of financial intermediaries at national level, ex-ante assessment and reporting obligations;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)

10c. Considers it crucial to promote participation by and representation of all relevant sectors of society in access to these instruments, especially young people;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 d (new)

10d. Takes the view that Member States and regions should be guaranteed sufficient flexibility so that they can reinvest financial returns appropriately, in line with the medium and long-term policy objectives that have been defined;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 e (new)

10e. Calls for the financial instruments to be made as flexible as possible in respect of local and regional circumstances, with scope for terms of maturity reflecting the actual economic position of each project and possible positive discrimination measures in favour of less developed regions and localities if they prove to be useful in achieving the relevant objectives;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas local and regional authorities have a crucial role to play in the implementation of cohesion policy;

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 f (new)

10f. Proposes the direct involvement of local and regional authorities in setting strategies for implementing the financial instruments in the EU’s various regions;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 g (new)

10g. Stresses that the success of the combination between grants and financial instruments will also depend on a proper assessment of market needs, and that partnerships with independent organisations, particularly research centres and universities, may be useful to that end; stresses, however, that grants must remain the principal tool of cohesion policy, particularly for small beneficiaries, and that financial instruments should only be used as additional instruments in sectors where they have proven more effective than grants in achieving cohesion policy objectives; recalls that financial instruments should not replace or diminish use of traditional forms of support provided as grants, and should be used only as an means of bringing additional funding for cohesion;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 h (new)

10h. Calls for a much-needed support strategy on how to use financial instruments for the outermost regions – whose economies are structurally more fragile than other regions – encompassing elements from training to investment advice, thus fostering their development;

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 i (new)

10i. Stresses and endorses the fundamental role of partnerships with research institutes and universities in supporting innovative investment projects that could benefit from these financial instruments, thus promoting entrepreneurship and providing young graduates with employment;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 j (new)

10j. Encourages the Member States to use these instruments as a means to support projects creating high-quality jobs, promoting social investment and sustainable, inclusive growth and to help reduce poverty and boost social inclusion;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 k (new)

10k. Calls for the financial instruments not to have the sole aim of short-term returns on investments, but rather to consolidate investment, create qualified human resources and reduce asymmetries in the medium and long term;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 l (new)

10l. Stresses that the financial instruments should enable public investment to be increased at local and regional level, particularly in areas hardest hit by unemployment and falling population density, with a view to attracting private investment – or, if none is forthcoming, mitigating the lack thereof – in small-scale projects with local and regional growth potential, including initiatives promoting social cohesion;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 m (new)

10m. Points out that auditing processes should not increase the financial and administrative burden on beneficiaries;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 n (new)

10n. Stresses the importance of the timely and efficient use of technical assistance in supporting these instruments, while avoiding the duplication of structures;

Amendment 99 #