13 Amendments of Pavel TELIČKA related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the investment mobilised by EFSI to date, which, which on 31 January 2017 amountsed to EUR 169.98.8 billion (the total approved EIB financing being EUR 31.5 billion) and accounts for 524% of the total target investment to be mobilised by 2018;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets the linadequacky of officialthe real- time information on the amount of used guarantee; notes, however, that unofficial inform that several evaluations indicates a multiplier of 14.1; calls onleverage effect of 14.1; points out that the EIB tohas makde the exact multiplier public and to use the OECD calculation methodology; 14; __________________ 1d http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/ efsi_2015_report_ep_council_en.pdf.
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that as at 31 January 2017 the main beneficiaries awere, per volume: the UK, Spain, France, Germany and Italin absolute terms: Italy, Spain, France, the UK and Germany (73% of the total mobilised investment), per capita: Finland, Ireland, Estonia, Spain, and Italy, and Luxembourg, and, per share of GDPin terms of GDP (in EUR m): Estonia, Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal, Italy and GreeceLithuania and Portugal;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, according to the EY 2016 independent evaluation covering the period from July 2015 to June 20161 a, EU-15 received over 90% of EFSI support and the 13 new Member States received about 9%; points out that the volume of EFSI operations has changed greatly since then; recalls that three Member States should not account for more than 45% of the total EFSI funding under the EFSI Infrastructure and Innovation Window1 b at the end of the first investment period (mid-2018) and therefore calls on the EFSI Steering Board to continuously monitor sectoral and geographical spread; __________________ 1aAd-hoc audit of the application of the Regulation 2015/1017. 1b Strategic Orientation adopted by the EFSI Steering Board in December 2015: http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/ efsi_steering_board_efsi_strategic_orient ation_en.pdf.
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that only 10 projects under the IIW and two under the SMEW, corresponding to nine Member States, benefited fromConsiders that blending EU grants with financial instruments can also make for the necessary additionality and encourage investors to submit projects that might not have bleended EFSI/ESIF funding; encourages a timely adoption of the Financial Regulation and Omnibus Regulation revision that would allow the simplification of the combined ESIF and EFSI funds in order to avoid competition and overlaps and to ensure complementarity carried out otherwise; calls on the EIB and the Commission to promote the use of EU grants (under various EU arrangements, for instance the CEF, Horizon 2020, and the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)) in combination with EFSI in order to improve the financial profile of infrastructure projects providing European added value;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. In order to improve the performance of the EFSI at both national and regional level, there is a need to step up cooperation between the EIB, which steers the EFSI, and the national and regional promotional banks.
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that only 11 projects under the IIW and two under the SMEW, corresponding to nine Member States, benefited from blended EFSI/ESIF funding; encourages a timely adoption of the Financial Regulation and Omnibus Regulation revision that would enable EFSI to be combined more simply and to optimum effect with all other EU grant arrangements (for example ESIF, the CEF, and H2020) in order to avoid competition and overlaps and to ensure complementarity;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that, under the two windows, 310% of the EFSI funding was used for SMEs, 223% forin the energy projsectsor, 21% for RDI and 10% for the digital sector; regrets, however, the lack of information regarding the additionality of the projects fundedin the RDI sector and 10% in the digital sector;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls for European added value to be considered a major criterion in the selection procedure and for EFSI to be in line with EU policy goals;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that National Promotional Banks are not well established in all Member States and that their limited geographical spread poses additional barriers to the EFSI geographical coverage; considers that the establishment of National Promotional Banks should be a high EFSI priority in order to address regions where support is needed; calls on the EIB and the Commission to ensure that National Promotional Banks are high in the priorities of the European Advisory Investment Hub; calls on the Commission to encourage and support the establishment of National Promotional Banks in regions where their presence is limitedMaintains that, in order to improve EFSI’s performance at both national and regional level, there needs to be closer cooperation between the EIB, which runs EFSI, and National and Regional Promotional Banks;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Notes, however, that National Promotional Banks are not well established in all Member States and that their limited geographical spread poses additional barriers to the EFSI geographical coverage; considers that the establishment of National Promotional Banks should be a high EFSI priority in order to finance the support that some regions need;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. CPoints to the promising start to the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH); calls on the EIAH to increase its presence in countries in which the EFSI has had difficulties in taking hold and which lack the administrative capacity to submit viable projects, and in cohesion countries in particular; calls on the EIAH, furthermore, to provide specific advice in order to aid given projects wherever there is a high degree of risk aversion or the risk is fragmented among investors (as can be the case with, for example, cross-border/multinational projects or long-term infrastructure/revenue-generating projects); calls on the Advisory Hub to collaborate with the appropriate national institutions in order to achieve more balanced geographical and sectorial coverage; calls on the EIB to strengthen its advisory capacity and to enhance communication and dissemination efforts to increase the uptake of EFSI in all Member States and regions;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. RegretNotes that the investment platforms are slow to emerge and not yetprovided for under the EFSI Regulation need more time to become operational, hampering and that the development of cross-border projects; is meanwhile being hampered; points out, however, that 21 platforms have been set up to date1 c; __________________ 1c EIB.