6 Amendments of Dominique BILDE related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with disappointment that only 4 % of EFSI funding – both under the Infrastructure and Innovation and SME Windows – has been allocated to the thematic objective set out in Article 9(2)(g) of the EFSI Regulation and that only a fraction of that 4 % has reached the culture and education sectors; points out in his regard that, according to the European Investment Bank, more than EUR 4 billion has been spent on projects linked to the education sector;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Reiterates that Regulation (EU) 2015/1017, which established the EFSI, stressed the need for it to 'support projects in the fields of human capital, culture and health, including projects in the fields of education, training, the development of ICT skills and digital education, as well as projects in the cultural and creative sector, in tourism and in social fields';
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights the interest among cultural and creative sector (CCS) stakeholders in EFSI funding as well as the potential of the SME Window for the sector; regrets, however, the lack of awareness of EFSI and its funding options; insists that communication efforts be scaled up, tailored to the needs of the CCS and rolled out locally in Member States, including through the Creative Europe Deskmechanisms encouraging investment and innovation financing; notes, however, the lack of awareness of EFSI and its funding options; stresses the need to focus on short supply chains and to encourage use of investment tools at local and national level to support businesses in the geographical areas concerned and to ensure that this meets the needs of the cultural and creative sectors;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that the CCS also requires targeted advice to understand the financing options and procedures under EFSI, and that financial intermediaries need support to better understand the CCS and its needs; welcomnotes, in this regard, the EFSI 2.0 proposal to boost the role of the European Investment and Advisory Hub and enhance its national and local presence; insists that the Hub be adequately resourced so as to provide tailored support to the educationbut stresses that it must not merely duplicate the work of existing national and local agencies, so as not to add yet another layer of bureaucracy that would overshadow and, cultural sectors throughout the procesimately, hamper the effectiveness of these agencies;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, since schools and universities in most Member States are legally prohibited from borrowing money, EFSI is largely unsuitable for the sector; regrets that, despite funding being diverted from Horizon2020, EFSI support for research and innovation has not adequately benefited public universities; insists, therefore, that funding be restored to Horizon2020 and/or that a proposal be made to reallocate funds to research projects in universities and further education establishments with a view to promoting innovation in a meaningful manner;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for greater synergies between EFSI and other EU funds, notablyall existing structures, such as the ESI Funds, Horizon2020 and the Creative Europe Guarantee Facility; urges the Commission to frontload the Creative Europe Guarantee Facility through EFSI; underscores that the Hub can play a role in providing information on combining EU fund, to be consolidated into a single, more intelligible and more efficient instrument dedicated to promoting smart, inclusive and sustainable growth and tailored to suit the Member States’ innovation strategies.