7 Amendments of Siegfried MUREŞAN related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that EFSI was launched to helpWelcomes the role played by EFSI in helping to resolve difficulties and remove obstacles to financing as well as to implement strategic, transformative and productive investments that provide a high level of added value to the economy, the environment and society;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that, as provided for in the regulation, prior to a project being selected for EFSI support, it has to undergo due- diligence and decision-making processes both in the EIB and the EFSI governance structures; observes that project promoters have expressed a wish for swift feedback and enhanced transparency in relation to both the selection criteria and the amount and type/tranche of possible EFSI support; criticises the current lack of clarity, which detersalls for an enhanced clarity in order to further encourage project promoters fromto applying for EFSI support; calls for the decision-making process to be made more transparent in respect of the selection criteria and financial support and to be speeded up;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the criteria according to which projects are assessed are unclear and lack transparencyshould be further clarified; requests further information from the EFSI governing bodies on the evaluations carried out on all projects approved under EFSI accordingly, in particular as regards their additionality and contribution to growth and job creation as defined in the Regulation;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Acknowledges that it may take some years to prepare new innovative projects, that the EIB is under pressure to achieve the EUR 315 billion goal and therefore had no option but to launch EFSI activities immediately, is concerned, however, that the EIB, when implementing EFSI, has thus far drawn on its existing project pipeline with lower risk projects to a large extent, thereby reducing its own conventional financing; fears that EFSI does not provide complementary financing for high-risk innovative projects; underlines that even though a project qualifies as a special activity, this does not necessarily imply that it is risky, however the classification as a special activity might also stem from the fact that its financing has been structured in an artificially risky fashion, implying that very low-risk projects can also easily end up as high-risk projects;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that the IC experts are responsible for EFSI project selection, granting the EU guarantee and for approving operations with investment platforms and National Promotional Banks (NPBs) or institutions; recalls further that they are independent; considers that project selection is notshould be as transparent enoughas possible and that decisions have to be accounted for; stresses that the EIB should make improvements to the disclosure of information about the projects it approves under EFSI, with a proper justification of additionality and the scoreboard; is concerned about documented conflicts of interest on the part of IC members;
Amendment 275 #
28. Welcomes that by the end of 2016, all 28 countries received EFSI funding; underlines, however, that as of 30 June 2016, EU-15 had received 91% whereas EU-13 had only received 9% of EFSI support; regrets that EFSI support has mainly benefitted a limited number of countries and calls on the EIB to provide further technical assistance to those countries which have benefitted less from EFSI;
Amendment 389 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49a. Strongly supports the extension of EFSI as the fund has proven to be in the first years of its functioning an effective instrument in tackling the investment gap across the EU;