13 Amendments of Sven SCHULZE related to 2015/2042(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
– having regard to the interim assessment of the implementation of the European Progress micro-finance facility drawn up by the European Parliament’s research service in May 2015,
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the financial instruments offered through the Facility are mainly loans and guaranteein 2013 actions funded under the Facility included senior loans and guarantees; further notes that some of the intermediaries receive both a guarantee and a loan, however these two instruments always cover different portfolios;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. FindNotes that the Facility had a very slow start and took some years to identify the gaps in order to increase its outreach in terms of financial intermediaries and beneficiaries; believes thatruns as a pilot project since 2010; further notes that weaknesses were identified in terms of outreach to vulnerable groups such as migrants and disabled people; however foresees that lessons learned have been reflected and some of the shortcomings have already been tackled in the new Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) instrument, but insist; welcomes that a strategic assessment of the targets, has been developed in accordance with the Europe 2020 objectives, should be developed;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Welcomes that further budgetary resources have been allocated to the EaSI for micro-financing;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the Facility’'s geographical coverage within the EU is not adequayet limited, extending as it does to only 20to only 22, soon to be 23, out of the 28 EU Member States; calls on the Commission to make greater efforts to ensure full geographical coverage and to identify and analyse the reasons for some Member States not being covered by the instrument; encourages the Commission to provide the wide public with sufficient information on possibilities of financing by this instrument;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the growing importance of the microfinance business in the EU; is of the opinion that better account should be taken ofwelcomes the demand-driven approach of the Facility addressing the needs of micro-entrepreneurs and attracting private funding; recommends however that the beneficiaries’' needs in the further development of microcrediare subject to further assessment;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Regrets that the social and employment impact of the Facility was scarcely assessed, particularly with regard to data on senior entrepreneurship and support for minorities; calls on the Commission to require the intermediate institutions to cooperate explicitly with minority associations in order to actively to involve vulnerable groups, such as women and minority groups, in the programme; in this regard calls on the Commission to initiate an in-depth impact assessment analysing the Facility and its successor programme under the MF/SE axis of EaSI;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes that 44% of all entrepreneurs supported by the Facility existed less than 1 year; calls on the Commission to further evaluate viability of the micro-businesses financed through the Facility; calls on the Commission to encourage development of employment sustainability through adequate guidance and training financed under the new EaSI instrument in order to secure long-lasting impact;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. TakWelcomes the view that there was not enough complementarity between the Facility and the European Social Fund (ESF) with regard to the requirement that all microcredit providers work with entities providing training and mentoring services, particularly those supported by the ESFincreased flexibility of the new programme under the EaSI in responding to changing needs in respect of the funds reallocation between axes of the programme; calls on the Commission to avoid double funding by developing clear and transparent synergies between the EaSI and other Union programmes and initiatives;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Asks the Commission to ensure that the ESF adapts better to the specific needs of the Facility’s beneficiaNotes that the ESF should provide key financing for creating enterprises, particularly by developing capacity building and training, in order to guarantee improved synergies between ESF programmes and the Facilityviable microfinance and social enterpreneurship accompanied by mentoring and training programmes; regrets that these tools are not directly financed by the EaSI;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that the employment creation impact was less than initially expected, in spite of the fact that many recipients would have been completely excluded from the credit market were it not for microcredit; notes however that the Facility substantially contributed to job preservation; takes into account that this will be addressed by the new, more flexible EaSI instrument;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. RNotes that almost 2000 applications for loans supported by the Facility were rejected; regrets the high number of rejected applications for microfinance and the still significant microfinance market gap, despite the increase in the number of micro-borrowers;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Encourages the Commission to ensure that the Facility and the EaSI instrument continue to contribute to the EU added value and visibility.