Activities of Eleftherios SYNADINOS related to 2016/2064(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Implementation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (debate) EL
Amendments (46)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges the initial results of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) to mobilise private investments; recalls that the EFSI must also contribute to economic, social and territorial cohesion and that efforts are needed to enhance synergies and complementarity between the EFSI and European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs), and that a greater margin of flexibility must be provided in allocating funds from the Structural Funds for specific needs that are not covered by the present Structural Funds arrangements; underlines the importance of ensuring additionality of the EFSI with respect to other EIB initiatives and EU- funded programs;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the largeasymmetric investment gapshortfall in Europe, which the Commission conservatively estimates at a minimum of EUR 200-300 billion a year; , highlights in particular, against this backdrop, the continued market needs in Europe for high-risk financing, for instance in the fields of R&D, energy and ICT; is concerned by the fact that the most recent data on national accounts do not indicate any surge in investment since the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) was launched, leading to risks ofthereby helping to worsen the continued subdued growth and continuing high unemployment rates; stresses that closa dramatic reduction ing this investment gap is key tostep towards reviving growth, fighting unemployment and attaining long-term EU policy objectives;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the publication of the Commission’s new guidelines of 22 of February 2016 on combining ESIFs and the EFSI; takes note, however, that the number of existing synergies between EFSI and ESIFs funds is still extremely low and calls on the Commission, the EIB, the national authorities, the national promotional banks and institutions (NPBI) and the managing authorities to accelerate the design and implementation of further synergies;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that EFSI was launched towith the theoretical aim of helping resolve difficulties and remove obstacles to financing and mobilise funds, 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 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the Commission, the EIB, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, and the managing authorities should better cooperate to ensure that more integrated ESIF-EFSI projects are put forward to boost territorial development and cohesion policies;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls the role of Parliament as foreseen in the regulation, in particular in relation to the monitoring of EFSI implementation; acknowledges, however, that it is too early to finalise a comprehensive assessment of the functioning of EFSI and its impact on the EU economy, but is of the opinion that astresses that an independent preliminary evaluation is crucial in order to identify possible areas of improvement for EFSI 2.0 and thereaftern order to assess the usefulness of EFSI 2.0 in practice;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that it is essential to ensure a geographical balance of EFSI projects, taking account of the different economic development of the regions, the economic disparities between the Member States and the territorial diversity of the Member States; highlights the importance of also developing cross-border projects that could deliver a high European added value;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the purpose of EFSI iwas to ensure additionality by helping to address market failures or suboptimal investment situations and supporting operations which could not have been carried out under existing Union financial instruments and not to secure additional business financing;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that there is a need to develop the thematic concentration of EFSI projects related to cohesion policy; and also to review on a regular basis the capital needs of the Structural Funds;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that the projects supported by EFSI, while strivingintended to create employment, sustainable growth, economic,prosperity and territorial and social cohesion, are considered to provide additionality if they carry a risk corresponding to EIB special activities, as defined in Article 16 of the EIB Statute and by the credit risk policy guidelines of the EIB; underlines that EIB projects carrying a risk lower than the minimum risk under EIB special activities may also be supported by EFSI only if use of the EU guarantee is required to ensure additionality;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. NotesIs concerned that, while all projects approved under EFSI are presented as ‘special activities’ and the files accordingly treated as such, an independent evaluation has found that some projects could have been financed otherwisemore effectively through other, already existing channels;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that the selection of EFSI financing operations and the managing of projects should be more transparent, accountable, based on defined criteria and involve local and regional stakeholders at an early stage; stresses that the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) and the EFSI investment committee should use the expertise of regional authorities in order to promote integrated ESIF-EFSI projects; with a view to this, the EIAH should play an active role in enabling even more local and regional authorities to make the most of the EFSI and ensure multi-level accountability and control;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises the need to strengthen the national and regional platform to support the coordination and synergies between EU funds and avoid duplication;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the EIB, to draw up an detailed inventory of all EU-backed EIB financing falling under the additionality criteria and available to the public;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that Parliament must plays a fundamental role in monitoring the impact of these strategies and projects in terms of employment and sustainable and economic growth. and constitutes a control mechanism for the financial operations of the institutions;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Urges the EIB to comply fully with the letter and the spirit of the EFSI Regulation and to implement real additionality fully and not just superficially, ensuring better targeted funding in practice;
Amendment 112 #
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 legitimate wish for swift feedback and enhanced transparency in relation to both the selection criteria and the amount and type/tranche of possible EFSI support, unlike the present situation; criticises the current lack of clarity and transparency, which deters project promoters from 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 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the criteria according to which projects are assessed are unclear and lack transparency, further undermining the credibility of the process; 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 substantiated additionality and likely contribution to growth and job creation as defined in the Regulation;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that the scoreboard is supposed to be used by the Investment Committee (IC) to ensure an independent and transparent assessment of the potential and actual use of the EU guarantee and to prioritise projects, despite the inherent weaknesses and general failures of the project; requests that the project selection criteria be properly appliednd objectively applied according to merit and this process be made more transparent; recalls that the IC mustshould assign equal importance to each pillar of the scoreboard when prioritising projects, irrespective of whether the individual pillar yields a numerical score, or whether it is composed of unscored qualitative and quantitative indicators; criticises heavily the fact that the EIB itself admits that the IC’s experts only make improper use of the 4th pillar for information purposes, not for decision- making;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Acknowledges that it may take some years to prepare, launch and realise new innovative projects, that the EIB is under institutional pressure to achieve the EUR 315 billion goal and therefore had no real 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 directly reducing its own conventional financing; fears that EFSI mistakenly 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, through self-serving use of formal or procedural channels, easily end up as high-risk projects;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Requests that the EIB provide an objective estimate of its potential annual lending capacity and capability in the medium term, taking into account EFSI and possible regulatory developments and to continue its own lending at rates of EUR 70-75 billion a year, usingmaking use principally of profits, repayments from the programmes etc., and that it use EFSI solelyas complementary tool, notwithstanding initial announcements and official positions; notes that this would mean the business volume of the EIB would successfully reach at least EUR 90 billion, not EUR 75 billion in total;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers it important to discuss whether the envisaged leverage of 15 is appropriatbest able to enable EFSI to support high quality projects bearing a higher risk; invites the EIB to accept and fully endorse the binding strategic objective, which is to weigh up complementing the volume requirement with secondary goals to be achieved;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes with concerngrowing concern the evidence that small projects are deterred from applying for EFSI financing based on their size; points to the significant effect and impact that a small but well directed and strategically significant project might nevertheless have on a national or regional scale; believes that the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) is instrumental in advising and accompanying promoters of small-scale projects in the structuring and bundling of projects via investment platforms or framework agreements; calls on the Steering Board to look intoexamine this issue thoroughly and put forward proposals to correct this situation as a matter of priority;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that EFSI is a demand- driven instrument, which should, however, be guided generally by the political objectives set out in the regulation and defined by the Steering Board, which must act objectively and guided by merit in the interests of all contracting parties and for the benefit of all Union citizens; the objectives, being political in nature, are subject to the control and overall supervision of the elected representatives acting for Parliament;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. WelcomNotes that all sectors defined in the EFSI Regulation have been nominally covered by EFSI financing; points out, however, that certain sectors are seriously under-represented; notes that this might be due to the fact that certain sectors already offered better investment opportunities in terms of shovel-ready, bankable projects when EFSI started up; invites the EIB against this backdrop to discuss how to improve sectorial diversification, linking it to the goals set out in the Regulation as well as the issue of whether EFSI support should be extended towill benefit other vital sectors also;
Amendment 219 #
18. Observes that the EFSI governance structures have been implemented in full within the EIB; considers that, with a view to improving the efficiencyfunctioning and accountability of EFSI, options for makingthe possibility of separating the workings of the EFSI governance structure completely separate from thatose of the EIB should be discussconsidered;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that the Managing Director (MD) is responsible for the day-to-day management of EFSI, the preparation and chairing of meetings of the IC and for external representation; recalls that the MD is assisted by the Deputy Managing Director (DMD); regretsis concerned that, in practice, the respective roles, especially that of the DMD, have not been clearly identified; invites the EIB to reflect on immediately spelling out the tasks of the MD and the DMD more clearly in order to ensure transparency and accountability; suggests that the MD, assisted by the DMD, could be explicitly put in charge of setting the agenda of the IC meetings, of carrying out an initial screening of the projects presented by the EIB as well as being made explicitly accountable for their decisions ofand those of the IC experts; suggests, furthermore, that the MD should devise procedures for tackling effectively potential conflicts of interest within the IC, report to the Steering Board (SB), propose substantial and exemplary sanctions for breaches as well as the means to implement them; believes that the authority of the MD and the DMD in carrying out these tasks would be enhanced by enjoyinginstitutional duties should be underpinned through greater autonomy vis-à-vis the EIB; invites the EIB accordingly to explore options forways in which they could be immediately adopted so as to increasinge the independence of the MD and the DMD;
Amendment 228 #
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, within the current framework, they are independent; considerstresses that project selection is not transparent enough 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 and detailed justification of additionality and the scoreboard; is concerned about documenteddeplores strongly the documented conflicts of interest on the part of IC members; believes that conflicts of interest are unacceptable and that members and those materially responsible must be investigated, singling out those undermining the credibility of the project if the asymmetrical conflicts of interest on the part of IC membersaffecting the decisions of the member under investigation is shown to be substantial, regardless of whether or not it affects the final decision-making process as a whole;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Invites the EIB to reflect on the ways in which cooperation between IC, through the MD and the SB, could be enhancsupported; suggests that the MD cshould systematically and actively participate in SB meetings, which would also allow the MD to inform the SB about future activities and support more effectively the continuation and parallel exercise of activities on both sides;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Recalls that as a result of their know-how, NPBs are necessary for the success of EFSI, as they are close to the local markets; finds that synergies have so far not been exploited to the requisite extent ; observes a risk of local institutions being crowded out by the EIB; recognises that EFSI and the EIB are increasingly willing to take more junior/subordinated tranches with the NPBs and urges them to continue to do so; invites the EIB to discuss carefully whether it would be useful to incorporate NPB expertise into the SB;
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls that diversified investments with a geographical or thematic focus should be made possible by helping to finance and bundle projects and funds from different sources; notes that the first investment platform was only set up behind schedule and regardless of priorities in the third quarter of 2016;
Amendment 259 #
25. Urges the EFSI governing bodies to pay greater attention to investment platforms with a view to maximising the benefits that the latter can probably bring in overcoming investment barriers, especially in EU-13 in all EU Member States; invites the EIB to provide stakeholders with more information onin suitable form regarding the platforms;
Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Proposes a discussion ofthat a way be found of providing additional means of promoting IPs, such as by prioritising the approval of projects presented via a platform, the pooling of smaller projects and group contracts and establishing mechanisms to finance groupings of contracts; believes that transnational platforms should be promoted in particular, as many energy and, principally, digital projects have a transnational dimension;
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Welcomes thatRegrets that, although by the end of 2016, undertakings from all 28 countries received EFSI funding; underlines, however, that as of 30 June 2016,, in the period up to 30 June 2016, those from the EU-15 had received 91% whereas those from the EU- 13 had only received 9% of EFSI support; regdeplorets that EFSI support has mainly benefittedand heartily opposes EFSI practices that are benefiting only a limited number of countries;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Acknowledges that GDP and the number of projects approved are linked; recognises that larger Member States are able to taketaking advantage of more developed capital markets and are therefore more likely toderiving asymmetrical benefit from a market-driven instrument such as EFSI that is driven by market forces; underlines that lower EFSI support infor EU-13 undertakings may be attributable to other additional factors, such as the small size of projects, the widespread economic crisis, the uncertain business climate resulting from austerity policies and competition from the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF); observes with concern, however, the disproportionate benefit to certain countries and underlines the need to impose diversifyication of further geographical distribution further, especially in crucial sectors such as modernising and improving the productivity and sustainability of economies;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Attaches the utmost importance to the operation of the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH); considers that its mission to act as a single point of entry to simplified and comprehensive advisory and technical assistance throughout all stages of the project cycle largely responds tois dictated by the growing need for technical assistance support among authorities and project promoters;
Amendment 307 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Considers, similarly, that the EIAH canshould actively contribute towards geographical and sectorial diversificationbalance, not only by covering all regions and more sectors in the provision of its services, but also by assisting the EIB in launching corresponding operations; believes that the EIAH can play an important role in contributing to the objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 312 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Regrets that the European Investment Project Portal (EIPP) was only launched behind schedule by the Commission on 1 June 2016, almost a year after the adoption of the EFSI Regulation, no adequate justification being given for that choice; notes that the portal is now operational, with only 139 projects currently displayed, but considers that this is still very far from the potential expected when the EFSI regulation was adopinitially expected and formally stipulated;
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Considers that the EIPP provides ashould provide a simple and user-friendly platform for project promoters to boost the visibility of their investment projects in a transparent manner; believes, however, that the key to the success of the portal is to increase its own visibility significantly, in order to achieve common acknowledgement as a useful, reliable and efficient tool both among investors and project promoters; urges the Commission to work actively in this direction through solid communication activities;
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Recalls that the Union, despite its concerns regarding the effectiveness of the fund, continues to provides an irrevocable and unconditional guarantee to the EIB for financing and investment operations under EFSI; is convincednotes that the EU Guarantee has probably enabled the EIB to take on correspondingly higher risk for the Infrastructure and Investment Window (IIW) and believes that it has permitted the financing of SMEs, Midcaps under COSME and InnovFin for the SME Window (SMEW) to be enhanced and frontloaded;
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Stresses that, due to a very strongn uptake reflecting the high market demand, the SME Window was further reinforced by EUR 500 million from the IIW Debt Portfolio under the existing legislative framework; welcomes that, due to the flexibility of the EFSI Regulation, the additional financing was granted to benefit SMEs and small mid-caps; intends to monitor closely the allocation of theis guarantee under the two windows;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Notes that the Commission has proposed an extension of EFSI, both in terms of duration and financial capacity, and that thiswhile acknowledging that this initiative fails adequately to meet market needs; notes that it would have an impact on the EU budget; expresses its intention to put forward alternative financing proposals;
Amendment 333 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Recalls that Member States were invited to contribute to EFSI in order to broaden its capacity, thereby enabling it to support more higher-risk investments; regrets that despite such investment being considered as a one-off measure within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary provisions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, Member States did not take this initiative; recognizes that this is attributable to instinctive recoil from Union policies on the part of the Member States, especially when they are announced in the run-up to elections; requests information from the EIB and the Commission as to whether they have undertaken efforts in the meantime to convinceinform Member States to contribute toabout the results actually achieved by the EFSI, and whether they might be able to attract other investors; invites the Commission and the EIB to step up their efforts in this direction;
Amendment 359 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. IsStrongly deeply concernedores the fact that the EIB has been unfairly pushing via EFSI to support projects that have been structured using firms in tax havens; urgescalls on the EIB and the EIF to refrain from making use of or engaging in tax avoidance structures, in particular aggressive tax planning schemes, or other tax avoidance practices which do not comply with EU good governance principles on taxation, as set out in the relevant Union legislation, including Commission recommendations and communications;
Amendment 364 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Observes with regret that many project promoters are not aware of the existence of EFSI, or have an insufficiently clear picture of what EFSI can offer them and, how to benefit from it and how to access the services offered; underlines that further efforts have to be made to raise awareness of what EFSI is, which specific products and services it has to offer and of the roles of investment platforms (IPs) and NPBs;
Amendment 385 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Acknowledges that EFSI alone - and on a limited scale- will probably not be able to close the investment gap in Europe, but that it nevertheless constitutes a central pillar of the EU’s investment plan and signals the EU’s determination to tackle this issuprovides a specific set of policy guidelines for the EU’s investment plan and signals the EU’s concern with preventing the collapse of the European edifice; calls for further proposals to be made on how to permanently boost investment in Europe;