19 Amendments of Roberts ZĪLE related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the large investment gap in Europe, which the Commission estimates at a minimum of EUR 200-300 billion a year; , highlights in particular, against this backdrop, the 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 of continued subdued growth and continuing high, although generally falling, unemployment rates; stresses that closing this investment gap is key to reviving growth, fighting unemployment and attaining long-term EU policy objectives; further stresses that the macroeconomic data on growth and investment levels in the EU-28 and EU-17 countries should be assessed by taking into account ongoing disparities between the various EU’s countries and regions;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the Strategic Orientation approved by the EFSI Steering Board in December 2015, which includes indicative geographical concentration limits; notes an unbalanced geographical distribution among beneficiaries of the EFSI; recalls that the GDP ratio criterion is relevant, among other things to ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion, with a view to ensuring a balanced spread of projects; as during the first year of operations 92 per cent of all investment has concentrated in EU-15 countries whilst only 8 per cent has reached the EU-13 countries and that to date 10 Member States, mostly in Central and Eastern Europe, had operations only under the SME Window (SMEW) of EFSI[1]; recalls that the GDP ratio criterion is relevant, among other things to ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion, with a view to ensuring a balanced spread of projects and underlines that the concentration of capital in the EU-15 countries and underserving of EU- 13 countries widens social and economic disparities between the EU's Western and Eastern regions; [1] EIB independent evaluation report "Evaluation of the functioning of the European Fund for Strategic Investments" (http://www.eib.org/infocentre/publication s/all/evaluation-of-the-functioning-of-the- efsi.htm)
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. However warns against the trend whereby investment funds based on public-private partnerships are replacing the EU's conventional funding mechanisms and within the context of EFSI are partly funded using money that has previously been earmarked for other purposes; Notes that as EFSI has thus far been incapable of contributing towards the EU's economic, social and territorial cohesion, the EU's structural funds are still the main funds capable of serving the EU's cohesion policy aims;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that EFSI was launched to help mobilising, 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 and to encourage private investment in all regions of the EU;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that blending EU grants with financial instruments can also ensure the additionality required and will mobilise investors to submit projects that otherwise might not have been carried out; asks the EIB and the Commission to promote the blending of EU grants (various EU mechanisms such as CEF, H2020, European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)) with the EFSI in order to improve the infrastructure projects’' financial profile providing European Added Value, but at the same time stresses that it is important to coordinate various types of EU funding and not to promote PPP type Funds at the expense of Structural Funds in order to ensure that EU transport policy objectives are met across all of the EU;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Notes that public-private partnership transport infrastructure projects generally should be based on user-pays principle in order to reduce the burden imposed on public budgets and taxpayers for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure;
Amendment 43 #
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 even though it is too early to finalise a comprehensive assessment of the functioning of EFSI and its impact on the EU economy, the general direction and trends of the Fund are becoming increasingly clear; but is of the opinion that a preliminary evaluation is crucial in order to identify possible areas of improvement for EFSI 2.0 and thereafter;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that, while all projects approved under EFSI are presented as ‘special activities’, an independent evaluation has found that some projects could have been financed otherwise; further notes that as every EFSI project is first approved by the EIB board and subject to the Bank’s standard due diligence process, the EIB needs to demonstrate that EFSI projects – past and future – would not have benefitted from EIB funding if EFSI guarantee was not available;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that the assessment criteria for the fulfilment of the additionality are unclear, and therefore the figures given about the amount of ‘additional private investment’ should be considered an estimate;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Believes that the fulfilment of the additionality criteria is dependent upon region specific economic conditions, as a project may be additional in one region but not in another; asks the EIB, where appropriate in cooperation with the EIF, to include an evaluation of the degree of additionality obtained at the level of each Member State in its annual report to the European Parliament and the Council;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes with concern that small projects are deterred from applying for EFSI financing based on their size; points to the significant impact that a small project might nevertheless have on a national or regional scale which has resulted in a low success rate of the EU’s geographically small countries with below-average GDP per capita; believes that EFSI should seek to encourage private investment in all regions of the EU; points to the significant impact that a small project might nevertheless have on a national or regional scale, especially since often the smaller-scale projects in these Member States are relatively large when measured as percent of GDP; 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 into this issue and put forward proposals to correct this situation;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Notes that on 30 June 2016, 63.4% of the IIW portfolio is concentrated in just three countries – Italy, Spain and the UK – thus exceeding the geographical concentration level of 45%; further notes that 54% of the SMEW portfolio is concentrated in three EU-15 countries: Italy, France and Germany;
Amendment 230 #
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 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 justification of additionality and the scoreboard as well as the projects’ contribution in achieving the EFSI objectives; is concerned about documented conflicts of interest on the part of IC members;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
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; acknowledges however that the distribution of the total EFSI-related investment appears much less concentrated, once either the size of the economy or the population is accounted for;
Amendment 293 #
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 take advantage of more developed capital markets and are therefore more likely to benefit from a market-driven instrument such as EFSI; underlines that lower EFSI support in EU- 13 may partly be attributable to other factors, such as the small size of projects, 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 diversify geographical distribution further, especially in crucial sectors such as modernising and improving the productivity and sustainability of economies;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Recalls that the EU Guarantee Fund is predominantly funded from the EU budget, the bulk of which was taken by cutting the budget of Horizon 2020 and the Connecting Europe Facility programmes; notes the trend whereby the EU money is taken from the existing programmes in favour of financing public-private partnership (PPP) investment programmes; takes account of all relevant evaluations suggesting that the current provisioning rate of the Guarantee Fund of 50% appears to be cautious and prudent in terms of covering potential losses and that the Union budget would already be shielded by an adjusted target rate of 35%; intends to examine whether proposals for a lower target rate would have repercussions on the quality and nature of the projects selected; stresses that, so far, there have been no calls as a result of defaults of EIB or EIF operations;
Amendment 369 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Calls for the communication about EFSI to be clearer; in particular about the fact that EFSI provides a guarantee and that the EIB support is a loan, not a grant; notes with concern that some project promoters, whether by mistake or design, position the EIB and EFSI support as absorption of the EU funds which could result in negative consequences, especially where the taxpayers’ money is used to co-finance the relevant projects;
Amendment 370 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 b (new)
Paragraph 48 b (new)
48b. Notes that there is little publicly disclosed information available on the approved projects; calls on the EIB to offer more detailed information about the approved projects by, among other means, publishing it on the Bank’s website so as to insure the general public is more informed;
Amendment 390 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49a. Stresses that the existing EU programmes are still the main contributors towards the Union’s economic, social and territorial cohesion;