19 Amendments of Kathleen VAN BREMPT related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that there is still an investment gap in the EU, and acknowledges that EFSI can help to close it; reminds however that EFSI support should only go to sustainable projects ensuring additionality and boosting the real economy, in line with the sustainable development goals and the Paris Agreement; notes with regret that not all supported projects so far comply with those criteria and stresses that full compliance and the appropriate due diligence procedure is needed before support is granted;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Regrets that many stakeholders are still unaware of EFSI, its possibilities or the ways to apply for EFSI support; moreover noticed that some beneficiaries, which were in fact already enjoying EFSI support, were unaware of that, due to lack of transparency of the financial intermediary passing on the support from EFSI; is of opinion that the lack of awareness on the availability of EFSI support, as well as the unawareness of actually benefitting from EFSI support are both missed opportunities for the EU; urges that an enhanced communication strategy needs to be put in place;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. NotWelcomes that, by the end of 2016 EFSI support was attributed to all EU Member States; notes however that according to the EY 2016 independent evaluation, EU-15 received over 90 % of EFSI support and the 13 new Member States received about 9 %; recalls that three Member States should not account for more than 45 % of total EFSI funding and regrets the unbalanced allocation of EFSI support until now; therefore calls on the EFSI Steering Board to continuously monitor sectoral and geographical spread with specific attention to boosting sustainable transition in all Member States;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Reminds that additionality is a key principle for projects to receive EFSI support; addressing market failures, supporting operations which could not be financed by other public or private funds and mobilising additional investments in the real economy, fostering the sustainable transition; notes however that not all projects supported carry this additional characteristic and that some projects could have been financed otherwise;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses that EFSI support may not lead to rebranding of projects which would have been already supported by the EIB; notes that EFSI support is granted to a high amount of energy projects, but that the number of supported energy projects via the EIB's existing financing mechanisms has dropped to a large extent at the same time;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Welcomes that, in the energy segment, EFSI is supporting a high number of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects; regrets however that a large amount of EFSI support also went to fossil fuel projects, for instance, EFSI granted 1.8 billion euro by the end of 2016 to gas infrastructure projects, representing 26% of its total energy lending; supporting fossil fuel projects is not in line with the envisaged goals and criteria of EFSI, can lead to stranded assets and is hindering the reduction of green house gas emissions by 95% towards 2050; underlines that for these reasons, EFSI should not support fossil fuel projects;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Notes that, in the energy segment, a lot of EFSI support was granted to renewable, yet mature and large scale projects; argues that, although these projects contribute to reaching the EU's climate and energy goals, EFSI was not designed to support these type of mature business-as-usual projects; instead EFSI should focus on less mature, innovative, risky and small scale projects and technologies, which can have huge effects in the real economy and are in desperate need of technical and financial support;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Is of opinion that more support should be given to energy efficiency projects by earmarking at least 20% of EFSI financing for energy efficiency projects; prioritizing small scale, innovative projects in the buildings sector, with special attention for projects eliminating social inequalities and fighting energy poverty;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 e (new)
Paragraph 7 e (new)
7e. Notes that EFSI provided support to high carbon transport infrastructure, especially for motorways and airports; highly questions the innovative and sustainable nature of these investments; urges EFSI to prioritise investments in low-carbon mobility and sustainable urban transport according to the EFSI criteria and the European Strategy for low-emission mobility from July 2016;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the inclusion of National Promotional Banks, and their cooperation with the EIB is not sufficiently established so far, moreover stresses that National Promotional Banks are not well established in all Member States and that their limited geographical spread poses additional barriers to the EFSI geographical coverage; considers that the establishment of National Promotional Banks and their higher degree of inclusion should be a high EFSI priority in order to address regions whbetter incorporate know-how of local markets, and address undere support is neededed regions; calls on the EIB and the Commission to ensure that National Promotional Banks are high in the priorities of the European Advisory Investment Hub; calls on the Commission to encourage and support the establishment of National Promotional Banks in regions where their presence is limited;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Emphasizes the crucial role of the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) for the success of EFSI; notes with regret that it was not able to function to its full extend so far; stresses that the necessary means, with a minimum of EUR 20 000 000 per annum, should be provided for the EIAH to cover its costs and be able to fulfil and intensify its actions and services, emphasizes as well the importance of solving the problem of staff shortage as quickly as possible in order for the EIAH to take up all of its assigned tasks and responsibilities;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Underlines the important responsibility of the EIAH to bring EFSI to the local level and its role as a one- stop-shop for technical and financial advice to identify, prepare and develop projects, as well as its mission to proactively aggregate small scale projects and set up investment platforms; stresses that these tasks are not sufficiently achieved and should be intensified over the coming period;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Reminds that one of the aims of EFSI and the EIAH was to boost small scale, innovative and risky projects by amongst others bundling them, possibly via investment platforms, into larger clusters which are more investment ready; notes however with regret that EFSI supports predominantly larger projects and that stakeholders with smaller, innovative, or riskier projects do not find their way to EFSI funding; urges that these barriers are tackled without delay;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Reminds that the EIAH should put a particular focus on projects concerning energy efficiency, TEN-T and urban mobility
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 d (new)
Paragraph 9 d (new)
9d. Notes that very few stakeholders are aware of the existence of the EIAH or the services it can provide, therefore stresses the need for a better communication and awareness raising campaign;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Regrets that investment platforms are slow to emerge and not yet operational,; stresses their role in aggregating multiple smaller projects concerning the same topic or bundling and facilitating cross- border projects; is of opinion that higher attention and support should be given to boost the functioning of the investment platforms, as their underperformance is currently hampering the development of bundled or cross- border projects;
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the need for transparency in the selection of EFSI operations, especially the need for information concerning additionality and the reasondecision making process for granting the EU guarantee;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Criticises the lack of transparency on the decision making procedure and on the applied selection criteria when choosing projects for EFSI support; especially as regards to the application the scoreboard; is concerned that not all projects which were already granted support lived up to the predetermined criteria; urges for the correct and equal application of all the criteria listed in the scoreboard and demands greater transparency and open communication on the selection and decision making processes and the application of the scoreboard on each project supported;
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is of the opinion that further evaluation, in order for all stakeholders to judge ofn the original EFSI regulation would have been desirablesuccesses and problems of EFSI so far, greater transparency on the projects supported and the decision procedure applied, a more in depth study and a further evaluation was indispensable, especially before the adoption of the proposed EFSI extension; hopes that the conclusions of this report will be duly taken into consideration in the final elaboration of EFSI II Regulation.