8 Amendments of Tomasz Piotr PORĘBA related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. AcknowledgNotes 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); underlines the importance of ensuring additionality of the EFSI with respect to other EIB initiatives and EU- funded programs;
Amendment 24 #
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 promotional banks and institutions (NPBI) and the managing authorities to accelerate the design and implementation of further synergies, especially harmonization of State aid and public procurement rules between ESIFs and EFSI would be beneficial in this regard;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomAcknowledges 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 promotional banks and institutions (NPBI) and the managing authorities to accelerate the design and implementation of further synergies;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the Commission, the EIB, 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; points out that, thanks to improved coordination of the EFSI and the European structural funds, ESIF could become an important tool for boosting investments;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Points out that if different conditions are applied to individual programmes and instruments, for example if the viability of a project is checked but the validity of its implementation is not verified on the basis of programming documents, there is a risk that the source of funding selected will not be the best in terms of the implementation of development priorities in a given area, such as, for example, the funding of projects with market potential, which can result in support being provided for a project that is viable and has good financial parameters but should not be supported using public funds when other strategic priorities have been agreed on;
Amendment 65 #
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 a need to apply the same project impact assessment principles to the implementation of political priorities in the context of the structural and investment funds and EFSI;
Amendment 73 #
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; calls for the necessary analyses to be carried out and for more precise guidelines on ESIF-EFSI coordination to be proposed;
Amendment 82 #
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; calls, at the same time, for administrative instruments to be brought in at Member State level so that projects submitted for funding can be directed to the appropriate instruments depending on the nature of the project;