10 Amendments of Andrea COZZOLINO related to 2016/2064(INI)
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the criteria according to which projects are assessed are unneed to be clear and lack transparencyt; 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 additionality and contribution to growth and job creation as defined in the Regulation;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Acknowledges that it may take some yearstime to prepare new innovative projects, and that the EIB is under pressure to achieve the EUR 315 billion goal and therefore had no 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 reducing its own conventional financing; fears that EFSI 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 easily end up as high-risk projectshad to rely on its existing project pipeline, yet shifting it towards riskier instruments and financing structures in order to maximise the benefits for the European economy;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Requests that the EIB provide an estimate of its potential annual lending capacity 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, using profits, repayments from the programmes etc., and that it use EFSI as complementary tool; notes that this would mean the business volume of the EIB would reach at least EUR 90 billion, not EUR 75 billi to ensure that the shift towards riskier activities con tin totalues;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that EFSI is a demand- driven instrument, which should, however, be guided by the political objectives set out in the regulation and defined by the Steering Board;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes that all sectors defined in the EFSI Regulation have been covered by EFSI financing; points out, however, that certain sectors are under- represented; notes that this might be due to the fact that certain sectors already offered better investment opportunities in termsunderlines the need to facilitate the demand for investment financing of sthovel-ready, bankable projects when EFSI started up; invites the EIB against this backdrop to discuss howse sectors that drew less from EFSI in order to improve sectorial diversification of EFSI, linking it to the goals set out in the Regulation as well as the issue ofvites to discuss whether EFSI support should be extended to other sectors;
Amendment 227 #
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); regrets that, in practice, the respective roles, especially that of the DMD, have not been clearly identified; invites the EIB to reflect on 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 the decisions of IC experts; suggests, furthermore, that the MD should devise procedures for tackling potential conflicts of interest within the IC, report to the Steering Board (SB), propose 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 enjoying greater autonomy vis-à-vis the EIB; invites the EIB accordingly to explore options for increasing the independence of the MD and the DMD;
Amendment 247 #
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 EIBinvites the EIB to improve its ability to crowd in national and sub- national partners; 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 whether it would be useful to incorporate NPB expertise into the SB;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Proposes ato discussion of additional means of further ways to promotinge IPs, such as by prioritising the approval of projects presented via a platform, the pooling ofin order to facilitate the implementation presented through them, to pool smaller projects together and group contracts and, to establishing mechanisms to finance groupings of contracts; believes that transnational platforms should be promoted into promote projects, particular, as manyly in the energy and digital projectssectors that have a transnational dimension;
Amendment 281 #
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 nominal support; regrets that EFSI nominal support has mainly benefitted a limited number of countries;
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Acknowledges however that GDP and the number of projects approved are linked; recognises that larger Member States have a larger absorption capacity and 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 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 andhowever, underlines the need to diversify geographical distribution further, especially in crucial sectors such as modernising and improving the productivity and sustainability of economies;