EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 25.9.2017
SWD(2017) 312 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Activities relating to financial instruments
Accompanying the document
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on financial instruments supported by the general budget according to Art. 140.8 of the Financial Regulation as at 31 December 2016
{COM(2017) 535 final}
3.Risk Sharing Instruments
3.1.Risk-Sharing Finance Facility under the FP7 (RSFF)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG RTD
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG RTD
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
EIB
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 960,73 million
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 960,73 million
|
A -Summary
The RSFF, officially launched in July 2007, was one of the new, innovative funding mechanisms of FP7. It is a debt finance instrument, jointly developed by the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB). The RSFF facilitated access to finance by providing loans and guarantees to a wide range of beneficiaries — including SMEs, mid-sized enterprises, larger companies, research institutions, universities and research infrastructures — investing in RDI.
The RSFF has reached and easily exceeded almost all its operational and intermediate objectives. Three evaluative assessments clearly demonstrate that RSFF is well on its way to realising longer-term objectives and wider achievements.
Loan agreements have been signed with 114 R&I promoters, with a total loan volume (active loans) of EUR 11,31 billion and the instrument had been implemented in 25 countries.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1).
Council Decision 2006/971/EC of 19 December 2006 concerning the specific programme ‘Cooperation’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (OJ L 400, 30.12.2006, p. 86).
Council Decision 2006/974/EC of 19 December 2006 on the Specific Programme: ‘Capacities’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (OJ L 400, 30.12.2006, p. 299).
(b)Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
The RSFF, co-developed by the European Commission and the EIB, was established in June 2007. The RSFF facilitates access to finance by providing loans and guarantees to a wide range of beneficiaries — including SMEs, mid-sized enterprises, larger companies, research institutions, universities and research infrastructures —investing in RDI.
Implementation arrangements
The EU and the EIB are risk-sharing partners for loans provided by the EIB directly or indirectly to beneficiaries. The European Union, through FP7 budget resources, and the EIB have set aside a total amount of up to EUR 2 billion (up to EUR 1 billion each) for the period 2007-2013 to cover losses if RSFF loans are not repaid.
Added value
Through those EU/EIB contributions for risk-sharing and loss coverage, the EIB is able to extend a loan volume of EUR 10 billion to companies and the research community for their investments in R&D and Innovation.
(c)The financial institutions involved in implementation;
European Investment Bank (EIB)
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 960,73 million
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 960,73 million
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
The results of the RSFF under FP7 covering from 2007 until 2013 showed a total number of 114 RDI operations, which were signed, and loan volume of EUR 11 313 million, and 112 disbursed operations (EUR 10 220 million).
The origination period of the instrument has closed as from 31/12/2013.
Amount of financing expected to be provided by the instrument (including EU contribution committed) to eligible final recipients,
and corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
|
EUR 11 313 million
114 eligible FRs
|
Amount of investments expected to be made by eligible final recipients due to the financing, if applicable
|
EUR 22 000 million
|
Amount of financing already provided by the instrument to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of recipients;
|
EUR 10 220 million
112 eligible FRs
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the financing provided through the instrument, if applicable.
|
EUR 20 400 million
|
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
EUR 476 million have been assigned to InnovFin Horizon 2020 Loan Services for R&I Facility which is the successor financial instrument of the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility under the FP7 (RSFF).
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account
EUR 839 290 000
In EUR
|
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
7 978 000
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
|
Term deposits < 3 months (cash equivalent)
|
100 927 000
|
Term deposits > 3 months< 1 year (current assets)
|
0
|
Term deposits > 1 year (non-current assets)
|
|
Bonds current
|
44 159 000
|
Bonds non-current
|
675 149 000
|
Other assets (if applicable)
|
11 077 000
|
= Total assets
|
839 290 000
|
Please note that the figures provided include RSI figures.
Impact of negative interest on RSFF: no impact as at 31/12/2016.
(h)Revenues and repayments;
For the period 2007-2016, the following revenues and repayments were received by the EU on the EU RSFF Account:
Total operating revenues: EUR 279.43 million
Total repayments: EUR 196,57 million
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
N/A.
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments of assets of equity;
Impairment of assets as at 31/12/16 EUR 10,69 million
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
The target leverage of the Debt facility - defined as the total funding (i.e. Union funding plus contribution from other financial institutions) divided by the Union financial contribution - was expected to range from an average of 5 to 6,5, depending on the type of operations involved (level of risk, target recipients, and the particular debt financial instrument facility concerned).
Together with the EIB window of the Facility, the achieved leverage effect is 10,6 (amount of financing achieved / EU contribution), whereas the expected leverage effect is close to 12 with an amount of financing expected to be provided to final beneficiaries of EUR 11 313 million (the reached loan volume) and an EU contribution of EUR 960,73 million.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
Demand for RSFF loan finance has been high since the launch of the facility in mid-2007: in its first phase (2007-2010), its take-up exceeded initial expectations by more than 50 % in terms of active loan approvals (EUR 11,3 billion versus an initial forecast of EUR 5 billion).
The RSFF has reached and easily exceeded almost all its operational and intermediate objectives. Three evaluative assessments clearly demonstrate that RSFF is well on its way to realising longer-term objectives and wider achievements.
The first interim evaluation concluded that the RSFF had been successfully introduced into the EU’s research funding scheme within FP7, was a model example of an EU financial instrument, and should be further developed and strengthened. Recommendations included the need to better target SMEs and research infrastructures. The second interim evaluation concluded that the RSFF had proved to be attractive to RDI companies and had met or exceeded its loan volume targets and enabled EIB to increase the bank's capacity to make riskier loans.
By the end of 2013, 127 RSFF operations had been approved by the EIB, with a total loan volume of EUR 16,2 billion, and the Bank had signed loan agreements with 114 R&I promoters, with a total loan volume (active loans) of EUR 11,31 billion. The sector diversification was broad, and the instrument had been implemented in 25 countries. The origination period of the instrument ended as from 31/12/2013.
Graph: Allocation of the portfolio by country
E -Other key points and issues
At the end of 2016, reflows of EUR 476 million had been reallocated to the 'Loans Service for R&I' successor debt instrument in Horizon 2020.
3.2.Horizon 2020 Loan Services for R&I Facility
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG RTD
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG RTD
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
EIB
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 1 060 million
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 1 060 million
|
A -Summary
The InnovFin Large Projects, InnovFin MidCap Growth Finance and InnovFin MidCap Guarantee aim is to improve access to risk finance for R&I projects carried out by a variety of promoters notably including medium and large midcaps, larger companies, universities and research institutes, R&I infrastructures and special-purpose vehicles located in Member States or in Associated Countries.
This instrument helps addressing riskier projects or sub-investment grade promoters carrying out RDI investments across all Horizon 2020's Societal Challenges. A particular approach is foreseen to address the financing needs of midcap companies (with employees between 500 and 3 000 employees).
The InnovFin Large Projects, InnovFin MidCap Growth Finance and InnovFin MidCap Guarantee instruments offers better access to risk finance in an open, demand-driven way through direct loans or hybrid/mezzanine investments made available by the EIB as well as through risk-sharing (guarantees) involving other banks and financial intermediaries.
The InnovFin Large Projects, InnovFin MidCap Growth Finance and InnovFin MidCap Guarantee cover a broad spectrum of final recipients with a flexible loan financing approach, and are complemented by a dedicated guarantee facility for loans and leases for innovative SMEs and Small Midcaps. For 2014-2020, the EU contribution of EUR 1 060 million is targeted to mobilise an amount of financing of EUR 13 250 million for the target final recipients.
B -Description
(a) Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) (OJ L 347/104, 20.12.2013)
Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in "Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)" (OJ L 347/81, 20.12.2013)
Council Decision 2013/743/EU of 3 December 2013 establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) (OJ L 347/965, 20.12.2013).
(b)Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
The goal is to improve access to debt financing — loans, guarantees, counter-guarantees and other forms of debt and risk finance — for public and private entities and public-private partnerships engaged in research and innovation activities requiring risky investments in order to come to fruition. The focus is on supporting research and innovation with a high potential for excellence.
The target final recipients are potentially legal entities of all sizes that can borrow and repay money and, in particular, SMEs with the potential to carry out innovation and grow rapidly; mid-caps and large firms; universities and research institutes; research infrastructures and innovation infrastructures; public-private partnerships; and special-purpose vehicles or projects.
Implementation arrangements
The Loan and Guarantee Service for Research and Innovation is implemented by the EIB and by financial intermediaries (banks). Financial intermediaries will be guaranteed against a proportion of potential losses by EIB, which will also offer counter-guarantees to guarantee institutions. This is a demand-driven instrument, with no prior allocations between sectors, countries or regions, or types or sizes of firm or other entities.
The Delegation Agreement signed with the entrusted entity ensures that the InnovFin Large Projects, InnovFin MidCap Growth Finance and InnovFin MidCap Guarantee are accessible for large firms and medium and large midcaps, universities and research institutes, R&I infrastructures, public-private partnerships, and special-purpose vehicles or projects.
Regarding the indirect delivery, financial intermediaries selected by entrusted entities for the implementation of financial instruments pursuant to Article 139(4) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the basis of open, transparent, proportionate and non- discriminatory procedures may include private financial institutions as well as governmental and semi-governmental financial institutions, national and regional public banks as well as national and regional investment banks.
The funding of the Loan and Guarantee Service for Research and Innovation has two main components:
·demand-driven, providing loans and guarantees on a first-come, first-served basis, with specific support for beneficiaries such as SMEs and mid-caps. This component shall respond to the steady and continuing growth seen in the volume of RSFF lending, which is demand-led. This demand-driven component will be supported by the budget of the Horizon 2020 Access to Risk Finance programme.
·Targeted, focusing on policies and key sectors crucial for tackling societal challenges, enhancing competitiveness, supporting sustainable, low-carbon, inclusive growth, and providing environmental and other public goods. That component helps the Union address research and innovation aspects of sectorial policy objectives and will be supported by other parts of Horizon 2020, other frameworks, programmes and budget lines in the Union budget, particular regions and Member States that wish to contribute with their own resources (including through Structural Funds) and/or specific entities (such as Joint Technology Initiatives) or initiatives.
The expiry date of the instrument is expected to be in 2027-2030.
Added value
This financial instrument aims to improve access to risk finance for R&I projects emanating from large firms and medium and large midcaps, universities and research institutes, R&I infrastructures (including innovation-enabling infrastructures), public-private partnerships, and special-purpose vehicles or projects (including those promoting first-of-a-kind, commercial-scale industrial demonstration projects). Firms and other entities located in Member States or in Associated Countries are eligible as final recipients.
This instrument will help address sub-optimal investment situations stemming from poor prospects within firms or other entities for the creation or commercialisation of products or services of societal importance (in the sense of Horizon 2020's Societal Challenges) or that constitute a public good. Overall, it will improve access to risk finance.
(c)The financial institutions involved in implementation;
European Investment Bank (EIB)
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 796 million
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 786 million
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
Amount of financing expected to be provided by the instrument (including EU contribution committed) to eligible final recipients,
and corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
|
EUR 5 918,2 million
97 eligible FRs
|
Amount of investments expected to be made by eligible final recipients due to the financing, if applicable
|
EUR 17 063 million
|
Amount of financing already provided by the instrument to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of recipients;
|
EUR 3 544,5 million
72 eligible FRs
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the financing provided through the instrument, if applicable.
|
EUR 10 220 million
|
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
EUR 6 million of 2016 revenues have been assigned to Horizon 2020 Loan Services for R&I Facility
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account;
EUR 697 996 000
In EUR
|
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
1 000
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
693 815 000
|
Term deposits < 3 months (cash equivalent)
|
10 352 000
|
Term deposits > 3 months < 1 year (current assets)
|
|
Term deposits > 1 year (non-current assets)
|
|
Bonds current
|
71 598 000
|
Bonds non-current
|
611 865 000
|
Other assets (if applicable)
|
4 180 000
|
= Total assets
|
697 996 000
|
Impact of negative interest on the Facility: no impact as at 31/12/2016
(h)Revenues and repayments;
Aggregate additional resources as at 31/12/2016 EUR 31 494 000
Additional information
It should be noted that EUR 476 million have been paid back by the EIB further to the signature of the 8th amendment to the RSFF cooperation agreement and to reflows stemming from RSFF activities. In accordance with Article 52.3 of the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation, this amount has been transferred to its successor debt instrument under Horizon 2020 (Horizon 2020 Loan Services for R&I Facility)
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
N/A.
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments of assets of equity or risk-sharing instruments, and on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
Impairment of assets as at 31/12/16 90,53 million
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
The target leverage effect equals 12,5 with an amount of financing expected to be provided by financial intermediaries of EUR 13 250 million and an EU contribution of EUR 1 060 million.
The achieved leverage effect as at 31/12/2016 is close to 4,5 with an amount of financing provided of EUR 3 544,5 million and an EU contribution of EUR 796 million.
The expected leverage effect as at 31/12/2016 is close to 7,5 with an amount of financing signed provided of EUR 5 918,2 million and an EU contribution of EUR 796 million.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
InnovFin Large Projects, InnovFin MidCap Growth Finance and InnovFin MidCap Guarantee, like their predecessor scheme (RSFF), are demand-driven instruments, with no prior allocations between sectors, countries or regions, or types or sizes of firm or other entities.
For direct loans or hybrid/mezzanine investments, the indicators are the number and volume of loans or investments made. For intermediated loans, the indicators are the number of agreements signed with financial intermediaries and the number and volume of loans made. Targets and milestones (performance indicators) are set for EIB to incentivize implementation and to reach envisaged volumes of lending, target groups as well as satisfactory geographical coverage.
For 2014-2020, the EU contribution of EUR 1 060 million is targeted to mobilise an amount of financing of EUR 13 250 million for the target final recipients.
Graph: Signed loans EU+EIB windows as at 31/12/2016 (in EUR million)
Graph: Number of operations by country as at 31/12/2016
E -Other key point and issues
·Main issues for implementation:
ocritical for the implementation of the InnovFin Large Projects, InnovFin MidCap Growth Finance and InnovFin MidCap Guarantee will be attractiveness of the instrument, its stronger focus on midcap companies (with up to 3 000 employees) and the possibility to develop new financing approaches, if necessary, to respond to financing needs coming from the various Societal Challenges of Horizon 2020.
oHowever, the contractual arrangements between the EU and the EIB foresee sufficient flexibility to develop such new financing approaches and also to create policy-driven sub-facilities which could address specific needs (provided that additional budget resources become available).
·Main risks:
ono risks identified.
·General outlook:
obased on the very satisfactory implementation of the preceding loan instrument supported by FP7, (the RSFF), on-going demand for loans to finance riskier RDI investments, first indications for a robust project pipeline for the next 12 months, and a stronger focus on the midcap target group, the outlook for the InnovFin Large Projects, InnovFin MidCap Growth Finance and InnovFin MidCap Guarantee is generally positive.
oIt can be reasonably expected that across Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges (i.e. Energy, Bio-economy, Transport, Health), companies will seek EIB loan finance or risk sharing (via guarantees) to support medium and longer-term RDI investments. Target volumes for the Loan Service for R&I instrument with Horizon 2020 budget envisage lending of at least EUR 5 to 6,5 billion for the entire period 2014-2020.
oIn addition, under EIB's own complementary window for RDI investments, which will be part of the overall loan finance approach for RDI investments, a similar lending volume, i.e. a further EUR 5 to 6,5 billion (EUR 13 billion in total) can be expected.
3.3.Risk sharing debt instrument under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF Debt Instrument)
Including the legacy instruments: LGTT and Pilot phase of the Project Bonds (PBI) established in the period 2007-2013 and merged into the CEF Debt
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG Mobility and Transport
DG Energy
DG CNECT
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DGs MOVE, ENER and CNECT
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
European Investment Bank
Other possible entrusted entities
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
Up to 8,4% of the funds from the CEF Regulation (EU) 1316/2013
EUR 2 557 149 756
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
Up to 8,4% of the funds from the CEF Regulation (EU) 1316/2013
EUR 2 557 149 756
|
A -Summary
The Debt Financial instrument under the CEF will tackle one of the key failures identified in the market, i.e. the insufficient involvement of private investors in infrastructure financing throughout the Union, particularly on cross-border and riskier projects.
The objective of the Debt Instrument under the CEF is to facilitate infrastructure projects' access to project and corporate financing by using Union funding as leverage. The financial instrument shall help finance projects of common interest with a clear European added value, and facilitate greater private sector involvement in the long-term financing of such projects in the transport, energy and broadband sectors.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/210.
(b)Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
The goal of the CEF Debt Instrument is to contribute to overcoming deficiencies of the European debt capital markets by offering risk-sharing for debt financing. Debt financing shall be provided by entrusted entities or dedicated investment vehicles in the form of senior and subordinated debt or guarantees.
The Debt Instrument will consist of a risk-sharing instrument for loans and guarantees as well as for Project Bonds. The project promoters may, in addition, seek equity financing under the Equity Instrument (currently under development).
The instrument builds on the existing Project Bond Initiative and the Loan Guarantee for TEN-Transport. However, given that not all CEF eligible projects where market failures have been identified can be financed by capital markets or on a project financing basis and to face efficiently a changing market environment, the instrument deploys a wide toolbox available of debt products, including senior and subordinated funded and unfunded products.
All operations under the Debt Instrument are supported by a risk sharing mechanism with the EIB where the EU budget takes the first loss piece of the portfolio of such operations. The first loss provisioning provided by the EU budget is shared among all projects in the three sectors covered by the CEF DI. This allows for higher diversification and hence maximises the number of projects that can be supported by the CEF Debt Instrument. Also, the portfolios and first-loss pieces of the existing Project Bond Initiative and of the Loan Guarantee for TEN-T transport have been merged together with the CEF Debt Instrument.
With the introduction of EFSI, the CEF Debt Instrument Steering Committee has approved a complementary approach of the interplay between EFSI and the CEF debt instrument and possible future instruments, where CEF concentrates on innovative, demonstrator (for example using the CEF DI for the first time in a sector, or mode, in a Member State) and pilot products and initiatives (equity/hybrid/new products), taking into account the overall portfolio risk of such an approach - while recognising also the need to strike a balance between commitments under both funding sources, especially in the early stages.
Implementation arrangements
Risk-sharing instrument for loans and guarantees
The risk-sharing instrument for loans and guarantees is designed to create additional risk capacity in the entrusted entities. This shall allow the entrusted entities to provide funded and unfunded subordinated and senior debt to projects and corporates in order to facilitate promoters' access to bank financing. If the debt financing is subordinated, it shall rank behind the senior debt but ahead of equity and related financing related to equity.
The subordinated debt financing cannot exceed 30 % of the total amount of the senior debt issued.
The senior debt financing provided under the Debt Instrument does not exceed 50 % of the total amount of the overall senior debt financing provided by the entrusted entity or the dedicated investment vehicle (as according to part III, point I of Annex I to the CEF Regulation).
Project Bonds
The risk-sharing instrument for project bonds is designed as a subordinated debt financing in order to facilitate financing for project companies raising senior debt in the form of bonds. This credit enhancement instrument aims at helping the senior debt to achieve an investment grade credit rating. It ranks behind the senior debt but ahead of equity and financing related to equity.
The subordinated debt financing does not exceed 30 % of the total amount of the senior debt issued (as according to part III, point I of Annex I to the CEF Regulation).
Combination with other sources of funding
Funding from the Debt Instrument may be combined with other budgetary contributions listed below, subject to the rules laid down in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 and the relevant legal base:
·other parts of the CEF;
·other instruments, programmes and budget lines in the Union budget;
·Member States, including regional and local authorities, that wish to contribute own resources or resources available from the funds under the cohesion policy without changing the nature of the instrument.
Duration of the Debt Instrument
The last tranche of the Union contribution to the Debt Instrument shall be committed by the Commission by 31 December 2020. The actual approval of debt financing by the entrusted entities or the dedicated investment vehicles shall be finalized by 31 December 2022.
Expiry
The Union contribution allocated to the Debt Instrument shall be reimbursed to the relevant fiduciary account as debt financing expires or is repaid. The fiduciary account shall maintain sufficient funding to cover fees or risks related to the Debt Instrument until its expiry.
EU added value
This CEF Debt Instrument merged portfolio is supported by a portfolio first loss piece of which the EU holds 95% of the risk. This merged portfolio and portfolio first loss piece will allow for an improved risk diversification allowing for a better use of the EU funds committed to the merged instrument. This will in return increase the leverage and allow for a more wide deployment of the instrument bringing affordable financial support to projects targeted under CEF.
(c)The financial institutions involved in implementation;
The European Investment Bank (EIB)
Other Entrusted Entities may also be selected (not yet designated at this stage; entities to be selected in accordance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012).
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016: EUR 688 669 980
MOVE EUR 551 881 251
ENER EUR 99 289 000
CNECT EUR 37 499 729
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016: EUR 479 381 251
MOVE EUR 449 381 251
ENER EUR 10 000 000
CNECT EUR 20 000 000
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
As at end 2016, following the merger of PBI and LGTT portfolios as of 1 January 2016, the CEF DI portfolio comprised 11 signed projects, as follows:
·Three projects in the transport sector (which benefitted from financing under the LGTT instrument;
·One energy project, i.e. Greater Gabbard project, signed in November 2013 under the Project Bond Initiative;
·One broadband project, i.e. Axione Telecom Infrastructure, signed in 2014 under the Project Bond Initiative;
·Three TEN-T projects were signed under the PBI, i.e. A11 Motorway (2014), A7 Motorway (2014), Port of Calais (2015), while two transport projects were signed after the portfolio merger in 2016, i.e. Passante di Mestre and N25 New Ross Bypass PPP;
·In June 2016, fianncial close for the refinancing of Autobahn A8 Augsburg-Ulm project in Germany (initially supported under the LGTT instrument) was achieved. The Senior Debt Credit Enhancement amounting to EUR 67.7 million played an important role in the optimisation process. No additional EU budget contribution was required for this refinancing.
An overview of the projects forming part of the CEF DI portfolio as of 31 December 2016 is provided here below:
CEF DI Project
|
Sector
|
Country
|
CEF DI product
|
Project Costs 31-Dec-2016 (EUR m)
|
AUTOBAHN A-5 PPP TEN
|
Transport
|
Germany
|
LGTT
|
628,4
|
EIX TRANSVERSAL C-25 PPP
|
Transport
|
Spain
|
LGTT
|
815,3
|
LGV SUD EUROPE ATLANTIQUE
|
Transport
|
France
|
LGTT
|
7 851
|
OFFSHORE TRANSMISSION NETWORK- ROUND 1 (Greater Gabbard)
|
Energy
|
UK
|
PBCE
|
424,9
|
A11 BRUGGE PPP
|
Transport
|
Belgium
|
PBCE
|
657,5
|
N25 NEW ROSS BYPASS PPP
|
Transport
|
Ireland
|
PBCE
|
169
|
AXIONE TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE
|
Broadband
|
France
|
PBCE
|
189,1
|
AUTOBAHN A-7 PPP TEN
|
Transport
|
Germany
|
PBCE
|
772,6
|
CALAIS PORT 2015
|
Transport
|
France
|
PBCE
|
862,5
|
PASSANTE AUTOSTRADALE DI MESTRE
|
Transport
|
Italy
|
PBCE
|
990
|
AUTOBAHN A8 AUGSBURG ULM PPP TEN
|
Transport
|
Germany
|
SDCE
|
505
|
|
|
|
|
13 865,3
|
In November 2016, the first Framework Agreement under the EC-EIB Green Shipping Guarantee Programme has been signed for an amount of EUR 150 million between the EIB and Société Genérale as part of the pilot phase to be delegated under the CEF Debt Instrument. The pilot phase is expected to include Framework Agreements signed by the EIB with other partner financial institutions, and to take place in France, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries with an objective of providing financing for clean vessels or retrofitting of vessels.
The Programme can be further rolled out under the EFSI for a total amount of EUR 750 million of approved financing with an estimated overall volume of investments amounting to EUR 3 billion.
Total financing and investment figures in the table below include the merger of previous instruments LGTT and PBI portfolios.
Amount of financing expected to be provided by the instrument (including EU contribution committed) to eligible final recipients,
and corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
|
Expected EIB financing supported by the EU contribution: EUR 1 377 million
Total financing expected: 15 583 million
eligible FRs N/A
|
Amount of investments expected to be made by eligible final recipients due to the financing, if applicable
|
EUR 15 583 million
|
Amount of financing already provided by the instrument to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of recipients;
|
EIB financing supported by the EU contribution: EUR 877 million
Total financing achieved: 13 865,3 million
eligible FRs: 11
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the financing provided through the instrument, if applicable.
|
EUR 13 865,3 million
|
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
No amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue as at 31/12/2016
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account
EUR 492 897 190
In EUR
|
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
7 101
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
482 667 774
|
Term deposits < 3 months (cash equivalent)
|
0
|
Term deposits > 3 month < 1 year (current assets)
|
0
|
Term deposits > 1 year (non-current assets)
|
0
|
Bonds current and investments in Unitary Fund
|
61 458 468
|
Bonds non-current
|
421 209 306
|
Other assets (if applicable)
|
10 222 315
|
= Total assets
|
492 897 190
|
Impact of negative interest on CEF DI (in EUR) as at 31/12/2016: EUR 12 357
(h)Revenues and repayments;
According to the audited statements for 2016 the total revenues attributable to the Commission for the year amount to EUR 13 428 237. The revenues cover revenues from operating activities, including first loss piece remuneration, and financial revenues.
Accumulated Surplus as of 31/12/2016: EUR 23 805 002. This figure includes the revenues generated before 2016 by LGTT and PBI prior to the merger into CEF DI (EUR 4 097 607) which were paid to the EC and recorded in the FS only in 2016 in accordance with article 3 (f) of Annex 11 transitional provisions of the CEF agreement.
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
Not applicable
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments
of assets of equity or risk-sharing instruments, and on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
No impairments registered at 31/12/2016
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
The target (expected) leverage of the Debt Instrument — defined as the total funding (i.e. Union contribution plus contributions from other financial sources) divided by the Union contribution — is expected to range from 6 to 15, depending on the type of operations involved (level of risk, target beneficiaries, and the debt financing concerned).
The achieved leverage is quantified as the aggregate of the amounts raised to finance the projects supported by the CEF DI, divided by the aggregate amount of the EU Contribution committed to the instrument to date, As at 31 December 2016, the achieved leverage effect amounted to approximately 20,1x.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
The financial instruments to be deployed under the CEF Debt Instrument will tackle one of the key failures identified in the market, i.e. the insufficient involvement of private investors in infrastructure financing throughout the Union, particularly on cross-border and riskier projects. The objective of the debt instrument under the CEF is to facilitate infrastructure projects' access to project and corporate financing by using Union funding as leverage. The CEF debt instrument shall support the financing of projects of common interest with a clear European added value, and facilitate greater private sector involvement in the long-term financing of such projects in the transport, energy and broadband sectors. At the same time, CEF debt instrument shall be designed such as to enhance the development of a sustainable financial environment – both capital markets and banks.
E -Other key points and issues
·Main issues
No specific issues.
·Main risks
No specific risks identified.
·General outlook
The CEF Debt Instrument has an important role to play through facilitating access to project and corporate financing of infrastructure projects eligible to the sectorial guidelines of the CEF Regulation in a complementary manner to EFSI, in particular to pilot projects, sectors, or financings in Member States.
The latest pipeline of projects expected to receive support under the CEF Debt Instrument over 2017-2018 is as set out below:
Project
|
CEF Sector
|
Port Development
|
TEN-T
|
Port Development
|
TEN-T comprehensive network
|
Pilot phase of the Green Shipping Guarantee (first guarantee signed in November 2016)
|
TEN-T
|
Liquefied natural gas project
|
TEN-E
|
Gas PCI Programme
|
TEN-E
|
Natural gas pipeline project
|
TEN-E
|
3.4.Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG ENV and DG CLIMA
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG ENV
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
EIB
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 60 million
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 60 million (2014-2017)
|
A -Summary
NCFF provides direct and indirect financing for natural capital investment projects. The financing may consist in loans or equity. It finances revenue-generating or cost-saving projects which promote the conservation, restoration, management and enhancement of natural capital that contribute to the Union's objectives for biodiversity and climate change adaptation, e.g. through ecosystem-based solutions to challenges related to land, soil, forestry, agriculture, water and waste.
The NCFF is a risk sharing financial instrument which is implemented under indirect management by the European Investment Bank.
The NCFF will finance up to 75% of total project cost for direct investments. When investing in equity funds, the maximum share is 33%.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Regulation (EU) N° 1293/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) Article 17.
(b)Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
NCFF provides direct and indirect financing for natural capital investment projects. The financing may consist in loans or equity. It finances upfront investment and operating costs for revenue-generating or cost-saving projects which promote the conservation, restoration, management and enhancement of natural capital that contribute to the Union's objectives for biodiversity and climate change adaptation, e.g. through ecosystem-based solutions to challenges related to land, soil, forestry, agriculture, water and waste.
Projects will fall into four broad categories:
·Payments for Ecosystem services (PES): projects involving payments for the flows of benefits resulting from natural capital, usually a small scale bilateral transaction with a well identified buyer and seller of an ecosystem service. They are based on the "beneficiary pays" principle, whereby payments take place to secure critical ecosystem services.
·Green Infrastructure (GI): GI is a strategically planned network of natural or semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas. On land, GI is present in rural and urban settings. GI projects have the potential to generate revenues or save costs based on the provision of goods and services, e.g. water management, air quality, forestry, recreation, flood/erosion/fire control, pollination, increased resilience to the consequences of climate change.
·Biodiversity offsets: they are conservation actions intended to compensate for the residual, unavoidable harm to biodiversity caused by development projects. They are based on the "polluter pays" principle, whereby offsets are undertaken for compliance or to mitigate reputational risks. Projects aimed at compensating damages done to Natura 2000 sites according to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive are not eligible for financing under the NCFF.
·Innovative pro biodiversity and adaptation investments: they are projects involving the supply of goods and services, mostly by SMEs, which aim to protect biodiversity or increase the resilience of communities and other business sectors.
Implementation arrangements
The NCFF is a risk sharing financial instrument which is implemented under indirect management by the European Investment Bank. The delegation agreement was signed on 18 December 2014.
The NCFF is currently implemented in a pilot phase, which will allow testing different financing options to focus on the most suitable approaches in a potential second phase. The EIB has the possibility to invest the available funds up to the end of 2019. An extension of the implementation period is under preparation. The overall EU budget contribution foreseen for this period is EUR 60 million, including EUR 10 million for the Technical Support Facility.
Added value
The added value of the NCFF is to address current market gaps and barriers to the private financing of projects in the field of biodiversity and climate change adaptation. The aim is to establish a pipeline of replicable, bankable investments that will serve as a "proof of concept" and that demonstrate to private investors the attractiveness of such investments for the longer term. A further aim is to leverage funding from private investors for this pipeline of investments.
The NCFF will support projects that the EIB normally does not invest in, because they are too small, the time to ensure an investment return is too long, or the perceived credit risk of biodiversity and climate change adaptation investments is too high. To this end the EIB and the Commission agreed on a risk sharing mechanism whereby the EU funds will absorb first losses in case of project failure, thereby reducing the credit risk faced by the EIB.
When assessing the EU added value of potential projects, the EIB will investigate not only the contribution to the nature, biodiversity and climate change adaptation objectives, but also the potential for demonstration effect, replicability, transferability and the ability of the investment to leverage additional funding. The aim is to invest in some 9 to 12 operations. The broad geographical coverage is to enhance the effectiveness of the pilot phase.
A technical support facility is provided for capacity building measures to help the development of successful projects. This support will be provided to operations expected to be eligible for receiving finance from the NCFF and will develop competences in preparatory, management, monitoring, evaluation, audit and control activities.
(c)Financial institutions involved in implementation;
European Investment Bank (EIB)
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 50 000 000
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 11 750 000
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
The Delegation Agreement was signed in December 2014, no operation was signed by the end of 2016.
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account;
EUR 10 250 000
.
In EUR
|
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
10 250 000
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
|
Term deposits < 3 months (cash equivalent)
|
|
Term deposits > 3 months < 1 year (current assets)
|
|
Term deposits > 1 year (non-current assets)
|
|
Bonds current
|
|
Bonds non-current
|
|
Other assets (if applicable)
|
|
= Total assets
|
10 250 000
|
Impact of negative interest on NCFF: no impact as at 31/12/2016.
(h) Revenues and repayments (Art.140. 6);
N/A.
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
N/A.
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments of assets of equity or risk-sharing instruments, and on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
N/A.
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
·The target leverage effect.
The EU budget allocation foreseen in the LIFE regulation for the programming period 2014-2017 amounts to EUR 60 million. That amount includes EUR 50 million for the Investment Facility and EUR 10 million for the Technical Support Facility.
The total contribution by the EIB is deemed to reach EUR 100-125 million. An amount of EUR 120-240 million is the target aggregate amount of finance available to eligible final recipients supported by the Financial Instrument. For the avoidance of doubt, this amount does not include the financing that eligible final recipients make available from their own resources.
The target leverage effect as indicated in the Delegation Agreement is 2-4 (EUR 120-240 million divided by EUR 60 million of Union contribution) over the lifetime of the financial instrument.
·The achieved leverage effect: NA for 2016
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
The Delegation Agreement was signed in December 2014, and no operation was signed by 31/12/2016.
E -Other key points and issues
·Main issues:
The key implementation issues to meet the aims and requirements of the facility are:
oto identify and develop financially viable projects which have a positive impact on biodiversity and climate adaptation;
oto ensure sufficient uptake in a broad range of sectors, in view of future replicability;
oto ensure a good geographical spread among Member States, in particular in smaller Member States or where financing constraints are more acute.
·Main risks identified:
olow uptake is a risk. Publicity and communication, and the support facility will remain important in this context.
owhen implementing the NCFF, it will be taken into account that the EIB, financial intermediaries and final recipients may have limited experience with the nature and biodiversity and climate adaptation aspects of investment projects, including the proper monitoring and reporting. This is inherent to the innovative and pilot character of the instrument. The Support Facility may be used to address such issues.
oprojects will be closely monitored to ensure that biodiversity and climate adaptation objectives are achieved, in line with the LIFE Regulation.
·General outlook:
oThe first operation, 'Rewilding Europe', has been launched in April 2017, and one or two further operations are expected to be signed in 2017. They concern two indirect operations, one in the form of a loan, the other in the form of an investment in an equity fund, and a direct loan operation. Several further potential operations are being investigated covering several project categories. The entities proposing the (potential) operations come from different MS. The investment that has been launched involves a larger number of MS. This is in line with the aim to have a balanced geographical spread.
3.5.EU SME Initiative (focus on indirect Commission management part, i.e. COSME/H2020)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DGs ECFIN, RTD, GROW, REGIO, AGRI
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DGs RTD, GROW, REGIO, AGRI
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
EIF
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 175 million (ceiling for contributions from each COSME and Horizon 2020)
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 1 137 million (ERDF)
|
A -Summary
SME support is a main focus of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), and financial instruments play an increasingly important role within ESIF support. The basic act governing ESIF interventions is the so-called Common Provisions Regulation (CPR; see below for more information).
Within the financial instruments "family", the SME Initiative is a real novelty, in that it combines different EU funding resources in one financial instrument – namely resources from ESIF, COSME or Horizon 2020 and EIB Group resources. Thereby, it increases the leverage of (both public and private) additional resources to be mobilised for SME support. Its overall aim is to enhance access to finance for SMEs, to stimulate economic growth and entrepreneurship. Access to finance is a real issue in the economy of at least several Member States in Southern and Eastern Europe: the problem is not so much the lack of liquidity in the market, but the missing transmission of that liquidity into the real economy, so that SMEs have adequate access to finance at reasonable conditions, which enables them to invest, develop their competiveness and grow. Often, a lack of collateral on the SME side is the main reason why banks are not willing to lend.
There are several crucial elements of the SME Initiative which ensure its contribution to the objectives of better SME access to finance and, thereby, enhanced SME competitiveness, innovativeness and growth – e.g. its unique and targeted products, the enhanced leverage, the early deployment and frontloading of payments, but also the streamlined and comparatively light documentation necessary to implement it. The aspect of geographical diversification in the sense of Cohesion Policy, i.e. the fact that the policy focuses explicitly on less developed regions, is also fully taken into account: the single dedicated national programme (SDNP), although being a national Operational Programme, can have regional compartments so that the regional allocations to the SME Initiative remain clearly visible.
Concrete implementation in terms of loans provided to final recipients through financial intermediaries has taken place so far (i.e. as of 31/12/2016) in Spain, Malta and Bulgaria. In Finland and Romania, financial intermediaries were at the stage of being selected by the EIF, so as to subsequently disburse new loans to SMEs, backed by the SME Initiative's uncapped guarantee. In Italy, preparations for implementing the SME Initiative were underway.
The target volume of new loans to be generated for all Spanish regions is EUR 5 723 million, out of which EUR 2 976 million are guaranteed by the ESIF contribution (at a guarantee rate of 50%). Similarly, such target volumes can be calculated for the other participating Member States as well (see summary table in the Annex to the Report).
B -Description
(a) Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
The EU SME Initiative may receive funding from the following four programmes.
COSME:
Regulation (EU) No 1287/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing a Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) (2014 - 2020) and repealing Decision No 1639/2006/EC (OJ L 347/33 of 20 December 2013). The European Commission has established financial instruments that aim to facilitate and improve access to finance for SMEs in their start-up, growth and transfer phases, complementary to the Member States' use of financial instruments for SMEs at national and regional level.
H2020:
Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC (OJ L 347/104 of 20 December 2013) and pursuant to the Decision No 2013/743/EU of the Council of 3 December 2013 establishing the Specific Programme implementing Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), the European Commission has established financial instruments that aim to ease access to the risk financing for final recipients carrying out research and innovation projects.
ERDF and EAFRD (Article of the 39 CPR):
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347/320 of 20 December 2013).
(b)Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
The SME Initiative has been presented on 27-28 June 2013 in the Commission's and EIB's joint report to the European Council, to complement and utilise synergies between existing SME support programmes at national and EU level. More specifically, the SME Initiative is a joint instrument, combining EU funds available under COSME and Horizon 2020 and ERDF-EAFRD resources in cooperation with EIB/EIF in view of generating additional lending to SMEs.
Implementation arrangements
Three financial instruments could be implemented under the SME Initiative, and they boil down in substance to two alternative ways of operating, namely:
(*) uncapped guarantees providing capital relief to financial intermediaries for new portfolio of debt finance to SMEs and
(**) securitisation instruments (with two possibilities, i.e. option n°2 securitisation instrument with MS contribution used exclusively for the participating MS and option n°3 securitisation instrument with several MS contributions pooled and used to provide protection on the aggregate exposure, particularly to the mezzanine tranches guaranteed by EIF).
The period of time during which the participating Member State may commit some funds to the EIF was to expire on 31 December 2016. As defined in the funding agreement to be signed between the EIB and the participating MS, the selected financial intermediary will originate new debt finance no later than the end of the eligibility period (i.e. 31/12/2023).
In terms of budget, the Common Provisions Regulation foresees a global ceiling (for all Member States) of EUR 8,5 billion of aggregate ERDF-EAFRD to be committed under the SME Initiative, and a ceiling by Member State of 7 % of their allocation from the ERDF and EAFRD. In that scenario, the corresponding maximum COSME and Horizon 2020 contributions would amount to EUR 175 million each over the 2014-2016 period.
As of 31/12/2016, financial intermediaries were selected in Spain, Malta and Bulgaria, and partly in Finland. The selection process of banks by the EIF was still ongoing in Romania and partly in Finland, and in preparation in Italy. The instrument's implementation in all the participating Member States is based on their respective Operational Programmes approved by the European Commission between 2014 and 2016 and their Intercreditor and Funding Agreements signed in 2015 and 2016.
Added value
As indicated in the legal base, the added value of the EU contribution results in a minimum leverage effect (e.g. 4 in Spain and Malta) over the lifetime of the financial instrument for the ERDF contribution. Based on the minimum leverage of the instrument agreed in the Single Dedicated National Programme, it is estimated that the total amount of investments/loan volumes mobilised would be e.g. around EUR 6 billion for Spain and Malta (based on all available funds, i.e. ERDF, H2020, EIB/EIF and private (bank) funds). Apart from this minimum leverage, for the ERDF part of the Initiative, most Member States have negotiated target leverages with the EIF in their Funding Agreements, which go beyond the respective minimum leverages.
A portion of the new Debt Finance portfolio equal to at least 20 times the contribution under the COSME Regulation and/or 9 times the contribution under the H2020 Regulation should fulfil respectively the COSME and/or H2020 eligibility criteria. Therefore, the table under point k) is summarising the overall leverage that should be reached for each option. The new debt finance originated by the selected financial intermediary should also include an amount equal to 20 times the COSME and/or 9 times the H2020 contribution.
(c)The financial institutions involved in implementation;
European Investment Bank
European Investment Fund
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016:
23 280 826,31
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016:19 277 097,31
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
No data yet available.
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
No amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue as at 31/12/2016.
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account;
N/A (due to aggregation with other funds under H2020).
(h)Revenues and repayments;
No data yet available.
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
N/A.
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments of assets of equity or risk-sharing instruments, and on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
EUR 782 176 for all risk takers
(k)The leverage effect;
The target leverage effect
The target leverage may vary between the different national instruments depending the risk sharing arrangement in the Intercreditor Agreements. The following table shows for illustrative purpose the calculation of the target leverage for the SME Initiative in Spain, in accordance with the agreed approach for such calculation. The figures represent the different risk covers/risk takers as defined in the Intercreditor Agreement: in absolute and percentage terms, the loan portfolio will have a senior tranche/risk cover accounting for 69% of its size, an upper mezzanine (4,5%), middle mezzanine (0,5%) and lower mezzanine (3,0%) part as well as a junior tranche (23%). Summing those amounts up, the part of the portfolio that is backed by the guarantee is obtained: EUR 2 862 million.
Since for the SME Initiative in Spain a guarantee rate of 50% was agreed, the originating banks will retain 50% of the risk, and the overall portfolio is thus double the amount above, i.e. EUR 5 723 million. These are loans to SMEs. Dividing this aggregate amount of EUR 5 723 million by the aggregate support provided through ERDF and Horizon 2020, EUR 816,8 million, provides the leverage targeted, namely 7,0.
Calculation of target leverage for the SME Initiative in Spain
SIUGI Risk Cover
|
Risk taker
|
Maximum Risk Cover Size (EUR)
|
Target Rating (at least)
|
Senior Risk Cover
|
EIB
|
1 974 461 538,46
|
Aa3
|
Upper Mezzanine Risk Cover
|
EIF
|
128 769 230,77
|
Baa3
|
Middle Mezzanine Risk Cover
|
Horizon 2020
|
14 307 692,31
|
Ba1
|
Lower Mezzanine Risk Cover
|
ESIF
|
85 846 153,85
|
Ba2
|
Junior Risk Cover
|
ESIF
|
658 153 846,15
|
Not Rated
|
Guaranteed Portfolio without originator
(corresponds to 50% because of a 50% guarantee rate)
|
|
2 861 538 461,54
|
|
Originator's risk (bank own risk)
|
|
50%
|
|
Total amount of the guaranteed loan portfolio (100%)
|
|
5 723 076 923,08
|
|
Total ERDF/COSME/Horizon2020
|
|
816 800 000,00*
|
|
Leverage in relation to ERDF (but based on ERDF, H2020, EIB and EIF funds)
|
|
7,0
|
|
* EU contribution including management costs and fees
The achieved leverage effect
SME Initiative in Spain:
·SIUGI actual total loan volume : EUR 2 616 million,
oOut of which from H2020 : EUR 251,7 million
oNumber of SIUGI Final Recipients Transactions: 33 285
oThe achieved leverage effect for signed operations over ERDF/Horizon2020 reaches 3,2
The Expected Leverage for Signed Operations
The expected leverage effect for signed operations over the ESIF contribution is factor 7.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
SME support is a main focus of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). This is reflected by the CPR's thematic objective 3 "Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs", under which in 2014-2020 according to preliminary figures about EUR 59 billion will be devoted to supporting SMEs (EUR 32,4 billion by the ERDF and EUR 26,6 billion by the EAFRD). The investment priorities as laid down in the ERDF Regulation (No 1301/2013) illustrate the objectives of the ESIF programmes: promoting entrepreneurship, developing new business models for SMEs, supporting SMEs' growth and innovation capacities.
While much of this support is still provided through grants, financial instruments play an increasingly important role. Within the financial instruments "family", the SME Initiative is a real novelty, in that it combines different EU funding resources in one financial instrument, thereby increasing the leverage of (both public and private) additional resources to be mobilised for SME support.
In the Single Dedicated National Programmes (SDNPs) that Member State have to establish to devote ESIF resources to the SME Initiative, the progress in implementing the SME Initiative is measured against output indicators (e.g. the number of SMEs receiving support, the ERDF amount committed to cover the New Debt Finance portfolio (for the uncapped guarantee option) and the ERDF amount used to cover the existing portfolios of debt finance to SMEs (for the securitisation option)) as well as against result indicators (e.g. reduction in the market failure for debt finance, improvement of SMEs' access to finance, or the minimum leverage that the instrument sets out to achieve).
The Single Dedicated National Programmes for Spain (ERDF contribution of EUR 800 million) and Malta (ERDF contribution of EUR 15 million) were signed at the end of 2014. Those for Bulgaria (ERDF contribution EUR 102 million) and Italy (ERDF contribution EUR 100 million) were signed towards the end of 2015, while those for Romania (ERDF contribution EUR 100 million) and Finland (ERDF contribution EUR 20 million) were signed in spring 2016. In all these Member States, following the signature of these Operational Programmes, Intercreditor Agreements (bringing together all the risk-takers/contributors to the structure, i.e. the respective Member State, the Commission, EIB and EIF) and Funding Agreements (between Member State and EIF – for the ERDF part) were negotiated and signed (the last ones in autumn 2016). Subsequently, the EIF launched calls for expression of interest to select the banks that were to benefit from the uncapped guarantee and/or securitisation, in exchange for generating new loan portfolios to SMEs at favourable conditions for these final recipients.
The aspect of geographical diversification in the sense of Cohesion Policy, i.e. the fact that the policy focuses explicitly on less developed regions, is also fully taken into account: the SDNP, although being a national Operational Programme, can have regional compartments so that the regional allocations to the SME Initiative remain clearly visible and traceable.
E -Other key points and issues
· Main issues, for the implementation:
othe firm political will and commitment to implement the SME Initiative with all its novel elements (e.g. the various funds it brings together) is a conditio sine qua non for implementing it successfully. This also means that the different services involved within the Government (even more so if national and regional players come in) have to cooperate very effectively and efficiently.
oMoreover, a continuous reality check and reassessment needs to be carried out regarding the two options/financial products – are they really the ones best placed to improve SME access to finance? Are they adequately designed to meet the needs of SMEs (and financial intermediaries)? Is the financial volume dedicated to them appropriate? The SME Initiative has to ensure it complements – through its particular set-up and its specific products – existing financial instruments (and grants) and provides synergies with them.
oWhile the uncapped guarantee instrument was ready for implementation (e.g. in Spain) at the beginning of 2015, Commission services and the EIF worked together throughout the second half of 2015 to prepare the provisions for the instrument's option 2, securitisation (which is the option Italy has chosen). In 2016, this workstream could be successfully finished, with the common provisions for option 2 being in place and available for implementation. .
·Main risks:
oTo be seen once more Member States embark on implementation on the ground.
·General outlook:
·The central problem of the economy of at least several Member States in Southern and Eastern Europe is not the lack of liquidity in the market, but the missing transmission of that liquidity into the real economy, so that SMEs have adequate access to finance at reasonable conditions, which enables them to invest, develop their competiveness and grow. Often, a lack of collateral on the SME side is the main reason why banks are not willing to lend. In such a context, products offered by the SME Initiative such as the uncapped guarantee instrument are very well-suited to tackle the main obstacles for SMEs to get appropriate access to finance. Hence, in principle, the main rationale for the SME Initiative remains fully valid.
·The implementation and the preparatory steps in all of the Member States concerned progressed according to plan in 2016, and the Commission was satisfied to see an increased takeup of the instruments. It is expected to continue in 2017 with the outstanding steps to be completed timely in 2017 (i.e. finalisation of the selection process of banks by the EIF for Romania and Finland and similarly in Italy, where this was less progressed though at the end of 2016).
4.Dedicated Investment Vehicles
4.1.The European Progress Microfinance FCP-FIS
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG EMPL, with participation of DG ECFIN for the design of the instruments
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG EMPL
|
Implementing Body in charge:
|
EIF
|
Initial Overall (2007-2013) Programme Budget:
|
EUR 78 million*
|
Current Overall (2007-2013) Programme Budget:
|
EUR 80 million
|
Executed Budget since beginning until 31/12/2016:
|
Commitments: EUR 80 million
Payments: EUR 80 million
|
*Initial voted commitments out of which EUR 75 million from DG EMPL and EUR 3 million from EPPA (DG REGIO).
A -Summary
The EPMF FCP-FIS is managed by the Management Company (EIF). The specific investment objective of the Fund is to increase access to, and availability of a range of financial products and services in the area of microfinance for:
·Persons starting their own enterprise, including self-employment;
·Enterprises, especially microenterprises;
·Capacity building, professionalization and quality management of microfinance institutions and of organisations active in the area of microfinance;
·Local and regional employment and economic development initiatives.
The Fund provides mainly debt products priced below market for the final benefit of the eligible final recipients.
As of 30/09/2016, EIF had signed 50 loan agreements in 16 member states including a Commission contribution of EUR 80 million while 32 428 micro-enterprises and vulnerable persons had been supported under the Facility for a total microloans volume of EUR 236,06 million thereby supporing 56 861 jobs.
As at 30/09/2016, the entire programme (EPMF-G + EPMF-FCP FIS) provided 56 221 micro-loans to final recipients, reaching the volume of EUR 471,7 million.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Decision No 283/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 2010 establishing a European Progress Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion.
EU Microfinance Platform MICROFINANCE PLATFORM (the “Fund”) is structured as a Luxembourg “fonds commun de placement – fonds d’investissement spécialisé” (FCP - FIS) governed by the law of 13 February 2007 relating to specialised investment funds (the “2007 Law”) and launched on 22 November 2010.
It is established as an umbrella fund, which may have several sub-funds. The Fund has been launched with an unlimited duration provided that the Fund will however be automatically put into liquidation upon the termination of a sub-fund if no further sub-fund is active at that time. At 31 December 2013, the Fund has had a single sub-fund - the European Progress Microfinance Fund (the “Sub-fund”) - created with a limited duration ending on 30 April 2020.
(b)Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
The Fund is an unincorporated co-ownership of securities and other eligible assets. The Fund does not have legal personality. The Fund is therefore managed in the exclusive interests of the Unit-holders (the European Union, represented by the Commission, and the EIB) by the Management Company (EIF) in accordance with Luxembourg laws and the Management Regulations.
The specific investment objective of the Fund is to increase access to, and availability of a range of financial products and services in the area of microfinance for the following target groups (see also the objectives under the EPMF-Guarantee Facility above):
·persons starting their own enterprise, including self-employment;
·enterprises, especially microenterprises;
·capacity building, professionalization, and quality management of microfinance institutions and of organisations active in the area of microfinance;
·local and regional employment and economic development initiatives.
Implementation arrangements
The FCP-FIS is managed by the Management Company (EIF) which is vested with the broadest powers to administer and manage the Fund and the sub-fund(s) in accordance with the Management Regulations and Luxembourg laws and regulations and, in the exclusive interest of the Unit-holders, to exercise all of the rights attaching directly or indirectly to the assets of the Fund.
The EIF has the exclusive authority with regard to any decisions in respect of the Fund or any sub-fund(s), and shall act with the diligence of a professional management company and in good faith in the exclusive interests of the Unit-holders.
The Fund issues unit classes, which are redeemable at the option of the Management Company on a pro rata basis among existing investors in accordance with the provisions of the management regulations and the commitment agreements.
Unit classes are issued and redeemed at the option of the Management Company at prices based on the Fund’s net asset value per Unit of the related redeemable Unit classes at the time of issue or redemption.
The following classes of Units are available for subscription under the single sub-fund of the Fund:
·Junior Units
Junior Units are subordinated to the Senior Units and shall bear the first net losses in the Sub-Fund's assets. Junior Units are reserved for the European Commission.
·Senior Units
Senior Units are senior to Junior Units and shall only suffer a net loss in the Sub-fund's assets if the cumulated Net Asset Value of all Junior Units together has been reduced to zero.
The financial contribution from the Union budget to the EPMF Fonds Commun de Placement – Fonds d’Investissement Spécialisé (EPMF FCP-FIS) for the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2015 amounts to EUR 80 million. In addition, the European Investment Bank has matched the overall Union contribution into the EPMF. Consequently, the Commission is a founding investor in the Specialised Investment Fund, contributing with 44% (80 million EUR) of the total funding. The EIB is the other investor with a contribution of 100 million EUR. The Commission has subscribed for junior units, thus bearing the first loss.
In accordance with the EPMF FCP-FIS's Management Regulations, the Investment Period ended on 7 April, 2016. However, the Management Company may decide to extend the Investment Period subject to the unanimous approval of the Sub-Fund's Meeting of Investors.
The Facility is implemented via debt and equity instruments (FCP-FIS); the implementation foresees also support measures, such as communication activities, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation which are directly necessary for the effective and efficient implementation of the Decision No 283/2010/EU and for the achievement of its objectives.
Added Value
The Fund constitutes one of the EU core measures to mitigate the consequences of the economic crisis. By providing debt, equity and funded risk sharing instrument to MFIs located within the EU, it aims to increase the access to, and availability of, microfinance for the most vulnerable. The microenterprise segment is the cornerstone of the EU economy: more than 90% of EU businesses and almost all start-ups are microenterprises. Some 66% of business start-ups are made by unemployed people. The Fund enables economic independence for micro-entrepreneurs who might otherwise have difficulties in accessing funds for business start-ups, in the current context of reduced credit supply. It provides concrete support for economic growth, employment creation and social inclusion.
(c)The financial institutions involved in implementation;
The Fund is managed by the EIF as a Management Company. The Management Company has to comply with the requirements of the investors as set out in the legal documentation (Management Regulations and Prospectus) and with the obligations arising from the governing law of Luxembourg.
EIF is vested with the broadest powers to administer and manage the Fund and the sub-fund(s) with the diligence of a professional management company and in good faith in the exclusive interests of the Unit-holders.
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 80 000 000
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 80 000 000
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised (as of 30/09/2016);
Amount of financing expected to be provided by the instrument (including EU contribution committed) to eligible final recipients,
and corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
|
EUR 402,3 million
60 062 eligible FRs
|
Amount of investments expected to be made by eligible final recipients due to the financing, if applicable
|
EUR 574,71 million
|
Amount of financing already provided by the instrument to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of recipients;
|
EUR 236,06 million
32 428 eligible FRs
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the financing provided through the instrument, if applicable.
|
EUR 337,2 million
|
Note: No further budgetary commitments have been made by the Commission since the end of the commitment period on 31/12/2013.
Additional operational information
As of 31/12/2016 the total contributions of the shareholders (Commission and EIB) to the EPMF FCP amounted to EUR 180,00 million (Commission contribution = EUR 80 million to FLP and EIB contribution to second loss piece = EUR 100 million) .
As of 30/09/2016, 50 Agreements have been signed in 16 Member States including a Union contribution of EUR 80 million, with a clear geographical balance between Eastern and Western Europe.
Impact on employment
For the entire period as of 30 September 2016, EPMF achievements for the FCP-FIS component of the programme were as follows:
·Total amount of micro-loans: EUR 236,06 million
·Total number of microloans: 35 241
·Total number of employees (in the supported micro-enterprises): 56 861
Information at the aggregate EPMF level, including both Guarantee facility and Funded instruments
As of 30/09/2016, the European Progress Microfinance Facility including both Guarantees and Funded instruments already provided 56 221 micro-loans to final recipients reaching the volume of EUR 471,7 million, compared to the initial programme target of 46,000 micro-loans with the volume of EUR 500 million. The Facility has already surpassed the initial programme target of 46 000 microloans. New loan inclusions will take place until 2018.
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A.
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account;
N/A.
(h)Revenues and repayments;
EUR 0 (for revenues and repayments to the Budget)
Nota : the FCP-FIS being a fund, there were some revenues generated within the fund; for the sake of completeness of information, here are the related figures
Revenues in 2016: EUR 3,5 million
Aggregate revenues as at 31/12/2016: EUR 16,8 million
Repayments in 2016: EUR 15,1 million
Aggregate repayments as at 31/12/2016: EUR 24,8 million
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
EUR 75,1 million
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments of assets of equity and on called guarantees;
N/A.
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
As of 30/09/2016, based on the signed loan agreements, the total expected volumes of micro-loans to final recipients are estimated to EUR 402,3 million, bringing the expected leverage effect to 5,02 (the expected volumes of microloans divided by EUR 80 million of Commission's contribution); this is much higher than the minimum target leverage of 2,83.
As for achieved leverage until 30/09/2016, the Commission's contribution paid of EUR 80 million has supported so far EUR 236,06 million of new micro-loans, implying a leverage of 2,95.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
(See above, under section "2.2 European Progress Micro-finance Facility – Guarantee, part "D"")
The share of each participating country in the total amount of financing already provided (EUR 236,06 million as of 30/09/2016) by the FCP instrument to eligible final recipients is presented in the following graph.
E -Other key points and issues
·Main issues for the implementation:
oin terms of the number of micro-loans disbursed, the European microfinance sector as a whole continued to grow in 2016, which is also reflected by the increased lending activity under EPMF FCP. The Microfinance Institutions’ demand for stable access to funding clearly remains as inter-bank lending and other sources of funding have not yet picked up again.
oThe limited capacity and priority of national governments to support microfinance, and the strong market demand for microfinance suggest that there is a clear rationale for intervention at EU-level.
oDespite its positive effects in the area of employment and social inclusion, without access to stable funding and without the necessary capacity building component, the growth and sustainability prospects of the sector, particularly for non-bank MFIs which are focused on social inclusion lending, remain limited.
·Main risks :
orisk is inherent in the Fund’s activities but is managed through a process of on-going risk identification and measurement, monitoring of the benefited MFIs and other controls regarding the observance of specific portfolio limits and restrictions in order to ensure that the investments are diversified to an extent that an adequate spread of the investment risk is warranted.
oThe EIF as Management Company is responsible for the overall risk management approach and for approving the risk strategies and principles.
oThe Management Company monitors these investments on an on-going basis by analysing regular reports (i.e. quarterly financial covenants compliance, quarterly financial statements and key performance indicators such as portfolio, liquidity, capitalisation and profitability) and through direct contact with each financial intermediary and site visits.
oThe Management Company has in place monitoring process to identify potential deterioration of counterpart creditworthiness and anticipate potential impairments on the portfolio and/or review of the counterpart internal rating.
·General outlook:
oThe Investment Period of the Fund ended on 7 April 2016, the Fund paid the first distribution for the repayment of units to investors (EIB) of EUR 23,85 million.
4.2.The 2020 European Fund for Energy, Climate Change and Infrastructure – (Marguerite)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG MOVE
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG ECFIN
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
Marguerite Adviser (the Fund Manager)
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 80 million
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 80 million from the TEN-T budget (06 03 03 — Financial support for projects of common interest in the trans-European transport network (in 2013 budget nomenclature))
|
A -Summary
The Marguerite Fund is a Pan-European equity fund developed in the context of the financial crisis and in recognition of the need for successful long-term infrastructure investment in Europe. It supports infrastructure investment within the transport (TEN-T), energy (TEN-E) and renewables sectors in Member States and invests primarily in Greenfield Projects.
The core sponsors include public long-term investors from France (CDC), Italy (CdP), Germany (KfW), Spain (ICO) and Poland (PKO) as well as the EIB and a key investor, the European Commission. In total, the fund raised EUR 710 million of available capital for equity investments (final close reached in December 2012). The Commission aggregate budgetary commitment is EUR 80 million and sourced through the TEN-T budget.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans- European transport and energy networks (OJ L 162, 22.6.2007, p.1).
Commission Decision C(2010) 941 of 25 February 2010 on European Union participation in the 2020 European Fund for Energy, Climate Change and Infrastructure (the Marguerite Fund).
(b)Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
The Marguerite Fund is a Pan-European equity fund developed in the context of the financial crisis and in recognition of the need for successful long-term infrastructure investment in Europe. It supports infrastructure investment within the transport (TEN-T), energy (TEN-E) and renewables sectors in Member States and primarily invests in Greenfield Projects
Expected results:
·at least 3,5 times the EU commitment to be invested into TEN-T eligible projects (at least EUR 280 million),
·30 to 40 % of the total commitments invested in the Transport sector (TEN-T network),
·25 to 35 % invested in the Energy sector,
·35 to 45 % invested in the Renewables Energies sector.
The Private Placement Memorandum states that the investment period ends in December 2016 (with a possible extension of two more years) while the end-date/maturity of the fund has been set at a maximum term of 20 years from the start of the initial closing (December 2009) and may be extended for up to two additional one-year periods. (up to December 2031).
In June 2016, following the recommendations made by the working group (consisting of representatives of Marguerite's Core Sponsors and the European Commission) in charge of identifying alternatives for a fund expansion beyond Marguerite I's investment period. the Supervisory Board decided (1) to extend the investment period, (2) to propose the establishment of a successor fund to Marguerite, and (3) to proceed to the sales of part of the current assets in the Portfolio after a market sounding exercice .
As a result, the investment period has been extended to December 2017 in order to ensure the continuity of investment activity while establishing the successor of the current Fund ("Marguerite Fund II").
Implementation arrangements
The Commission directly manages its investment in the Marguerite Fund; there is no delegation or sub-delegation agreement to any entrusted entity. The cash contributions are paid directly by the EU hence no trust account is established. The Commission is a pari-passu investor alongside its co-investors, sharing equally with other co-investors both costs and returns.
The Investment Adviser "Marguerite Adviser S.A." employs the Advisory Team and provides investment advisory services to the Fund under an Advisory agreement. As such, it is responsible for the day-to-day management and on-going activity of the Fund. The Advisory Team is in charge of origination, due diligence (appraisal), structuring and execution of the investments as well as of monitoring and asset management.
Added value of the Union contribution
The Union contribution has enabled other equity providers to be attracted in to form a pool of equity aimed at projects with trans-European dimension and/or contributing to the delivery of the EU2020 objectives. That funding pool crowded in other sponsors' equity invested in twelve projects as of December 2016 as well as crowding in debt investment from project finance banks. This funding is then made available for investment in TEN-T projects and other policy-driven projects and contributes to filling missing links, reducing fragmentation and creating positive spill-overs in the region in which each project is implemented.
Concretely, the Marguerite Fund has demonstrated that six public financial institutions, along with the EU, can co-invest in an equity fund that operates on market terms and is considered as a credible investor by other players in the market. Furthermore, this cooperation between public financial institutions in launching a single pan-European fund reduces the likelihood of financial instrument duplication.
Also, this experience has increased the EU’s in-house capacity to engage with direct investment in equity funds. Finally, the Fund’s focus on investing in greenfield projects with a policy dimension has allowed it to close deals in less mature infrastructure markets, like those in Croatia, Poland and Romania. This paves the way for an increase of delivery of infrastructure projects via Project Finance structures in those regions.
(c)The financial institutions involved in implementation;
The Marguerite Fund was established as a Luxembourg SICAV-FIS structure in the legal form of a corporation (Société Anonyme). The management and administration of the Fund is under the responsibility of the Management Board, which is composed of one representative of each core sponsors, two representatives of the Advisory Team and three independent experts.
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016
|
EUR 80 000 000
|
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016
|
EUR 43 720 000
|
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
As of 31 December 2016 the Marguerite Fund has committed to invest in twelve projects: three projects in TEN-T transport and seven in the renewable energy sector, one in energy and one in ICT. This represents a total equity commitment by the Fund of EUR 455 million supporting a total project cost of EUR 1 842 million.
The Fund committed EUR 66,8 million of equity to the three TEN-T transport projects (16%).
The table below shows the detailed list of the projects.
Projects in fund portfolio (as at 31-12-2016), in EUR million(1)
|
Project name (Country) – year
|
Sector
|
Totals
|
C-Power (Belgium) – 2011
|
Renewables
|
|
Toul (France) – 2011
|
Renewables
|
|
Massangis (France) – 2012
|
Renewables
|
|
Aeolus (Poland) - 2012
|
Renewables
|
|
Chirnogeni (Romania) – 2012
|
Renewables
|
|
Autovia Arlanzon (A1) (Spain) - 2012
|
TEN-T
|
|
Poznan Waste-to-Energy (Poland) – 2013
|
Renewables
|
|
Butendiek (Germany)(3) - 2013
|
Renewables
|
|
Zagreb Airport (Croatia) - 2013
|
TEN-T
|
|
N17 – N18 motorway (Ireland) - 2014
|
TEN-T
|
|
A/S Latvijas Gaze
|
Energy
|
|
Rosace SAS
|
ICT
|
|
TOTAL EQUITY COMMITMENT(2)
|
|
455
|
TOTAL AMOUNT OF MOBILIZED FINANCE(3)
|
|
1 842
|
Source: Services calculations based on fund reports as at 31-12-2016
Notes:
(1) The EC has a 11,27% share in the fund
(2) Includes contingent equity commitment, from the fund i.e. representing 100% of the fund. Net of divestment of 1/3 stake to CDC Infrastructure that occurred in December 2013.
(3) The figure reflects the amount of finance mobilized based on signed commitments at financial close when Marguerite invested in a project. At a given project level, it is the sum of equity investment and contingent equity committed by all investors.
The twelve projects in the portfolio are at various stages of development: eight are already fully constructed and operating, and four are still under construction (Autovia Arlanzon, N17/N18 Motorway, Zagreb Airport and Rosace SAS). In the course of 2016, the fund received distributions for an amount of EUR 9,2 million from several projects. This allowed the fund to cover its operating costs without drawing on investors' capital calls to fund them.
Following a decision by the Management Board, a cash distribution to investors of around EUR 50 million - resulting from refinancing gains and dividends of projects financed by Marguerite, will take place at the end of April 2017. In this context, the EU budget will receive EUR 5.63 million.
In 2016 two deals were succesfully concluded:
·At the very end of 2015, Marguerite Adviser signed an agreement with Uniper to acquire its shares in AS Latvijas Gaze, a vertically integrated Latvian gas company in charge of the transmission, distribution, storage and supply of natural gas in Latvia. The transaction has been finalised in April 2016 for a net commitment of EUR 110,05 million. The EU paid the capital call corresponding to its part in the Fund (EUR 12,4 million) in December 2015.
·In November 2015, the Alsace Region Assembly has decided to award the Project to equip the region with a new high speed fibre-to-the-home network to the NGE/ Altitude Infra consortium which was supported by Marguerite Fund and the Caisse des Dépôts. The total investment of the project amounts to EUR 480m. Marguerite Fund announced the financial close of the project early April 2016, in which it has a 37% shareholding, alongside the partners mentioned above (total ticket for Marguerite EUR 21,5 million).
Amount of EU Contribution committed to financial intermediaries,
and the corresponding number of financial intermediaries;
|
EUR 80 million of commitment
to a single financial intermediary, the Marguerite Fund
|
Amount of financing expected to be provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients,
and expected number of eligible final recipients;
|
Overall, the Fund was expected to invest in full the EUR 710 million into the equity of circa 20 to 30 projects (eligible final recipients).
The total amount of finance mobilized across these 20 to 30 projects (Marguerite equity of 710 million, co-investor equity and debt) by the Marguerite equity investment was expected to represent some EUR 10 billion.
|
Amount of financing already provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
|
EUR 455 million of equity committed by the Fund to 12 projects (final recipients), which mobilized EUR 1,8 billion of finance in equity and EUR 5,4 billion of finance in total (Marguerite equity, co-investor equity and debt).
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the received financing, if applicable.
|
EUR 5,4 billion of finance mobilized
|
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A.
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account;
N/A, there is no fiduciary account: the Commission makes direct payments to the Fund on the basis of Capital Calls issued by the Fund.
Impact of negative interest on Marguerite: no impact as at 31/12/2016.
(h) Revenues and repayments (Art.140. 6);
In the case of the Marguerite Fund, the revenues and repayments consist on the distribution of dividends or redemption of shares (net distributable cash).
Article 20.1 of the Private Placement Memorandum establishing the fund specifies that the Net Distributable Cash will be distributed (either through the payment of dividends or through the redemption of Shares) to Investors pro rata as soon as possible in the reasonable discretion of the Board upon recommendation of the Investment Adviser after the relevant amount becomes available for distribution.
Up to 31/12/2016, no distribution has taken place. A distribution of up to EUR 5,63 million will occur by end of April 2017 (see information provided above).
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
Compared to the value for 31.12.2015 the Net Asset Value of the Commission investment in the fund has increased from EUR 37,9 million to EUR 54 million. This implies a change of the non-realized capital gain of the Commission from EUR 6,6 million to EUR 10,3 million representing an increase of EUR 3,7 million over the course of the year 2016.
In EUR
|
31/12/2015
|
31/12/2016
|
Cumulated payments by EC
|
31 320 000
|
43 720 000
|
Fair value (NAV) of EC stake
|
37 912 657
|
54 023 534
|
Non-realized capital gain (loss) of EC
|
6 592 657
|
10 303 534
|
Source of Net Asset Value: Quarterly report of the Marguerite Fund to 31 December 2015 and 2016, p.7
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments of assets of equity or risk-sharing instruments, and on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
Chirnogeni on-shore windfarm project Investment value (EUR 27m) has been fully written down at the end 2015, due to risk of default.
A depreciation (EUR 2,8 million) of Aeolus shares (EUR 23,16 million) has been recorded in order to reflect the lower production and the decrease of green certificates in Poland.
The corresponding losses for the Fund have been compensated by increase of the fair value of the other assets in the portfolio. For that reason, no impairment has been accrued by the European Commission at end of 2016.
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
·The target leverage effect:
No target leverage effect was indicated in the legal base.
·The achieved leverage effect:
Between 2009 and 2016, Marguerite invested an amount of EUR 456 million in projects (mainly equity and mezzanine loans). The total estimated amount of equity provided (by Marguerite and other investors) to projects supported by Marguerite was EUR 1 842 million at the end of 2016. The EU budget payments to Marguerite stood at EUR 43,72 million out the total EUR 80 million committed.
This means that the leverage effect amounts to 42 (= 1 842/43.720). The leverage effect computed at the level of Marguerite Fund is around 4 (= 1842/456) due to the significant percentage of participation in equity that the Fund has taken.
At the end of 2016, the overall investment mobilised under the twelve deals in which Marguerite Fund has invested amounted to EUR 5 402 million (this includes both equity and debt). This shows the capacity of the Fund to mobilise other resources (mainly from the private sector) in the deals supported by Marguerite.
The way to compute the leverage effect has been updated and further explained to address an issue raised in the report on financial instruments issued by the Court of Auditors in the course of 2016. This new computation allows to clarify the leverage effect's computation for Marguerite vis-à-vis the other financial instruments managed by the European Commission.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
As of 31-12-2016, the Fund has committed to invest in three TEN-T projects a total of EUR 66,8 million. As of today the Commission has paid in EUR 43,7 million. The fund commitment represents a multiple of 1,5x of the amounts paid by the Commission to the fund as of 31-12-2016. This is still below the 3,5x target established for the end of the investment period. Two deals are currently under discussion (RCEA road PPP and Greek regional airports).
As of 31-12-2016, the Fund has been successful in helping the EU to deliver the 2020 targets by a successful financing of seven renewable energy projects in five different Member States.This includes investment in an innovative PPP scheme for the waste-to-energy plant in Poznan, Poland; Butendiek which is one of the largest off-shore windfarms in the German North Sea.
The fund was equally successful in catalysing a transfer of knowledge in terms of financial structuring into new markets: the Poznan Waste-to-Energy project was the first Waste-to-Energy project in Poland to be structured as a Private Public Partnership (PPP) with the use of EU structural funds. Also, the Zagreb Airport transaction has sent an important signal that greenfield PPPs with traffic risk in Eastern Europe can be closed, and bring attractive market-returns. The transaction is considered a benchmark for PPP bankability in the region. Zagreb Airport also was the first PPP in the Western Balkans with debt financing contributed by the EIB. Market participants considered that the expertise of the Marguerite Advisor team was crucial in ensuring the deal’s workability as the first PPP to close under Croatia’s new concession law. Finally, the N17/N18 motorway deal closed in April 2014 signalled a revival in Irish PPP market.
The Marguerite fund also serves as a role model for innovative financial instruments investing in European infrastructure projects. It is unique in bringing several European Development Banks together to finance a common pan-European investment vehicle. It is successful in attracting private funding (via co-investors and commercial bank lending) while demonstrating the business case behind these investments and creating a credible track record of EUR 455 million of equity commitment to ten projects representing EUR 5,4 billion of mobilized finance (equity and debt).
E -Other key points and issues
·Main risks identified:
oThe Commission Decision has laid down clearly defined rules, terms and conditions as well as specific investment criteria in the Investment Guidelines to be followed by the Fund. The Investment Committee, as well as the Management and Supervisory boards closely monitor the compliance with these guidelines.
oThe Fund operates in full compliance with its Investment Guidelines and other governance and operational provisions.
·General outlook : future of the Marguerite Fund:
oThe Fund constantly develops a pipeline of investment opportunities across the target sectors (TEN-T transport, renewable energy, energy and ICT). It is in close contact with market participants and actively seeks out new transactions.
oAs the term of the investment period is scheduled on December 2017, potential deals assessed in the course of 2017 could end up in the portfolio of the Marguerite Fund II, when this is finally established.
oThe NPBs and the EIB have already well advanced in their internal validation procedures which constitute a necessary step prior to the establishment of Marguerite Fund II. This process should be finalised in the course of 2017.
oThe European Commission will not directly invest in the structure but will be linked to the successor of Marguerite Fund by the fact that the EIB's participation is expected to be carried out under EFSI and a part of it is guaranteed by the EU budget.
4.3.European Energy Efficiency Fund (EEEF)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG ENER
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG ENER
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
Deutsche Bank as Fund manager
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 146 334 644,50
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 146 334 644,50
|
A -Summary
The Fund was established in 2011 with a global volume of EUR 265 million, more than double the direct EU contribution (EUR 125 million), in line with the objective of leveraging. In addition a EUR 20 million technical assistance grant to support project development services was made available. The Fund provides tailored financing (both debt and equity instruments) in particular for energy efficiency projects but also for renewable energy and clean urban transport projects. Beneficiaries are local or regional public authorities or entities acting on their behalf.
The fund has an investment manager, Deutsche Bank, which undertakes the pre-selection and due diligence of the projects before the Management Board (in which the Commission seats) approves them. The Fund has also an Investment Committee and a Supervisory Board (in which the Commission holds 2 seats out of 3) to give general orientations and grant derogation from the investment guidelines.
By now, the Fund has progressively established a solid track record of profitable investments (net profit registered from 2013) and is actively looking for additional investors.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Regulation (EU) No 1233/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 December 2010 amending regulation (EC) No 663/2009 establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy
(b)Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
On 1 July 2011, EUR 146,3 million from the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR) were allocated to a new European Energy Efficiency Fund — EEEF (in the form of a specialised investment fund (SICAV SIF). The EEEF invests in energy efficiency, renewable energy projects, and clean urban transport particularly in urban settings, achieving at least 20 % energy saving or GHG/CO2 emission reduction.
The beneficiaries must be public authorities or public or private entities acting on their behalf, including ESCOs.
The Fund was launched on 1 July 2011 with an initial volume of EUR 265 million: in addition to the EU contribution (EUR 125 million in junior ‘C-shares’), the European Investment Bank (EIB) invested EUR 75 million (mainly senior ‘A shares’), Cassa Depositi e Prestiti SpA (CDP) EUR 60 million (mainly senior ‘A shares’); and the designated investment manager (Deutsche Bank) EUR 5 million (mezzanine ‘B shares’).
In addition, about EUR 20 million of the EU funding was available for technical assistance (in the form of grants) to help sponsors make projects bankable for the Fund. Finally, a EUR 1,3 million programme has been established to raise awareness of financing methods and options for EE and RE among national and regional authorities managing Cohesion/Structural funds. EPEC manages this programme.
In accordance with the amending Regulation, the deadline for allocating EU funds to investment projects and Technical assistance (TA) was 31 March 2014. As of 31 December 2016, 12 projects were approved for EUR 128 million. Apart from this, there is no fixed deadline for proposals.
Implementation arrangements
Fund/Investment Manager
Deutsche Bank (DB) is responsible i.e. for selecting projects and conducting a due diligence process before submitting the projects to the Fund's Investment Committee for advice and to the Management Board for approval. DB also managed the TA component, submitting TA propositions to DG ENER for approval.
Investment Committee
The Investment Committee (IC) is responsible for assessing projects submitted to it by the fund manager and giving recommendations to the Management Board. Two EIB members and one member from CDP are appointed to the IC.
Management Board
The Management Board (MB) has broad powers to administrate and manage the Fund; it decides on the investments upon recommendation by the IC. However, it cannot decide on major issues (such as change of the statutes and documentation) without approval by the Supervisory Board (SB). It reports quarterly to the SB. It is composed of representatives from the European Commission (1), the EIB (1, the chair) and the CDP (1).
Supervisory Board
The supervisory board (SB)’s main duties include a permanent supervision of the management of the Fund, giving strategic advice to the MB, proposing the annual Fund business plan for Shareholder approval, and approving changes in the investment guidelines etc. It is composed of representatives from the European Commission (2), the EIB (1) and the CDP (1).
Added value
The Fund offers a range of standard financial products such as senior loans, subordinated and shareholders loans, more sophisticated equity participations or forfeiting schemes. The Fund is also intended to attract further private and public investors.
(c) The financial institutions involved in implementation;
EIB was entrusted through a Delegation Agreement signed in March 2011 with the Commission to establish the Fund and manage the Union contribution.
Deutsche Bank has been appointed Investment Manager and was sub-delegated the Management of the Technical Assistance facility; Deutsche Bank is also a minor investor in the instrument. CDP and the EIB are core investors in the instrument.
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016
|
EUR 146 334 644,50
|
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016
|
EUR 116 203 765,34
|
(e) The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
The EEE F had successfully disbursed EUR 99,8 million of EU contribution to the allocated projects by the end of the investment period (31 March 2014), providing innovative financing solutions to energy efficiency projects. The technical assistance support has proved to be also very useful to support public authorities in preparing their projects that will subsequently be financed by the Fund. As of 31 December 2016, EUR 128 million have been allocated to 12 projects that has generated some EUR 231 million of total investments.
For 2017, the project pipeline contains 17 projects with a total volume of EUR 337 million for which the envisaged EEE F share is EUR 142 million.
Amount of EU Contribution committed to financial intermediaries,
and the corresponding number of financial intermediaries;
|
EUR 125 million (committed to the EEEF)
N/A
|
Amount of financing expected to be provided by the instrument (including EU contribution committed) to eligible final recipients,
and corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
|
EUR 237 million
not yet determined
|
Amount of investments expected to be made by eligible final recipients due to the financing, if applicable
|
EUR 561 million (based on current investment pipeline)
|
Amount of financing already provided by the instrument to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of recipients;
|
EUR 121 million (signed amount)
11 eligible FRs
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the financing provided through the instrument, if applicable.
|
EUR 224 million for 11 projects signed
|
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A.
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account;
Balance of Fid. Account as at 31/12/2016 EUR 8 million
Impact of negative interest on EEE-F: minor impact as at 31/12/2016
(h)Revenues and repayments ;
In line with the contractual arrangements, no revenues nor repayments are expected to be recovered by the Union budget before the closure of the instrument.
Additional information:
The fund has generated an income of EUR 4.48 million in 2016 which are distributed along the income waterfall in order to cover direct operating expenditures, distribute target dividends to A and B shares (Commission’s C-shares are not entitled to target dividend) and fully replenish the Commission C shares to their original nominal value.
(i) The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
The nominal value of the equity investments of the Commission into the Fund is EUR 97,13 million as at 31 December 2016.It was EUR 96,88 million as at 31 December 2015. There is no difference between the issue price of the Commission's shares (C Shares) and their Net Asset Value (NAV), following the replenishment of the NAV Deficiency amount as of 31/12/2016.
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments of assets of equity or risk-sharing instruments, and on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
0
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
No target leverage effect was indicated in the legal base.
The achieved leverage (total investment volume/amount of EU contribution disbursed) at 31/12/2016 is 2,2. This is calculated as the ratio between the total amount of the investments supported by EEEF (EUR 224 million) and the amount of the EU contribution actually disbursed (EUR 99.8 million).
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
The first objective of the Amending Regulation was to establish a specialised investment Fund to reallocate the EEPR uncommitted appropriations leveraging additional contributions. This has been achieved in 2011 with the support of the European Investment Bank to which the establishment of the Fund and the management of the EU contribution were delegated.
The second objective of the EEE-F was to facilitate the financing of energy efficiency investments (portfolio target of 70%), renewable energy (20%) and clean urban transport (10%). The Fund thus mostly concentrates on alleviating specific financial and non-financial barriers to energy efficiency such as high transaction costs, fragmented and small investments, limited access to credit, complex deal structuring, and low confidence of investors and lack of capacity of project promoters. In order to do so, the Fund supports the development of a credible energy efficiency market through the provision of non-standard project finance and dedicated financial products (both debt & equity) supporting in particular the development of Energy Performance Contracting. The portfolio of the Fund currently consists of 68% senior debt, 21% subordinated debt and 11% equity. 79% of the financing has been provided directly to beneficiaries, while 21% has been provided through a financial intermediary.
To tackle the lack of financing and the risk aversion of investors, the EEE-F was established as a layered investment Fund, with three classes of shares. The European Commission invested in junior C shares, absorbing the first losses and taking most of the risk to attract additional investors, including private ones. It is worth noting that no losses have been incurred since the inception of the fund, despite the variety of financing instruments and technologies financed.
The EEE- F also serves as a role model for innovative financial instruments investing in cost-effective and mature sustainable energy projects (with payback periods of up to 18 years) that can attract private capital while demonstrating the business case behind these investments and creating a credible track record. For instance, as of December 2016, the Fund's financing of EUR 121 million has allowed the mobilisation of an additional EUR 103 million on Energy efficiency, Renewable Energies and Clean urban transport projects, thereby generating EUR 224 million of total investments.
Figure 1 - Investments by country (% of total)
Investments by country (% of total)
|
France
|
39
|
Italy
|
26
|
Romania
|
21
|
Netherlands
|
7
|
UK
|
3
|
Spain
|
2
|
Germany
|
1
|
Source: EEEF Quarterly report Q4 2016
E -Other key points and issues
·Three main issues for the implementation:
Experience with the EEE-F is very useful to understand the dynamics of the energy efficiency:
oFinancing instruments for sustainable energy need to be flexible, reflecting local market needs;
oThe gap in capacity to develop and finance energy efficiency investments can be effectively tackled by the provision of project development assistance, which would enable the creation of a verified track record of the impacts of energy efficiency investments, building the sector's credibility and investor confidence;
oEU-level instruments should address common barriers, market failures and impacts of the financial crisis, while complementing national or regional schemes in place, avoiding duplication and avoiding crowding out private investments.
·Main risks identified:
oIn line with the requirements of the amending regulation (EU 1233/2010), the Commission has laid down clearly defined rules, terms and conditions as well as specific investment criteria in the Investment Guidelines to be followed by the Fund Manager and closely monitored by the governing boards.
oSignificant changes to the founding documents of the fund, the Issue Document and Articles of Incorporation need to be approved by all core investors, so that the Commission cannot be overruled.
oIn addition, the Investment Guidelines of the EEE F may only be amended by resolution of the Management Board and the Supervisory Board. In the Supervisory Board, the Commission has two of four members, including the Chairperson who has a casting vote in case of a tied vote.
oFrom an operational perspective, governing boards hold meetings frequently to exert regular control on the fund's investment manager and its operations.
oIt is essential to stress that the investment manager is charged to comply with requirements, in particular procurement rules, and that the fund put in place its own "risk management function" and a "conflict of interest policy".
oAs regards performance, the Investment Manager's fees are calculated on disbursed amount and against key performance indicators to allow for an alignment of interests.
·General outlook:
For 2017, the project pipeline contains 17 projects with a total volume of EUR 337 million for which the envisaged EEE F share is EUR 142 million.
By now, the Fund has progressively established a solid track record of profitable investments (net profit registered from 2013) and is actively looking for additional senior investors to leverage further the Union contribution.
5.Financial Instruments in the Enlargement Countries
5.1.Guarantee Facility under the Western Balkans Enterprise Development and Innovation Facility (EDIF GF 1)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
European Investment Fund
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 21,9 million
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 21,9 million
|
A -Summary
The WB EDIF GF I guarantees SME loan portfolios issued by commercial banks for new SME lending. It will, therefore, improve SME access to lending and potentially lowering the cost of borrowing in the Western Balkans, where access to loan finance remains one of the biggest difficulties for SMEs.
The Facility is implemented under indirect management, with the implementation tasks entrusted to the EIF. The budget for the instrument amounts to EUR 21,9 million (of which EUR 1,9 million is a provision for fees to the EIF as the Manager and EUR 20 million is the guarantee capital).
The financial intermediaries have been selected through an open call for expression of interest published in 2013 and the entire amount of the capital had been allocated to guarantees in the course of 2014 and 2015. The achieved leverage effect of the Facility is 5,4, which means that the budget of EUR 21,9 million mobilises some EUR 117,9 million of new loans.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), and in particular Article 14(3) thereof (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 82).
(b)Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
The Financial Instrument of the European Union for the Guarantee Facility contributes to achieving the objectives of enhancing socio-economic growth of the Western Balkans.
Its major objectives are the creation of preconditions for the emergence and growth of innovative and high-potential companies. The instrument guarantees SME loan portfolios issued by commercial banks for new SME lending. This will entail improving SME access to lending and potentially lowering the cost of borrowing.
Under the instrument, guarantees of first loss of new loans to targeted SMEs with a guarantee rate of up to 70 % and a guarantee cap of up to 25 % in the overall loan portfolio can be used. Exact guarantee rate and cap is being determined on a case-by-case basis.
The instrument started in 2013 and guarantees loans with maturity until 2023. The geographical coverage is the Western Balkans in line with the Common Implementing Regulation.
Implementation Arrangements
The Commission implements the instrument under indirect management in accordance with Article 139 of the Financial Regulation (through a Fiduciary and Management Agreement). Under indirect management, the Commission may entrust implementation tasks to the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group, including the European Investment Fund (EIF).
Added value
Under the respective guarantee agreements, the intermediary banks, commit to a range of benefits to be transmitted to the final beneficiaries, which is determined on a case-by-case basis. These include: lower interest rates, lower collateral requirements or longer loan maturities. Under the EU guarantee, a new SME loan portfolio is to be created reaching out to those companies that would otherwise not be served by the intermediary.
(c)The financial institutions involved in implementation;
European Investment fund (EIF)
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016EUR 21 900 000
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016EUR 21 900 000
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
The first three operational agreements with the banks were signed in 2013 and the next three in 2014 and 2015. In total, they make EUR 117,9 million available to SMEs in these countries, allowing them to benefit from reduced collateral requirements for new loans for investment and/or working capital.
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
Interest from cash and cash equivalents EUR 3 415
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account
EUR 19 341 196
For Risk-sharing and Guarantee Instruments
|
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
834 782
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
18 506 414
|
Term deposits < 3 months (cash equivalent)
|
18 506 414
|
Term deposits > 3 months < 1 year (current assets)
|
0
|
Term deposits > 1 year (non-current assets)
|
|
Bonds current
|
|
Bonds non-current
|
|
Other assets (if applicable)
|
0
|
= Total assets
|
19 341 196
|
Impact of negative interests on EDIF GF: EUR 604 as at t 31/12/2016.
(h)Revenues and repayments;
Interest from cash and cash equivalents EUR 19 950
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
N/A.
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments and on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
EUR 513 540
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
The financial envelope of EUR 21,9 million leveraged a total financing of EUR 117,9 million, implying the leverage factor of 5,4. The target leverage effect as indicated in the project application form for EDIF Guarantee Facility over the lifetime of the financial instrument was 7.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
As at the end of 2016, the EDIF already contributed to provide EUR 117,9 milion of financing to 1 430 cumulative number of Final beneficiaries. As some SMEs have received more than one loan, the number of loans is slightly higher than the number of final beneficiaries, i.e. 1 540.
The financial intermediaries selected through an open call for expression of interest in 2013, with whom guarantee agreements were signed include:
WB Beneficiary Economy
|
Loan volume supported
|
Guaranteed Portfolio
|
Guarantee Cap
|
Albania
|
20
|
14
|
3.5
|
Bosnia & Herzegovina
|
20
|
14
|
3.3
|
Kosovo
|
20
|
14
|
3.2
|
Serbia
|
30
|
21
|
5.3
|
Montenegro
|
7.9
|
5.5
|
1.4
|
Croatia
|
20
|
14
|
3.1
|
Total
|
117,9
|
82,5
|
19,8
|
Access to loan finance remains one of the biggest difficulties for SMEs in the Western Balkans. Additionally, access to bank financing for SMEs in their early stage is almost impossible due to the lack of financial history of the SMEs.
There is a segment of the SME market, made of start-up, newly established enterprises or in general SMEs that do not have the appropriate financial history or are lacking sufficient level of collaterals and thus fall outside the current credit criteria of the commercial banks. The GF instrument will target this market segment in priority.
The benefits from the GF could take a number of forms and thus respond to the key constraints in each beneficiary. However, all of the benefits will improve the investment climate by:
·reducing collateral requirements;
·creating lower cost of borrowing for SMEs;
·resulting in longer loan maturities.
In the case of innovative companies, the availability of public sector supported guarantees is usually a precondition for access to credit. Thus the GF is looking to bolster lending into start-up firms in the medium term.
GF is managed by the European Investment Fund (EIF). ElF is the European Union body specialised in SME risk financing and is member of the EIB Group. As Europe's leading developer of risk financing for entrepreneurship and innovation, ElF delivers a wide spectrum of SME financing solutions through selected intermediaries. By sharing the risk in SME development, ElF promotes the implementation of EU policies, particularly in the field of entrepreneurship, technology, innovation and regional development.
E -Other key points and issues
·Main issues for implementation:
oProvision of regulatory capital relief: the provision of regulatory capital relief under the Guarantee Agreements has been identified as a pivotal characteristic and its importance in the pooling of a sufficient number of qualified applicants and the selection of the most suitable for the deployment of the instrument cannot be overemphasised. What is more, in individual cases of Intermediaries that have been pre-selected and entered legal negotiations with EIF, it has been presented as sine qua non condition for the conclusion of negotiations with the signature of a Guarantee Agreement if the benefit transferred to the SMEs includes pricing reduction. This should be viewed in the context of the implementation of the Third Basel Accord that strengthens bank capital requirements. Against that background, in 2014, DG Enlargement consented to the granting of the regulatory capital relief to the intermediaries under the Guarantee Facility. This was done on the basis of the provisions of the Fiduciary and Management Agreement that stipulates that “in order to further the objective of the Action, Guarantees should aim to provide regulatory capital relief for Intermediaries”.
oNearly 90% of the loans originated under the Western Balkans Guarantee Facility are for EUR 150 000 or smaller, demonstrating that these loans are going to smaller SMEs which are usually the type that are searching for financing in this region- the loans are going to the intended target group and those that need it most. The build-up of the loan portfolio of EUR 117,9 million should be seen in the broader framework of more than 300 thousand SMEs of the region. Hence, the multi-country IPA 2014 allocated a further EUR 17,5 million to the instrument and another financing is programmed under IPA 2017. The additional allocation from 2014 was contracted under a new delegation agreement with the EIF, bears the name EDIF Guarantee Facility II and is reported separately.
·Main risks identified:
Contractual and process compliance is ensured through continuous reporting and monitoring.
·General outlook:
The good absorbtion of this instruments and the markets test made so far regarding the financial needs on the ground proved the necessity to have a continuation of the Guarantee Facility. The WB EDIF GF 2, which was financed under MCP IPA 2014 and contracted in 2015 is the direct continuation and replenishes the WB EDIF GF.
5.2.Guarantee Facility II under the Western Balkans Enterprise Development and Innovation Facility (EDIF GF 2)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
European Investment Fund
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 17,5 million
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 17,5 million
|
A -Summary
The WB EDIF GF 2 is the direct continuation and replenishes the WB EDIF GF. The product and objectives are identical but funds are committed in a separate mandate because the WB EDUF GF2 is compliant to the new Financial Regulation of 2014 and Funds are coming from IPA II. Under the WB EDIF GF funds were coming from IPA I and were complying to the old Financial Regulation.
Just like the EDIF GF, the EDIF GF 2 guarantees SME loan portfolios issued by commercial banks for new SME lending. It will, therefore, improve SME access to lending and potentially lowering the cost of borrowing in the Western Balkans, where access to loan finance remains one of the biggest difficulties for SMEs.
The Facility is implemented under indirect management, with the implementation tasks entrusted to the EIF. The budget for the instrument amounts to EUR 17,5 million (of which EUR 1,4 million is a provision for fees to the EIF as the Manager and EUR 16,1 million is the guarantee capital).
The financial intermediaries will selected through an open call for expression of interest that will be published in Q1 2016. Based on the EDIF Guarantee scheme which achieved leverage of 5,4), the budget of EUR 17,5 million was targeted to mobilise more than EUR 94,5 million of new loans.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Regulation (EU) No 231/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing an Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II) (OJ L 77, 15.3.2014, p. 11).
(b) Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
The Financial Instrument of the European Union for the Guarantee Facility (both EDIF GF and EDIF GF 2) contributes to achieving the objectives of enhancing socio-economic growth of the Western Balkans.
Its major objectives are the creation of preconditions for the emergence and growth of innovative and high-potential companies. The instrument guarantees SME loan portfolios issued by commercial banks for new SME lending. This will entail improving SME access to lending and potentially lowering the cost of borrowing.
Under the instrument, guarantees of first loss of new loans to targeted SMEs with a guarantee rate of up to 70 % and a guarantee cap of up to 25 % in the overall loan portfolio can be used. Exact guarantee rate and cap is being determined on a case-by-case basis.
The instrument started in 2013 and guarantees loans with maturity until 2023. The geographical coverage is the Western Balkans in line with the Common Implementing Regulation.
Implementation Arrangements
The Commission implements the instrument under indirect management in accordance with Article 139 of the Financial Regulation (through a Fiduciary and Management Agreement). Under indirect management, the Commission may entrust implementation tasks to the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group, including the European Investment Fund (EIF).
Added value
Under the respective guarantee agreements, the intermediary banks, commit to a range of benefits to be transmitted to the final beneficiaries, which is determined on a case-by-case basis. These include: lower interest rates, lower collateral requirements or longer loan maturities. Under the EU guarantee, a new SME loan portfolio is to be created reaching out to those companies that would otherwise not be served by the intermediary.
(c) The financial institutions involved in implementation;
The European Investment Fund (EIF)
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016EUR 17 500 000
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 10 000 000
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
The budgetary commitment of this instrument was signed on 23/12/2015. On the basis of the call for Expression of Interest (March 2016) EIF succeeded to receive and assess the applications to the call, conduct due diligence, negotiate the new agreements and sign them in less than 10 months. The five agreements signed by the end of 2016 are with the following banks: CKB Montenegro (EUR 20 million); ProCredit Kosovo (EUR 35 million); ProCredit former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EUR 10 million); ProCredit Serbia (EUR 25 million), Raiffeisen Albania (EUR 17 million). The Call for the Expression of Interest for the EDIF GF 2 was launched in all 6 beneficiary countries, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia. However, signature of portfolios happened at a first come first served basis.
This has notably translated an EU budgetary allocation of just over EUR 17,5 million (administrative fees included) into an overall expected portfolio volume of EUR 107 million for lending to SMEs- more than the targeted one of EUR 94,5 million, resulting in an increased expected leverage effect of 6,1 x.
Amount of financing expected to be provided by the instrument (including EU contribution committed) to eligible final recipients,
and corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
|
EUR 107 000 000
N/A
|
Amount of investments expected to be made by eligible final recipients due to the financing, if applicable
|
N/A
|
Amount of financing already provided by the instrument to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of recipients;
|
N/A
N/A
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the financing provided through the instrument, if applicable.
|
N/A
|
(f) An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A.
(g) The balance of the fiduciary account
EUR 9 639 820
|
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
1 943 272
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
7 696 548
|
Term deposits < 3 months
|
7 696 548
|
Term deposits > 3 months < 1 year
|
|
Term deposits > 1 year
|
|
Bonds current
|
|
Bonds non-current
|
|
Equity investment (see also point i)
|
N/A
|
Other assets (if applicable)
|
N/A
|
= Total assets
|
9 639 820
|
Impact of negative interests on EDIF GF 2: EUR 10 658 as at 31/12/2016.
(h) Revenues and repayments;
Interest on cash and cash equivalents: EUR 478
N/A.
(i) The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
N/A.
(j) The accumulated figures on impairments / on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
EUR 0
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
Target leverage effect is between 4 and 5,2.
The expected leverage of the signed operations is 6,1.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l) The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
The WB EDIF GF2 is the direct continuation of the WB EDIF GF and therefore the two instruments share the same objectives. Following the very positive uptake of the EDIF GF, the EIF performed a market research in order to assess whether there was more appetite of guarantees in the Western Balkans. The market test showed that the initial allocation of the EDIF GF was not sufficient to cover all the demand under the Call for Expression of Interest. By the time the call was closed, the EIF had received a total of 10 applications from banks in the eligible region, of which only 6 it was able to service – notably thus not being able to service all 7 economies (Croatia was a beneficiary country under the EDIF GF 1 but not under the EDIF GF 2 as this was signed post accession), and therefore to date no Guarantee Facility has been made available in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The market search which provided the basis and justification for the replenishment of the EDIF GF with the signature of the EDIF GF 2 for EUR 17,5 million confirmed that the additionality features of the signed agreements are very strong; and that the continuation of the product would allow the banks to extend financing to even more SMEs that were not served before, mainly due to collateral requirements. Just like in the EDIF GF, in the EDIF GF 2 financing is going to be offered to the SMEs with substantially reduced collateral requirements. In addition, the pricing shall be reduced. The presence of this guarantee may also contribute to financing investments with longer maturities.
E -Other key points and issues
·Main issues
No particular issue identified.
·Main risks
No particular issue identified
·General outlook
There is a potential with regards to a diversification of future funding under this instrument, both in the form of a national window component with Serbia as well as a thematic component with Youth Employment focus.
From the 6 beneficiaries, Serbia was interested to further commit from their IPA national envelope for 2016 and EUR 20 million was earmarked as a national window for Serbia under the Guarantee Facility II, the process is in advanced stage of negociations with the National Autorities and the window will be brought under the GF II umbrella.
A further replenishment of the Guarantee Facility is in process of programming under IPA for 2017. The replanishment will increase the fund’s scale and impact in the region and will also be, but not exclusively, used to incentivise the development of guarantee loan portfolios by SMEs that secure youth employment and training- in line with the decisions taken at the Western Balkans Summits in Vienna (2015) and in Paris (2016). EIF plans to deploy the same guarantee instrument which is currently utilised under the WB-EDIF Guarantee Facility, i.e. the First Loss Portfolio Guarantee (FLPG) product with the possible deviations for the guarantee rate.
5.3.Enterprise Expansion Fund (ENEF) under the Western Balkans Enterprise Development and Innovation Facility (EDIF)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
European Investment Fund as trustee for the European Commission
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 11,0 million*
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 11,0 million
|
*(including fees, see point C)
A -Summary
ENEF targets SMEs with high growth potential located in the Western Balkan countries, with the objective of achieving long-term capital growth. The strategy envisaged for ENEF is a continuation of the one successfully developed by EBRD with the existing LEF facility throughout the region.
• Sector: Generalist – investing in all eligible economic sectors
• Stage: Expansion and development capital. The team will adopt a hands-on approach to foster the implementation of best market practices as promoted by EBRD and EIF.
• Geographical focus: Western Balkan countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo).
• Capital deployment: Minority investments in c. 15-20 portfolio companies, with sales between EUR 5 million and EUR 20 million. Typical investment tickets will be in the range of EUR 1 to 7,5 million, potentially doubled through the LEF co-investment. Investments will be structured using a broad range of instruments, including equity and quasi-equity securities such as preferred shares, convertible bonds, mezzanine or subordinated debt on a selective basis. Such strategy is closely related to the immaturity of the exit markets, where the scarcity of financial and strategic buyers forces investors to use mainly self-liquidating instruments.
ENEF was formally incorporated under Luxembourgish Law on 14 February 2014 with EIF (Acting as a trustee of the EC and committing own funds), DEG and EBRD subscribing a total of EUR 38,5 million in the first closing.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), and in particular Article 14(3) thereof (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 82).
(b) Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
The Financial Instrument of the European Union for the Enterprise Expansion Fund (ENEF) contributes to achieving the objectives of enhancing socio-economic growth of the Western Balkans.Its major objectives are the creation of preconditions for the emergence and growth of innovative and high-potential companies. The instrument will finance development and expansion capital in established SMEs with high-growth potential in their respective markets through equity participation. Under the instrument, equity and quasi-equity investment can be used.
Implementation arrangements
The Commission is implementing the instrument under indirect management in accordance with Article 139 of the Financial Regulation. Under indirect management, the Commission may entrust implementation tasks to the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group, including the European Investment Fund (EIF). The instrument is implemented under indirect management with the implementation tasks entrusted to the EIF. ENEF Management: the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is the Investment Advisor responsible for origination, structuring, executing and monitoring investments. An Independent Investment committee decides on investment and divestment proposals. The fund is supervised by the Board of Directors, comprised of EIF, EBRD and DEG. EBRD manages ENEF through its offices in each beneficiary country.ENEF was formally incorporated under Luxembourgish Law on 14 February 2014 and in the course of the year concentrated on deal origination. The investments under the instrument will start in 2015. Following an investment period of maximum 5 years, its portfolio will be wound up in a subsequent period of maximum 5 years (duration until 2025). The geographical coverage will be the Western Balkans in line with the Common Implementing Regulation.
EU added value
At the level of the finance-pooling, ENEF will add value through attracting private sector investors to what is perceived as a risky and complex SME market (the Western Balkans) with small, fragmented economies. Furthermore, building on the EBRD experience, ENEF will diversify sources of financing for the high-potential companies, enabling growth and employment creating investments.
(c) The financial institutions involved in implementation;
·EIF – acting as a trustee on behalf of DG NEAR's contribution and investor in ENEF
·EBRD – Investment Adviser of ENEF as well as its investor
Nota : ENEF has received commitments from the following investors:
·The European Commission (EC) with a contribution of EUR 11 million of which EUR 9,5 million invested via the European Investment Fund by means of a Trusteeship (the rest is fee + TA),
·The European Investment Fund (EIF) with a contribution of EUR 5 million
·The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) with a contribution of EUR 19 million (including EUR 3 million from the Italian Investment Special Fund ("IISF")),
·The Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft (DEG) with a contribution of EUR 5 million
·The Oesterreichische Entwicklungsbank AG (OeEB) with a contribution of EUR 5 million
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 11 000 000
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 10 400 000
Additional Information:
Out of the EUR 11,0 million in the financial envelope envisaged for the instrument, EUR 1,1 million is a provision for fees to the EIF as the Trustee for the Commission, EUR 0,4 million is a provision for technical assistance and EUR 9,5 million is the equity. EUR 10,4 million was paid out to the EIF in its function as a trustee in December 2012.
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
Two investments achieved as at 31/12/2016.
Amount of EU Contribution committed to financial intermediaries*,
and the corresponding number of financial intermediaries;
* the only financial intermediary here is the EIF
|
10 400 000 EUR
|
for risk-sharing instruments, total amount of the risk-sharing, including the EU Contribution, committed to financial intermediaries,
and the corresponding number of financial intermediaries;
|
9 500 000
|
Amount of financing expected to be provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients ,
And expected number of eligible final recipients;
|
48 500 000 EUR (fund size after second closing, to be leveraged 1:1 with EBRD co-investment, ending up with circa EUR 97 million expected financing in total)
approx. 15
|
Amount of financing already provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients*,
and the corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
* (6 investments signed in total, but as of 31/12/2016 only three disbursement made altogether)
|
EUR 4 750 000 in 2016 for 3 companies
3 FRs
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the received financing, if applicable.
|
NA
|
(f) An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A.
(g) The balance of the fiduciary account
EUR 9 787 573
For Equity Instruments
|
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
962 040
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
7 601 022
|
Term deposits < 3 months
|
7 601 022
|
Term deposits > 3 months < 1 year
|
|
Term deposits > 1 year
|
|
Bonds current
|
|
Bonds non-current
|
|
Equity investment (see also point i)
|
1 224 511
|
Other assets (if applicable)
|
|
= Total assets
|
9 787 573
|
Impact of negative interests on ENEF : no impact as at 31/12/2016.
(h) Revenues and repayments;
N/A.
(i) The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
Net Asset Value at 31/12/2016 was EUR 1 224 511.
.
(j) The accumulated figures on impairments / on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
EUR 0
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
ENEF has a fund size of EUR 48,5 million at second closing. Given the association of ENEF to EBRD’s co-financing facility (Local Enterprise Facility) which will always match ENEF investment at a ratio of 1:1, which brings the total expected financing to EUR 97 million; based on that figure, the total expected leverage of ENEF is 8.8 (EUR 97 million/EUR 11 million EU commitment). ENEF has received commitments from the following investors:
- The European Commission (EC) (DG NEAR formerly DG ENLARG) with a contribution of EUR 9,5 million invested via the European Investment Fund by means of a Trusteeship
- The European Investment Fund (EIF) with a contribution of EUR 5 million,
- The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) with a contribution of EUR 24 million (including EUR 3 million from the Italian Investment Special Fund ("IISF")), and
- The Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft (DEG) with a contribution of EUR 5 million.
- The Oesterreichische Entwicklungsbank AG (OeEB) with a contribution of EUR 5 million
The achieved leverage is 0,43 (EUR 4,75 million achieved financing / EUR 11 million EU commitment)..
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l) The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
In the course of 2016, ENEF had its second closing, which marked the end of the fund raising stage. The size of the fund as of end 2016 is EUR 48,5 million.
Until the end of 2016, more than 360 companies were met for assessment of potential deals. From the first contract, at least 12- 18 months are needed to close a deal. The fund manager aims at a realistic rate of 3-4 investments per year.
Pipeline conversion rate has improved in 2016, with more core deals signed during the end of 2016. This conversion from marketing to real pipeline remains however difficult due to, inter alia, limited opportunities for equity deals and a challenging economic situation in the region. Equity deals are often challenging because many of the targeted companies are reluctant to invest – a situation which the investment team hopes to improve following the introduction of a senior loan option into the investment strategy.
Experience shows that higher potential industries remain food processing, retail and niche segments in IT and Telecom as well as export- oriented manufacturing.
After its first investment in June 2015, to Viva Fresh, a retail chain operating in Kosovo (the total amount of the investment is EUR 6 500 000) and a second one in December 2015 in a Bosnian company (the total amount of the investment is EUR 2 000 000) , on 27 May 2016, the ENEF IC approved the third investment of the fund. The recipient is a Serbian company, Delmax, a car and truck parts distributor and retailer. The total amount of the investment is EUR 1 800 000 to be shared between ENEF and EBRD on 50:50, pari passu basis. The next three investments signed in 2016 are in former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EUR 3 million), in Serbia (EUR 1,3 million) and Croatia (EUR 10 million)
As of 31 December 2016, the Fund had drawn down €6,722,001 in five capital calls (EUR 303 001 on 19 June 2014, EUR 1 669 000 on 21 July 2015, EUR 600 000 on 21 March 2016, EUR 1 050 000 on 29 July 2016 and EUR 3 100 000 on 20 October 2016), equivalent to 13,9% of the committed capital.
E -Other key points and issues
· Main issues for the implementation:
oQuality Deal flow: The sufficient deal flow of potential investees is necessary to allow ENEF to invest in viable companies with high growth prospects within the defined Investment Period. Traditionally the economies in the WB region are characterised by companies that are less innovative with low value added products which naturally makes it more difficult to identify viable investee companies.
oLack of knowledge / access to alternative funding instruments in the target region:. the predominant reliance of entrepreneurs on traditional banking products is an inherent characteristic of less developed economies. Such reliance, however, makes entrepreneurs less educated and willing to consider alternatives to traditional funding such as equity funds considering them as “too complicated”; Therefore it could be expected to take more time from deal identification to deal closure in the region than in more developed economies. Indeed, since the launch of the Fund, the EBRD has done the due diligence on a large number of companies, however the mortality rate has been high an only 2 investments were made in the course of 2015. This is the result of lack of knowledge but also due to the often non conform reporting and accounting methods SMEs are using. Under EDIF, the technical assistance service includes actions that aim at harmonising accounting and reporting standards (REPARIS programme by the World Bank) and developing the venture capital environment (Small Business Support programme by the EBRD and Venture Capital Environment programme by the World Bank).
oLack of exit routes: Due to the characteristics explained above and the remote interest of equity funds in the WB region, it will be substantially more difficult to realise exits than in other economies. Thus it is considered more appropriate to use quasi-equity instruments which naturally pre-empt an exit route in their structure. Another consideration with a view of future instruments, is that they could act as a catalyst and attract the attention of regional and pan-European equity players to the WB region by co-investing with them on a deal-by-deal basis while providing certain incentives for the participating investors. The latter could be used to efficiently address both, the shortage of private capital and the difficulties of realising exits due to lack of critical mass of follow-on equity investors.
·Main risks identified:
oFund Management expertise: The local expertise in structuring and managing equity funds is largely underdeveloped in the WB Region leading to a very compressed group of individuals that can adequately make and subsequently manage venture capital investments. In order to address such a shortfall, involvement of specialised investors (International Finance Institutions) is sought to ensure a responsible lay-out and implementation of best industry practices in fund management and selection of the right combination of experts and skill sets for management of such instruments. In the case of ENEF, EBRD has been selected as Investment Adviser responsible for sourcing and structuring deals which are approved by an independent Investment Committee. The overall control and ultimate responsibility of ENEF rests within its Board of Directors comprising the representatives of EIF, DEG and EBRD.
·General outlook:
oFollowing strategic discussions, the ENEF shareholders were approached to amend the legal documentation of the fund in order to allow more flexibility for use of senior debt instruments. The considerations of this amendment were triggered by the EBRD’s concern by the limited availability of equity and quasi equity opportunities in the WB region which it concluded would be improved if an initial link can be established via the use of a senior loan. After receiving formal approval in July 2016, the EBRD utilises this option to work with companies which are dedicated to improving their operations and corporate governance and the investment team has also managed to build a strong external visibility of ENEF, with a solid understanding of the key industries in the region.
oFund performance: the service provider, led by the COO of ENEF has been actively working together with the Board of Directors with regards to improving the investment pace of the fund which has been sluggish in its start due to adverse market conditions. It is expected that with certain measures of flexibility the investment pace during 2017 continues to improve.
5.4.Enterprise Innovation Fund (ENIF) under the Western Balkans Enterprise Development and Innovation Facility (EDIF)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
European Investment Fund as trustee for the European Commission
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 21,2 million
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 21,2 million
|
A -Summary
ENIF focuses on investing in the WB technology companies with high growth potential.
•Stage focus: ENIF invests in companies from seed and early stage to later stage across a spectrum from pre-revenue and very early revenue through companies with established revenues and close to profitability. ENIF aims to invest about 30% of the Fund in SMEs with tickets ranging EUR 500k- EUR 1m, however without limiting the possibility for follow-on investments as well as the overall profit-oriented character of ENIF.
•Sector focus: ENIF targets innovative SMEs in all technology sectors with potential for high growth. In addition, the Fund pays special attention to the ICT sectors (software, telecom, consumer electronics, mobile technologies, Internet and media) due to their high innovation potential in the WB Region.
•Geographical focus: ENIF focuses on the Western Balkans countries, i.e.: Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Croatia (all qualifying for EU or Accession Countries). All of the Fund’s investments will be in SMEs (EU SME definition).
•Capital Deployment: At target size, the ENIF Manager expects to build a diversified portfolio of around 20-25 companies from the entire WB geography. The average investment per company should be in the range of EUR 1 – 1,5 million (provided in several tranches), targeting a stake at entry of ca. 30%.
·Seed Pocket: EIF has proposed and the ENIF Manager has agreed to dedicate an amount of EUR 1,5 million within ENIF to be invested exclusively in 25-30 companies in pre-seed and seed companies across the entire WB Region. Together with the Seed Pocket, the total number of companies to be supported through ENIF at minimum fund size is expected to be 45-55.
·ENIF’s first investment took place in February 2016 and several more followed quickly thereafter.
After ENIF's first closing (September 2015) the second one was completed on 8 April 2016, bringing the total size of the fund to EUR 39,9 million.
No active steps for fundraising have been taken afterwards by the Fund, which is now focusing solely on deploying the investment strategy.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), and in particular Article 14(3) thereof (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 82).
(b) Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Implementation Arrangements
The Commission implements the instrument under indirect management in accordance with Article 139 of the Financial Regulation, while entrusting the implementation tasks to the European Investment Fund (EIF).
The instrument started in 2015. Following an investment period of maximum 5 years, its portfolio will be wound up in a subsequent period of maximum 5 years (up to 2025). The geographical coverage is the Western Balkans in line with the Common Implementing Regulation.
EU added value
At the level of the finance-pooling, ENIF attracts private sector investors to what is perceived as a risky and complex SME market (the Western Balkans) with small, fragmented economies. Furthermore, ENIF diversifies sources of financing for the innovative companies, enabling growth and employment creating investments. ENIF is particularly innovative in that it is to finance the riskiest segments of the SME population, innovative SMEs and start-ups/early stage development, typically of interest to venture capital investors, who have so far avoided the region. Hence, ENIF also serves as a market test for the venture capital investment potential in the region.
(c)The financial institutions involved in implementation;
·EU Commission- EUR 21,2 million (of which EUR 12,5 million investment, EUR 6,2 million direct contribution to the Fund Managers expenses only during the investment period and fees)
·EIF – acting as a trustee on behalf of DG NEAR’s contribution as well as investor in ENIF- EUR 5 million
·EBRD – Investor in ENIF- EUR 5 million
·KfW – Investor in ENIF EUR 8 million
·Beneficiary countries- Investros in ENIF- EUR 2,51 million
·Private Investors – EUR 5,3 million
It should be noted that the EU contribution has not been fully commitment yet because the EIF/ EU contribution could not exceed 50 % of the fund's size. Therefore the remaining EU contribution (EUR 1,6 million) will be incorporated into the fund once its size reaches EUR 40 million.
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 21 200 000
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 21 200 000
Additional Information:
Out of the EUR 21,2 million financial envelope envisaged for the instrument, EUR 0,9 million is a provision for fees to the EIF as the Trustee for the Commission, EUR 6,2 million is a provision for technical assistance (Fund manager) and EUR 14,1 million is earmarked for the equity investments. Out of the EUR 14,1 million, EUR 12,5 million were committed in the first closing, while the rest will be committed in the second closing.
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
ENIF was incorporated in 2015.
Amount of EU Contribution committed to financial intermediaries,
and the corresponding number of financial intermediaries;
|
21 200 000 EUR
1 FIs
|
for risk-sharing instruments, total amount of the risk-sharing, including the EU Contribution, committed to financial intermediaries,
and the corresponding number of financial intermediaries;
|
14 100 000
|
Amount of financing expected to be provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients,
And expected number of eligible final recipients;
|
50 000 000 EUR
|
Amount of financing already provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
|
1 181 000 EUR
5 FIs
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the received financing, if applicable.
|
NA
|
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A.
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account
EUR 19 593 268
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
(55 265)
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
18 419 205
|
Term deposits < 3 months
|
18 419 205
|
Term deposits > 3 months < 1 year
|
|
Term deposits > 1 year
|
|
Bonds current
|
|
Bonds non-current
|
|
Equity investment (see also point i)
|
443 325
|
Other assets (if applicable)
|
786 002
|
= Total assets
|
19 593 268
|
Impact of negative interests on ENIF: no impact as at 31/12/2016.
(h)Revenues and repayments;
N/A.
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
EUR 443 325.
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments / on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
EUR 0
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
The financial envelope of EUR 21,2 million shall leverage a total investment of approximately EUR 40 to 50 million (equalling a total fund size), implying the expected leverage factor of around 2.
The achieved leverage of ENIF is 0,06.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
After its second closing the Fund's size reached ots target size- EUR 39,9 million. ENIF actual investments started in 2017 and for them the fund manager has screened more than 200 deals from the target countries. A stronger deal flow is stemming from Croatia and Serbia with Croatian opportunities mainly being in general more mature than the ones from Serbia. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia also shows reasonably strong deal flow, especially considering the size of the country, whereby most of the opportunities are seed and early stage.
The fund continues to focus on seed and early stage companies in tech-driven companies active in various sectors. Moving forward, more focus will be placed on finding more mature companies with more than EUR 1 million in revenue and a developed organization already in place.
E -Other key points and issues
·The three main critical issues for the implementation:
oInsufficient Deal flow: the sufficient deal flow of potential investees is necessary to allow ENIF to invest in innovative and viable companies with high growth prospects within the defined Investment Period. Traditionally, the economies in the Western Balkans region are characterised by companies that are less innovative with low value add products which naturally makes it more difficult to identify viable investee companies which is even more applicable to companies in seed / start-up phase. To partially address such a problem and ensure building sufficient and quality deal flow to the Fund, it has been envisaged to allocate exclusively EUR 1,5 million under ENIF to be invested in up to 30 pre-seed/seed companies. The latter should be used to test the pre-seed / seed market in the Western Balkans Region with a view of designing and implementing a dedicated facility in the future. The fund gained however pace in 2016 and several investments were signed;
oAnchor investor participation: Fundraising for venture capital has been extremely difficult in Europe following the crisis with 2010 and 2011 seeing the bottom of investor participation in such asset class. The situation in the Western Balkans Region is even more difficult stemming from the underdeveloped market, insufficient deal flow and lack of fund management expertise and track record on the market. Against that background, participation of an anchor investor (such as International Finance Institution) is a catalyst of other private capital by ensuring expertise and implementation of best industry practice. This is the approach taken by ENIF to attract private capital and achieve leverage;
oLack of other venture capital investors to make follow-on / co-investments: Generally, venture capital investors seek the participation of other such investors (syndication) in follow-on rounds as a company develops more and requires further capital injections and expertise. Due to the characteristics explained above and the remote interest of equity funds to the Western Balkans region, it will be substantially more difficult to attract follow-on investors that are normal for venture capital funds, than in more developed markets. To address that problem future instruments could be contemplated to act a catalyst and attract the attention of regional and pan-European equity players to the Western Balkans region by co-investing with them on a deal-by-deal basis while providing certain incentives for the participating investors. The latter could be used to efficiently address both the shortage of private capital and the difficulties of co-investing stemming lack of sufficient and sizeable follow-on venture capital investors in the region.
oAs to overcome some of the challenges described above the Fund has been actively promoted in the target region, in some cases together with local Governments and their agencies or in co-operation with various local organizations working with start-ups and entrepreneurs. As a result ENIF has gotten coverage in the local media in most of the countries in the region, and the investment team members were invited to participate in various start-up events in the region. Activities are also planned under IPA 2017 as to address the demand side of the access to finance and thus help build ENEF and ENIF portfolios.
·Main risks identified:
oFund Management expertise: as outlined above the expertise in the venture capital industry is largely underdeveloped in the Western Balkans region leading to a very compressed group of individuals that can adequately make and subsequently manage venture capital investments; In order to address such a shortfall, involvement of specialised investors (International Finance Institutions) is sought to ensure the lay-out and implementation of best industry practices in fund management and selection of the right combination of experts and skill sets for management of such instruments. In the case of ENIF, EIF has been appointed to select appropriate fund manager and provide support in setting up the fund;
oInvestors in the fund: ENIF was initially structured so that each of the IPA beneficiary governments will make financial contribution in ENIF corresponding to its GDP. It remains critical for the Fund to receive and formalise the outstanding contributions from beneficiary countries, which are necessary for the fund to operate under its envisioned structure (Albania, Bosnia&Herzegovina and Serbia). In addition, KfW identified investment constraints related to the ODA eligibility requirements linked to their participation.
·General outlook:
Progress so far confirms forecasts at the launching of the equity funds under EDIF, namely that in the Western Balkans, venture capital market is in an embryonic stage in terms of experience and best market practices.
ENIF has had a slow start, but is expected to generate a satisfactory number of investments within 2016.
5.5.European Fund for Southeast Europe (EFSE)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
European Investment Fund as trustee for the European Commission
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 26 234 995
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 87 684 935
|
A -Summary
EFSE is a public-private-partnership, attracting private capital and thereby leveraging public donor funds. EFSE extends loans to local commercial banks and micro-finance institutions in the Western Balkans, Turkey and the Eastern Neighbourhood for on-lending to micro and small enterprises and households.
The fund has performed well despite the economic crisis and the overall financial sector situation. ROM and monitoring "in situ" confirm that the fund has a very high penetration down to the end borrowers. NPLs are limited and frequently monitored.
In 2010, the Group of 20 (G-20) selected EFSE as the best worldwide model for catalysing finance for small and medium enterprises (SME) through on-line competition “G-20 SME Finance Challenge”.
EFSE is at "cruising speed" and while the Commission should not withdraw or transfer its shares, which are fundamental to the viability of the project,, it remains to be assessed whether the EU participation in EFSE would need to be increased.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 82).
European Fund for Southeast Europe (EFSE), Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation (CARDS) 2006/018-264, IPA 2007/019-344, IPA 2008/020-300 and IPA 2009/021-373.
(b)Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
The EFSE is a form of public-private-partnership. The Fund aims at fostering economic development and prosperity primarily in the Southeast Europe region but also in the European Eastern Neighbourhood region through the sustainable provision of additional development finance. Its objective is to attract capital from the private sector thereby leveraging public donor funds that will assist the development of the private sector in the region. EFSE extends loans to local commercial banks and micro-finance institutions in the Western Balkans for on lending to micro and small enterprises and households.
Implementation Arrangements
The European Investment Fund (EIF) manages the EFSE.
Furthermore, the EFSE operates through financial intermediaries in the region of Southeast Europe, including the European Eastern Neighbourhood Region. These include commercial banks, microfinance banks, microcredit organisations and non-bank financial institutions such as leasing companies. They on-lend funds received from EFSE to the Fund’s ultimate target group: micro and small enterprises and low-income private households. All of EFSE’s partner lending institutions are carefully selected: In addition to being financially stable, the institutions must treat their clients fairly and in a transparent manner.
The EFSE also has a Development Facility endowed with grants and replenished with reflows to enable technical assistance, consulting and training measures to strengthen financial institutions in the region. It aims to enhance the long-term development impact of the Fund’s investments. The EU contribution does not cover the Development Facility funding.
Added value
The EFSE generates impacts at three different levels:
·supporting micro and small enterprises as the backbone of the local economies, thereby contributing to generating income and creating employment,
·satisfying the basic need of adequate shelter,
·strengthening local financial markets.
(c)The financial institutions involved in implementation:
·European Investment Fund as Trustee for the European Commission
·International Financial Corporation (IFC)
·European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
·KfW Development Bank (KfW)
·Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO)
·Oesterreichische Entwicklungsbank (OeEB)
·European Investment Bank (EIB)
·Sal. Oppenheim
·BN&P Good Growth Fund
·Credit Coopératif
·ESPA VINIS Microfinance
·Steyler Bank
·Versorgungsfonds des Landes Brandenburg
·Finance in Motion
·Deutsche Bank
C -Implementation of the financial instrument
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 87 684 935
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 87 684 935
Additional information: The total amount of the EU contributions to the instrument, i.e. EUR 87 684 935, includes share and cash transfers from pre-existing EU-financed instruments to a value of EUR 51 361 918 at the time of transfer during the period 2006 – 2011.
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
EFSE was subject for Result Oriented Monitoring (ROM) in 2012. Their performance was considered very good in all aspects. EFSE has been an international role model for microfinance funding. The performance so far has been very good with key figures steadily growing and the number of NPLs insignificant.
Amount of EU Contribution committed to financial intermediaries,
and the corresponding number of financial intermediaries;
|
EUR 113 735 538 (NAV of the EU contribution for Southeast Europe)
1 FI
|
for risk-sharing instruments, total amount of the risk-sharing, including the EU Contribution, committed to financial intermediaries,
and the corresponding number of financial intermediaries;
|
113 735 538
|
Amount of financing expected to be provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients * ,
And expected number of eligible final recipients;
* only for Southeast Europe
|
NA
(this is an evergreen fund with unlimited horizon and would therefore be inaccurate to define any total financing amount expected to the provided)
NA
|
Amount of financing already provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of eligible final recipients*
*active end borrowers (Southeast Europe only)
|
120 695 active loans in SEE and 702 790 loans disbursed since inception in Dec 2005 for a total amount of EUR 4.3 billion
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the received financing, if applicable.
|
NA
|
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A.
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account;
N/A.
(h)Revenues and repayments;
N/A.
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
EUR113 735 538 (increase of EUR 210 977 in year)
(j) The accumulated figures on impairments / on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
EUR 0
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
For the Southeast Europe, the financial envelope of EUR 87,7 million has so far leveraged important financial resources. More than EUR 4,3 billion have been disbursed to SEE and borrowed since the inception of the fund in 2005. The achieved leverage implied is 49.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l) The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
Partner Lending Institutions (PLIs) with active investments is 72 for an outstanding investment portfolio by 31 December 2016 of EUR 924,1 million – EUR 523,6 million of which in the Western Balkans and Turkey.
On the TA side, the EFSE Development Facility is managing 51 ongoing projects in the Western Balkan region and Turkey with a total volume of EUR 3,7 million. For example, in Turkey, the EFSE DF is supporting a mid-sized commercial bank in Agriculture Finance to reach out to small holder farmers. Moreover, the EFSE DF has successfully conducted various events to support young start-ups and foster entrepreneurship.
E - Other key points and issues
·Three main issues for the implementation:
·At present EFSE is up and running under stable conditions. To make the fund more robust (following relevant regulations, in particular IPA) the trend has been to move from National allocations to further Regional allocations.
·The Fund Manager has indicated that additional EU participation may need to be considered in the future, including specific allocations for Turkey, the country being a market in its own right.
·Main risks: According to the last reports, EFSE is being implemented successfully and there is need to grow its operations. In order for EFSE to expand its operations more C shares cushion is needed, which is habitually provided by the EU funds. Turkey is the region where additional subordinate shares are needed. The fund manager informed the Commission that operations can be kept up at current level for another year or two and after that replenishment would be necessary for smooth implementation. However, at the moment and with competing budgetary priorities, a replenishment of EFSE is definitely not foreseen in 2017, while it is totally unknown for the following years. The EU contribution and further commitment is vital for the future implementation of the Fund.
·General outlook:
·The Fund has a revolving nature and has an undetermined duration.
·Any addiditonal C-share investment beyond 2018 will need to be based on a market assessment and weighed against the potential implications of the new Financial Regulation, which introduces new rules applicable to the financial instruments.
·In addition, in December 2016 the European Commission and the EIF signed a new delegation agreement (trusteeship agreement) that is compliant to the new financial regulation.
5.6.Green for Growth Fund (GGF)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
European Investment Fund (as Trustee of the European Commission)
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 19,6 million (*)
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 38,6 million (**)
|
(*) appropriations approved by the Budgetary Authority in the Basic Act.
(**) including changes in the course of the programme, as included in the multi-annual financial programming 2014-2020.
A – Summary
The Green for Growth Fund has continued to foster economic development and prosperity in South East Europe and Turkey by providing additional development finance for Energy Efficiency (EE) and Renewable Energy (RE) projects to broaden the financial base for these kinds of investments. Critical milestone of private investor funding was achieved in 2015, and additional private investment continued further in 2016. Private sector investment in GGF is expected to leverage Commission's investments into the region for the development of the EE and RE projects, and is expected to constitute around 25% of the total size of the Fund. The Fund continued achieving much more than the required 20% energy savings and/or 20% CO2 savings across the energy efficiency and renewable energy portfolio.
The current cumulative portfolio of projects with PIs is EUR 489 million, invested in 39 Partner Institutions (“PI”) in 19 Target Partners.
From the perspective of the participating country Partner Institutions (PI), adequate financing for the particular purpose of EE and RE is important in terms of a growing demand at the level of households and Small and Medium-size Enterprises (SME) and a shortage of funds available to lend to these groups in the countries.
B - Description
(a) identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 82).
Crisis Response Package, IPA 2009/021-373
(b) description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
The Green for Growth Fund (GGF) is an innovative fund initiated in 2009 by the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the KfW Entwicklungsbank (KfW) with the support of the European Commission. The Fund provides dedicated financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects to help the target countries reduce CO2 emissions and energy consumption.
This is achieved by lending to businesses and households via financial institutions and through direct funding. The Commission is investing in the GGF on behalf of the beneficiaries, to support the stabilisation of financial markets and economies. These investments are made in the Fund's first-loss tranche ensuring that finance remains available to the public and private energy sector and countries keep high their potential to achieve the Energy Community's energy efficiency and renewable energy targets. The activities of GGF are complemented by a Technical Assistance Facility.
The Financial Instrument of the European Union for energy efficiency and renewable energy (Green for Growth Fund) contributes to achieving the objectives of the Multi-country Indicative Strategy Paper (MCISP) 2014-2020, i.e. support for investments in energy efficiency as a potential key driver of recovery from the economic crisis and sustained economic growth.
GGF's investments seek to achieve a 20% reduction in energy consumption and/or a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions, by:
1) Refinancing Financial Institutions (local commercial banks, non-bank financial institutions such as microfinance institutions and leasing companies and other selected financial institutions) providing loans to households, businesses, municipalities and public sector for energy efficiency measures or renewable energy projects. Investments through Financial Institutions constitute the majority of GGF's investments.
2) Providing direct financing to Non-Financial Institutions (companies, energy service companies, renewable energy companies or projects, small scale renewable energy and energy efficiency service and supply companies) that meet GGF energy saving and/or emissions targets, and comply with the technical criteria and GGF exclusion list.
As an initiative of international financial institutions already active in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energy in the region, the Fund is designed to be complementary to existing programmes and funding sources and contribute to further innovations in financing and expanding the industries in its operating regions.
Implementation arrangements
The Commission implements the instrument under indirect management in accordance with Article 139 of the Financial Regulation. Under indirect management, the Commission may entrust implementation tasks to the following multilateral Development Financial Institution: European Investment Fund (EIF).
Added value of the European Union contribution
C-shares bought by the European Union and the German Government are of highest risk and lowest gains, in order to incentivize the IFIs to by B and A shares, and private sector to buy Private Notes which are, vice versa, of lower risk and higher gains. In this way, the European Union leverages additional IFI and private sector investments.
.
(c) the financial institutions involved in implementation,
The main investors in the Fund, besides the Commission (with the European Investment Fund - EIF as Trustee), are the European Investment Bank (EIB), KfW, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), International Finance Corporation (IFC), German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) (with KfW as Trustee), and the Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO
C- Implementation of the financial instrument
(d) The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 38 633 232
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 38 633 232
Additional information
The financial envelope of the instrument amounts to EUR 38,6 million that was committed and paid out (of which EUR 19 581 014 were contracted as an initial buying of C-shares (with EIF as Trustee) and paid by DG NEAR under centralised indirect management contract, while EUR 19 052 218 were subscribed with a second contract via the Transfer and Delegation Agreement between KfW, EIF, and the European Commission).
(e) The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised; )
Fund Portfolio
The European Commission committed 38,6 million for South East Europe and Turkey, leveraging the total size of the Fund of 411,7 million as of end December 2016. This amount corresponds to the amount of loans expected to be provided to the end beneficiaries.
The current portfolio of active projects is EUR 363,2 million , invested in 39 Partner Institutions (“PI”) in 19 Target Partners, out of which in South East Europe and Turkey 236,2 million with 16 701 final recipients.
88% of the Fund’s committed capital has already been disbursed, committed or approved for investments in PIs. Taking into account schedules repayments and pending new investments in the Fund itself, GGF has sufficient capital to meet these obligations.
The number of Partner Institutions has increased from 32 to 39.
(f) An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
GGF has a self-revolving character – revenue is reinvested, according to the same criteria as for the initial budget envelope. It has indeed been reinvested so.
(g) The balance of the fiduciary account;
N/A
(h) Revenues and repayments (Art.140. 6); (see also Art.38.5 FR in Annex 3 point 4 (b))
N/A
(i) The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
EUR 39 354 625 (at GGF fund level).
(j) The accumulated figures on impairments of assets of equity or risk-sharing instruments, and on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
N/A
(k) The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
The target leverage effect of the Fund at present is in the order of 10,7 (total size of the Fund 411,7 million, divided by EU Contribution). It is estimated that the leverage will generate in excess of EUR 489 million of loans to eligible final recipients.
The achieved leverage is in the order of 11,1 (disbursements/loans to end beneficiaries of 429,9 million divided by EU contribution).
The expected leverage for signed operations is in the order of 12,6 (financing to PIs of 489,6 divided by EU contribution).
D - Strategic importance/relevance of the financial instrument
(l) The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
In 2015, critical milestone of private investor funding achieved with the Gemeinschaftsbank für Leihen und Schenken (GLS) Bank note issuance of EUR 22 million, representing a significant step towards achieving a true PPP structure. In 2016, EUR 69 million of funding was raised from five investors, out of which EUR 44 million Notes with four private investors; private capital is now 17% of total
The GGF contributes in the form of a public-private partnership with a layered risk/return structure, to enhancing energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE) in South-East Europe, Turkey, and Neighbourhood East regions predominantly through the provision of dedicated financing to businesses and households via partnering with financial institutions and direct finance.
The instrument finances Financial Institutions (commercial banks and non-bank financial institutions, such as leasing companies) to finance mainly EE and RE investments in private households and small and medium-sized enterprises; direct financing of Energy Service Companies (ESCOs), small renewable energy projects as well as companies and municipal entities.
Under the Instrument, medium to long-term senior loans, subordinated loans, syndicated loans, letters of credit, guarantees, mezzanine debt instruments, local debt securities and equity can be used.
The Issue Document regulates GGF’s risk diversification by placing limits on the exposure to individual Partner Institutions. These diversification ratios are taking into consideration in the Fund Advisor’s planning and decision-making process of all investments, and are ultimately tracked by the Fund Custodian. At the end of December 2016, GGF is in compliance with all PI limits.
Sub-loan monitoring is done by the Fund Advisor through a combination of internal systems (for loan amounts, maturity, etc.) and the programme eSave (for the energy and CO2 savings) from data provided by the PIs as part of their quarterly reporting requirements. GGF requires its Partner Institutions to monitor and report energy savings and CO2 reductions using an acceptable reporting system.
All PIs are using the eSave system, which was presented to the Board in 2010. In light of the rapid development of the Fund’s investment portfolio, a series of eSave implementation projects was proposed in order to respond to the Fund’s and FIs’ need for a monitoring and reporting tool.
The current cumulative portfolio of projects with PIs is EUR 489 m, invested in 39 Partner Institutions (“PI”) in 19 Target Partners.
Measures financed through GGF funding have produced annualized energy savings of 1,548,436 MWh/year and annualized CO2 reduction of 389,434 tons/year. On average, these measures are 51% and 53% more efficient in terms of emissions and energy consumption respectively. This figure is well in excess of the Fund’s minimum of 20% for each category.
E -Other key points and issues
·Main issues
oAdditional buying of C-shares – the new Delegation Agreement with the EIF has been signed in December 2016, and 20 million euro secured from MC IPA 2016 for additional purchase of C-shares for the operations in the Western Balkans region. Ongoing discussions focus on three issues: tenor of shares (from perpetual to limited), redemption of shares (automatic or upon request), and remuneration (floating or fixed cap of Euribor). One expects the resolution of these issues by end of Q2 2017. In addition, with focus on WBIF co-financing of big infrastructure projects within the Connectivity Agenda, the challenge is to secure appropriate continuation of funding of the GGF and, overall, energy efficiency and renewables.
oCoordination of GGF with other Commission mechanisms – GGF is since late 2014 participating at the regular meetings of the Energy Community's EE Coordination Group (EECG). In this way, the instrument is being coordinated with the other main Commission facility, the Regional EE Programme (REEP), and with other non-Commission EE stakeholders in the region, as well as with the Energy Community. The GGF started reporting on its contribution to the EE and RE targets of the Energy Community. The challenge remains to properly address the EE and RE needs via our two main mechanisms.
oAdditional funding for Turkey – it is the position of the Regional Programmes unit that any additional purchase of C-shares for the GGF's Turkish operations needs to be financed from the national IPA exclusively. The discussion is ongoing, and it remains a challenge if, how, and when this will be possible.
·Main risks
oNone detected on part of the Trustee and the Fund. However, new Financial Regulation has reporting requirements that are beyond either the date or the scope as agreed in the Fund. This discrepancy has been addressed in the new Delegation Agreement with the EIF.
·General outlook
oThe perspective of the sustainable development of GGF is positive, but its full adoption depends on the pace of development and the quality of EE/RE policy and the regulatory frameworks. Equally important is the establishment of the institutional framework which will ensure implementation of these policies and the legislative provisions (independent regulators and enforcement agencies that can guarantee implementation of these common rules).
oThe policy framework varies across countries. In Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia the environmental policy framework is at different stages of development. Important progress in the policy driven agenda in Serbia is evident, while some improvements in Bosnia's policy framework are expected to enable the fund to operate in a more sustainable manner. The necessary liberalisation of the retail electricity price in Albania, BIH and Serbia would create favorable conditions to the fund operations and investments in EE and RE.
oBoth the quality of lending to the PIs and the quantity of energy and CO2 savings are good and contribute to the achievement of the goals of the Fund, and towards the Energy Community targets. The main purpose of the EC contribution to the Fund, (to support the beneficiary countries in the stabilisation of financial markets and economies in the WB and Turkey, thereby alleviating the impact of the global financial and economic crisis in the region) has been achieved, through establishment of the full functionality of the GGF.
oThe particular structure where the EC takes up C shares is to make the Fund attractive to the private investors. Critical milestone of private investor funding was achieved in 2015, with the Gemeinschaftsbank für Leihen und Schenken (GLS) Bank note issuance of EUR 22 million, representing a significant step towards achieving a true PPP structure. In 2016, EUR 69 million of funding was raised from five investors, out of which EUR 44 million Notes with four private investors; private capital is now 17% of total. As the first 4-6 years of implementation are seen as an early stage of the GGF existence, it is expected that the interest of private investors will progressively grow as the results from the increase in disbursements in the last years are made public.
oThe description of the action provided for an interaction with municipalities, but this is not yet taking place. The municipalities in the region have limited technical capacity and chronically limited budgets, but it is expected that they should in the future be more proactive in taking advantage of funds such as the GGF to achieve common goals, like a better integration of the EE/RE solutions within their local development strategies. For the time being, they are state/donor dependent and fragmented. The small, rural municipalities should pursue EE and RE objectives in partnership with neighbouring larger, better off ones. The awareness of the municipalities should be progressively built up and in the long-term they should become the main promoter of the EE benefits to their citizens, following the example of the more advanced EU countries.
5.7.SME Recovery Support Loan for Turkey (RSL)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing Body in charge:
|
EIB (EUR 120 million)
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 30 million
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 30 million
|
A -Summary
The SME Recovery Support Loan Facility for Turkey (RSL) is a joint European Union (EU) /European Investment Bank (EIB) action consisting of blending EUR120 million EIB loan funds allocated with EUR 30 million EU funds, aiming at enabling Turkish banks to expand their SME lending and provide more attractive and longer term lending to SMEs. The Turkish intermediary banks match the amount of finance made available to the final beneficiaries 1:1, hence doubling the final total amount of loans. Up to date the amount of financing provided by the instrument to eligible final recipients is EUR 299,64 million. The project has a “recovery” nature, as part of IPA 2009 Crisis Response Package but is also in line with EU policies for SME sector development and supports Turkey's efforts for preparation in view of EU accession.
From a strategic perspective, the RSL is consistent with the objectives of the Multi-Annual Indicative Planning Document (MIPD) 2008-2010 for Turkey, the Turkish SME Strategy and Action Plan 2007-2009 and the general objective to develop synergies between IPA initiatives and EIB lending activities. The SME Action Plan identified access to finance as one of the main problem for SMEs, which prevents their further growth and harms their competitiveness.
B -Description
(a) Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 82).
Crisis Response Package, IPA 2009/021-373.
(b)Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
The overall objective of the SME Recovery Support Loan for Turkey is to mitigate the crisis impact for SMEs and contribute to the development of the Turkish economy and employment sector. The main objective is to support SMEs with concrete productive investments by providing access to attractive and longer-dated debt financing. The co-financing of loans is to be provided to local commercial banks operating in Turkey (the ‘Financial Intermediaries’) for the benefit of eligible investments carried out by SMEs. In the context of the Action, the European Investment Bank (EIB) shall extend loans from its own resources together with the Union Contribution loans. The SME Recovery Support Loan amounts to EUR 150 million, including EUR 120 million of EIB funds and EUR 30 million of the EU Contributions financed from the IPA funds. EIB contributes with EUR 120 million in lending to the two intermediary banks, Halkbank and Akbank.
Individual SMEs are eligible for financing from a Financial Intermediary using funding available through the Action (each a ‘Sub-Loan’) up to a maximum amount of EUR 5 million and a minimum amount of EUR 200 000 and with a minimum maturity of 4 years.
The Union contribution does not benefit from any guarantee or other security, nor does it bear a higher risk to guarantee/secure the EIB lending. The Union resources are however provided on an interest-free basis to the Financial Intermediaries. The EIB resources and the Union resources will be clearly dissociated from each other but will be disbursed in parallel in order to maintain the ratio of 4/1 between EIB resources and Union resources, hence ultimately reducing the cost of borrowing for all end beneficiaries.
(c)The financial institutions involved in implementation;
EIB is the Commission's risk-sharing partner.
The two intermediary banks are Halkbank and Akbank.
C -Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate budgetary commitments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 30 000 000
Aggregate budgetary payments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 30 000 000
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
The intermediary banks in Turkey for this financial instrument are two:
·Halkbank: Its share of the Facility (EUR 74,82 million) is fully allocated since the end of 2011. The average size of allocation is EUR 0,51 million. The number of jobs created through the financed investments is 2 340;
·Akbank: Its share of the Facility (EUR 74,82 million) is fully allocated since the end of June 2012. The average size of allocation is EUR 0,8 million. The total number of jobs created through the financed investments is 1 780.
The Turkish intermediary banks contribute according to a 1:1 proportion to the loan to the final beneficiaries.
Although there were no set indicators to measure the Recovery Support Loan (RSL) expected outcomes (job creation/maintenance and growth for the beneficiary SMEs) there was an EIB requirement that the SMEs report, at application stage, contained the expected number of jobs to be created following the implementation of the RSL supported projects.
Accordingly, the 265 loans allocated to date are expected to help create more than 4 000 new jobs, which represent a 42% increase of the number of employees of the beneficiary SMEs, compared to the situation before receiving the loans. The average sub-project value is EUR 1,53 million, the average sub-loan size (EIB loans + loans from other FI resources) is EUR 0,67 million and the average individual EIB sub-loan is EUR 0,56 million. Average maturity of loans is 4,4 years, slightly higher than the minimum tenure of 4 years imposed.
Amount of financing expected to be provided by the instrument (including EU contribution committed) to eligible final recipients,
and corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
|
EUR 299,64 million
265 eligible FRs
|
Amount of investments expected to be made by eligible final recipients due to the financing, if applicable
|
N/A
|
Amount of financing already provided by the instrument to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of recipients;
|
EUR 299,64 million
265 eligible FRs
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the financing provided through the instrument, if applicable.
|
N/A
|
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A.
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account;
EUR 18 058 192
In EUR
|
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
18 058 192
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
N/A
|
Term deposits < 3 months (cash equivalent)
|
|
Term deposits > 3 months < 1 year (current assets)
|
|
Term deposits > 1 year (non-current assets)
|
|
Bonds current
|
|
Bonds non-current
|
|
Loans
|
0
|
= Total assets
|
18 058 192
|
Impact of negative interest rates on SME for Turkey Facility : no impact as at 31/12/2016
(h)Revenues and repayments;
Revenues & repayments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 18 058 192
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
N/A.
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments / on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
There are no impairments. The balance sheet value of the instrument at 31/12/2016 is the result of exchange losses and actuarial adjustments as follows:
In EUR
|
Cumulative
|
2016
|
Initial Capital
|
29 640 000
|
|
Exchange Gain/(Loss)
(Turkish lira/euro)
|
(12 798 024)
|
(2 610 138)
|
Interest received
|
10 673 795
|
1 287 022
|
Actuarial Adjustment increase/(decrease)
|
(9 457 579)
|
|
Current Value
|
18 058 192
|
|
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
The target and achieved leverage effect is 1:10 over the lifetime of the financial instrument.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
As at the end of 2016, the Recovery Support Loan contributed to provide nearly 300 million EUR of financing to 265 eligible Final Recipients (SMEs), helping create more than 4 000 new jobs, a 42% increase of the number of employees of the beneficiary SMEs.
The RSL was highly relevant at the time it was proposed but the immediate need had passed by the time it became operational. Attractive, very efficiently implemented and benefiting of reliable credit recipients, the facility has resulted in successful projects, able to produce positive impact at micro level, but unlikely to produce any relevant impact at sector level. The main benefits stem from lessons learned and the opportunity to better shape similar future interventions. The amount available under the facility is very small compared to the size of the Turkish SME market and to the size of the EIB lending in Turkey. There were no logframe or indicators of achievement set for the facility. The only measurable targets set were the number of financial intermediaries to be employed (2-3), the minimum number of SME loans to be achieved (100) and the minimum additional volume of SME loans to be achieved by the financial intermediaries during the initial RSL allocation period (at least twice than the RSL loans). All these could be considered implicit given the features of the facility and the business profile of the Turkish banks envisaged as financial intermediaries.
The geographical scope of the Facility is Turkey only.
E -Other key points and issues
·Main issues for the implementation:
oA 1 year extension was approved for IPA in December 2016 in order to give the EIB the time to explore the existence of the pre-conditions to continue the action with a second round of sub-loans, as already foreseen in the Contribution Agreement signed with the EIB in 2009. The second round of the action would use the Union contribution which has been repaid to EIB by financial intermediaries together with new resources of EIB. A second round is likely to entail an extension of the termination date of at least 3 years. This second round would target the least developed regions in the South-Eastern Turkey.
·Main risks identified:
owell managed project. Risks are only subject to market conditions.
·General outlook:
ono further engagement planned under IPA II.
6.Financial Instruments in Neighbourhood and Countries covered by the DCI
6.1.Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing Body in charge:
|
Eligible Finance Institutions
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 50 million
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 1 678,64 million
|
A – Summary
In general terms, the NIF has proven to be an effective instrument within the European Neighbourhood Policy in particular by leveraging significant financial resources through financial instruments. For the period 2008-2016, the Union contribution of nearly EUR 1,68 billion has leveraged approximately EUR 15,3 billion in loans from European Financial Institutions (EFIs), with total project costs estimated at EUR 29,2 billion.
The NIF strategic objectives are: (1) to increase energy and transport infrastructure and interconnectivity in the region; (2) to address threats to the environment including climate change; and (3) to promote socio-economic development through support for SMEs and the social sector.
The independent Mid-Term Evaluation report of the NIF (see under C[e]) confirms the relevance of NIF funded projects in relation to the NIF strategic objectives. The report notes the steady increase in the number of projects presented and volume of operations, and confirms that the NIF is an efficient instrument which has contributed to increased co-ordination and co-financing among Finance Institutions.
The Mid-Term Evaluation of the NIF also recommends that more attention be devoted to interconnectivity issues as well as to its crosscutting objectives, including a more structured policy dialogue and consultation with civil society.
The Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy of 2015 announces that the EU, in order to further maximise the impact of its support, will seek to leverage considerable additional funding by further enhancing its cooperation with major International Financial Institutions and through the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF).
B- Description
The breakdown of the Current Overall Budget (in EUR million) is as follows:
Commission Decision No
|
Initial Decision
|
East
|
South
|
Top up East
|
Top up South
|
Total
|
C(2007) 6280
|
50,00
|
25,00
|
25,00
|
|
|
50,00
|
C(2008) 2698
|
50,00
|
25,00
|
25,00
|
|
|
50,00
|
C(2009) 3951
|
70,00
|
25,00
|
45,00
|
|
|
70,00
|
C(2009) 8985
|
15,00
|
|
15,00
|
|
|
15,00
|
C(2010) 4400
|
85,00
|
40,00
|
45,00
|
|
|
85,00
|
C(2010) 7989
|
25,00
|
22,00
|
3,00
|
|
|
25,00
|
C(2011) 5547
|
100,00
|
33,30
|
66,70
|
|
|
100,00
|
C(2012) 4533
|
150,00
|
50.00
|
100
|
12,70
|
9,20
|
171,90
|
C (2013) 1276
|
200,00
|
66,70
|
133.30
|
10,50
|
|
210,50
|
C(2013) 5300
|
12,30
|
12,30
|
|
|
|
12,30
|
C(2014) 5750
|
361,70
|
96,40
|
265,30
|
7,70
|
|
369,40
|
C(2015) 2748
|
295,04
|
105,54
|
189,50
|
|
|
295,04
|
C(2016)3436
|
199.50
|
53.00
|
146.50
|
|
|
199.50
|
C(2016)8387
|
25.00
|
25.00
|
|
|
|
25.00
|
TOTAL
|
1638,54
|
579,24
|
1059,3
|
30,90
|
9,20
|
1678,64
|
(a) Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.
Regulation (EU) N° 232/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a European Neighbourhood Instrument.
Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 laying down common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for financing external action.
(b) Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
The Financial Instrument of the European Union for the Neighbourhood Region contributes to achieving the objectives of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) or related EU thematic policy priorities by leveraging additional financing for the region.
The NIF overarching objective is to mobilise additional investments to support the establishment of an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness involving the EU and neighbouring countries. In complementarity with other EU-funded programmes, the NIF can foster a sustainable, inclusive growth and a favourable investment climate in our partner countries.
Within this framework, the NIF pursues three strategic objectives, notably:
·establishing better and more sustainable energy and transport interconnections between the EU and neighbouring countries and between the neighbouring countries themselves;
·addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as threats to the environment more broadly; and
·promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth through support to small and medium size enterprises, to the social sector, including human capital development, and to municipal infrastructure development.
NIF operations focus on five main sectors: Energy, Environment/Climate, Transport, Social sector and Small and Medium Enterprise development. They support investments related to enhancing trade and competitiveness in the EU´s neighbourhood, including the preparation of EU agreements, as set out notably in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Association Agendas / Action Plans.
Geographical coverage and final recipients
European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries directly eligible to the NIF are neighbourhood countries having signed an action plan, except for those that do not qualify because of their level of development. Currently, this encompasses Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine in the Neighbourhood East region, and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia in the Neighbourhood South region. On a case-by-case basis, other countries, which are not directly eligible, may benefit from NIF interventions taking into account regional or specific circumstances. Their eligibility will have to be decided unanimously by Member States and the Commission.
Other final recipients will be the private sector in the partner countries and, in particular the SMEs.
Both multilateral and national European Development financial institutions may be direct partners and important stakeholders of the facility. They will be eligible as lead partners to propose lending operations that could benefit from a NIF support.
Implementation arrangements
The NIF finances different types of operations such as risk capital (equity and quasi-equity investments), risk-sharing instruments, guarantees, loans, investment grants, interest rate subsidies and technical assistance.
Until 2014, implementation of the NIF was possible through the following management modes: centralised management (direct and indirect), joint management, and partially decentralised management. From 2014 onwards, implementation is made according to the modalities foreseen in the new Financial Regulation, mainly through Delegation Agreements with European Financial Institutions (EFIs).
The NIF has, since the beginning of 2011, included a Climate Change Window (CCW) under the Programme on the Environment and the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources including Energy Thematic Programme (ENRTP) of the Development Cooperation Instrument to support the implementation of projects, helping partner countries tackle climate change through mitigation and/or adaptation measures. The NIF CCW is managed in a streamlined way and has in general the same rules and the same financing and implementation modalities as the NIF.
Duration and impact on the budget
The decisions relating to this instrument are valid for the two Multiannual Financial Frameworks of 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 and may be extended further following decisions on the next Multiannual Financial Framework.
The final date for contracting is 31 December 2017 relating to decisions from 2016. This is not the date of duration of the facility but the final date for contracting of the individual decisions financing the facility. The duration of individual projects is established on a case-by-case basis, depending on the type of instrument, with an indicative maximum of 180 months from the date of entry into force of the financing agreement or, when none is concluded, from the adoption of the Annual Action Document financing the NIF.
The budgetary breakdown of EUR 1 678,64 million between the two Neighbourhood sub-regions is as follows:
CRIS reference
|
Cumulated amount of global commitment in EUR
|
Budget line
|
Neighbourhood South
|
ENPI/2007/019548
|
158 000 000,00
|
19 08 01 01
|
ENPI/2011/023086
|
309 220 334,34
|
19 08 01 01
|
ENI/2014/037510
|
265 300 000,00
|
21 03 01 02/03
|
ENI/2015/038303
|
189 500 000,00
|
21 03 01 02
|
ENI/2016/39628
|
146 500 000,00
|
22 04 01 02
|
Total South
|
1 068 520 334,34
|
|
Neighbourhood East
|
ENPI/2007/019549
|
137 000 000,00
|
19 08 01 03
|
ENPI/2011/023087
|
173 200 000,00
|
19 08 01 03
|
ENI/2014/037515
|
104 085 901,58
|
21 03 02 02
|
ENI/2015/038314
|
105 540 000,00
|
21 03 02 02
|
ENI/2016/39629
|
78 000 000,00
|
22 04 02 02
|
Total East
|
597 825 901.58
|
|
Sub-total
|
1 666 346 235,92
|
|
ENPI/2013/024746 (SUDeP, cf. note under "Current Overall Budget")
|
12 300 000,00
|
19 08 01 03
|
Total
|
1 678 646 235,92
|
|
Added value
The NIF provides a simple, clear, structured mechanism to examine and approve blending projects to the benefit of Neighbourhood countries. Through the use of the NIF for the examination of all blending projects in the Neighbourhood, the Commission ensures that:
·equal treatment is given to all projects and all partner financial institutions,
·competition is promoted between projects in terms of their value for money,
·all projects are examined according to an agreed set of fundamental parameters, notably regarding their leverage, additionality and compliance with EU principles and EU policy objectives.
The expected results of the NIF are increased investment in the following sectors contributing to:
1)Better transport infrastructure,
2)Better energy infrastructure,
3)Increased protection of the environment and better focus and control of climate changes impacts,
4)Improved social services and infrastructures,
5)Creation and growth of SMEs and improvement of the employment situations.
The NIF is a blending facility composed of several operations that could take any of the following forms: technical assistance, investment grant, equity or guarantee. The operations mentioned in the following list are those involving a guarantee or an equity participation for which a fiduciary account has been opened on our behalf by a partner institution (projects signed before 31/12/2016):
·Risk Capital Facility for the Southern Neighbourhood countries (EIB);
·SEMED MSME Financial Inclusion Programme (EBRD);
·Women in Business (EBRD);
·Eastern Partnership SME Finance Facility (Phase II) (EBRD);
·EU Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) Facility (EBRD window);
·DCFTA Facility (EIB window);
·Participation in MENA Fund for Micro-, Small and Medium Enterprises (SANAD) (KfW);
·Participation in Green for Growth Fund - Extension to NIF East Region (EIB);
·Participation in European Neighbourhood Fund window of the European Fund for South East Europe (EFSE) (KfW);
·Armenia SME Finance and Advice Facility (EBRD).
(c)The Financial Institutions involved in implementation;
The entrusted budget implementation tasks consist in the implementation of procurement and grants following the rules of the Leading Financial Institution, which is also entrusted with the residual tasks of ex ante or ex post controls. Payments may be executed by the Leading Financial Institution.
The Commission may entrust implementation tasks to the following Financial Institutions:
·Multilateral European Finance Institutions: currently, the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB), the Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO) and the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB);
·European bilateral development finance institutions from one of the Member States: currently, the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), the Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (AECID), the KfW Entwicklungsbank (KfW) and the Società Italiana per le Imprese all'Estero (SIMEST).
C- Implementation
(d)The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate Budgetary Commitments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 1 678 646 235
of which: Aggregate budgetary commitments invested in financial instruments (legal commitments): EUR 185 100 000
Aggregate Budgetary Payments as at 31/12/2016EUR 757 174 330
of which: Aggregate budgetary payments for financial instruments (legal commitments : 53 805 000).
Budgetary commitment appropriations for year 2018: to be decided later in view of the repartition of funds under budget lines22 04 01 02— Mediterranean countries and 22 04 02 02— Eastern Partnership.
Budgetary payment appropriations for year 2018: cannot be determined yet.
(e)The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
The NIF has demonstrated to be a successful operation throughout the nine years of its existence so far. It has fully delivered on its objectives, detailed in section B), by creating a favourable environment for investments to be made on its priority sectors and countries to a scale never achieved in previous years and which would be difficult to achieve without the Facility.
Between 2008 and 2016, a grand total of 123 projects have received final approval for NIF financing. About EUR 1,67 billion (from EU budget and NIF Trust Fund) have been blended with about EUR 15,28 billion of funding by European Financial Institutions to projects approved during this period. This amounts to an achieved financial leverage of around 9,1. The total investment cost of these projects is estimated at about EUR 29,22 billion.
In 2016, the Board of the NIF gave positive opinions on contributions to 12 new projects. EUR 224,5 million (all from EU budget and none NIF Trust Fund) have mobilised EUR 1,45 billion from eligible EFIs, with a leverage rate of around 6,48. The total investment cost of these projects is estimated at EUR 1,95 billion.
In addition to the financial leverage, the NIF has also given projects considerable qualitative leverage. Although these are not financially measurable, the benefits are both socio-economic and environmental in nature.
Because of that mobilisation capacity, the Commission is increasingly channelling ENI funds through the NIF, as portrayed in the steady increase of the annual NIF funding.
The Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) of the NIF under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument 2007-2013 was finalised in May 2013. It focussed on the analysis of the mechanism and its procedures since its inception until the end of 2011. The evaluation was carried out based on the following OECD/DAC evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.
The MTE report stated that the NIF has proven to be an effective instrument within the European Neighbourhood Policy and highlights that the NIF achieved its goal of leveraging significant financial resources through grants. The executive summary notes “a steady increase in number of projects and volumes of allocations” and “effective coordination amongst Financial Institutions.”
(f)An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
Not yet applicable.
(g)The balance of the fiduciary account (in EUR);
Risk Capital Facility for the Southern Neighbourhood countries (EIB)
|
0
|
SEMED MSME Financial Inclusion Programme (EBRD)
|
14 999 689
|
Women in Business (EBRD)
|
4 544 131
|
Eastern Partnership SME Finance Facility (Phase II) (EBRD)
|
0
|
EU Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) Facility (EBRD window)
|
9 359 814
|
DCFTA Facility (EIB window)
|
0
|
Participation in MENA Fund for Micro-, Small and Medium Enterprises (SANAD) (KfW)
|
34 832
|
Participation in Green for Growth Fund - Extension to NIF East Region (EIB)
|
1 866 864
|
Participation in European Neighbourhood Fund window of the European Fund for South East Europe (EFSE) (KfW)
|
0
|
Armenia SME Finance and Advice Facility (EBRD)
|
0
|
(h)Revenues and repayments;
Reflows in 2016: EUR 0
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
SANAD fund for MSME-Debt Sub Fund in USD
Market Value as of 31/12/2013:9 311 447 USD
Market Value as of 31/12/2014:7 826 972 USD
Market Value as of 31/12/2015:6 928 299 USD
Market Value as of 31/12/2016:5 414 798 USD
SANAD fund for Equity Sub Fund in USD
Market Value as of 31/12/2013:722 234 USD
Market Value as of 31/12/2014:1 973 318 USD
Market Value as of 31/12/2015:2 666 474 USD
Market Value as of 31/12/2016:3 351 973 USD
EFSE-SICAV SIF Fund in EUR
Market Value as of 31/12/2013:5 061 483 EUR
Market Value as of 31/12/2014:4 981 305 EUR
Market Value as of 31/12/2015:4 904 127 EUR
Market Value as of 31/12/2016:4 804 169 EUR
Green for Growth Fund, SICAV-SIF in EUR
Market Value as of 31/12/2014:10 198 244 EUR
Market Value as of 31/12/2015:10 427 646 EUR
Market Value as of 31/12/2016:9 944 146 EUR
(j)The accumulated figures on impairments of assets of equity or risk-sharing instruments, and on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
EUR 0
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
Commission Implementing Decisions C(2016)3436 has been adopted on 20 May 2016 for a contribution of EUR 199,50 million and C(2016)8387 on 7th December 2016 of EUR 25 million.
The target leverage effect indicated in that Decision for NIF contributions is 4 to 5 over the lifetime of the NIF. This target leverage effect has been kept (or exceeded, notably for SME support projects) throughout the different NIF Commission Decisions since 2008.
The NIF achieved leverage for the period 2008-2016 is estimated at around 9,1 (see details under C[e] above).
The NIF expected leverage for 2016 is estimated at around 6,48 (see details under C[e] above).
D - Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
The NIF has proven to be an effective instrument within the European Neighbourhood Policy and achieved its goal of leveraging significant financial resources through financial instruments.
As at the end of 2016, the NIF has provided nearly EUR 1 678 million (from EU budget and NIF Trust Fund) of financing for a grand total of 123 projects and has had thus an important impact on the real economy of the EU's partner countries (see details on figures under C[e] and on beneficiaries under B[b] above).
NIF projects are overall relevant to NIF strategic objectives. Following recommendations of the Mid-Term Evaluation report, establishing better and more sustainable energy and transport interconnections has become a special focus area for the use of NIF funds. The related policy dialogue within a more strategic approach to EU support in the respective sector needs further strengthening.
There is a relatively balanced geographical and sectorial distribution of projects. A two-thirds/one-third principle is applied with a view to repartition of funds between Neighbourhood South and Neighbourhood East. Also following an MTE recommendation, work is ongoing to establish a system which could allow for prioritisation of projects according to their relevance and expected impact, thus making the project pipeline process more strategic and predictable.
The NIF in has significantly contributed to the development of partnerships and increased co-ordination between the Financial Institutions and the Commission, as well as amongst the Financial Institutions themselves.
In terms of project design, sound processes and good standards implemented by Financial Institutions were observed. Social, environmental and climate change concerns were adequately addressed in the appraisal process.
The three-tiered governance of the instruments has been effective.
The DG NEAR Internal NIF Rules of Procedures have streamlined the project assessment procedure both within the Commission services and between the Commission and the EFIs.
The MTE also recommended strengthening communication and visibility aspects. Visibility clauses were included in NIF contracts. Overall, visibility needs to be reinforced through the development of a communication and visibility strategy and action plan, in close coordination with key stakeholders. In this respect, efforts are undertaken to combine visibility actions under similar projects under one umbrella branding, such as the EU SME Flagship Initiative in the Eastern Neighbourhood or the EU Initiative for Financial Inclusion in the Southern Neighbourhood.
Reflecting Court of Auditors'' and EUBEC recommendations, the added value and additionality of the EU grant provided to NIF projects should be clearly determined from the outset, so that the reasons of financing each project through the NIF are clear to everyone involved in the NIF approval process. This constitutes one of the main points of assessment of project proposals and the respective recommendations to the Board.
The findings of the MTE have been used, with other reports, by the Platform for Blending in External Cooperation (EUBEC), which was set up in December 2012 and covers various different EU facilities. The evaluation recognised the relevance of EUBEC and recommended continued support to its development. The conclusions of the EUBEC policy group of December 2014 are now almost fully reflected in the functioning and structure and operations of the NIF, with some outstanding points to be addressed (see below).
The same holds true for the recommendations issued by the Special Report 16/2014 of the Court of Auditors on "The effectiveness of blending regional investment facility grants with Financial Institution loans to support EU external policies" and the European Parliament 2013 Discharge recommendations
E - Other key points and issues
·Main issues
oCo-ordination with the EU Delegations, although steadily improving over the last years, could still be further improved. Finance Institutions should strengthen their liaison with EU Delegations during early stage definition of the projects; this will allow room for the creation of synergies and efficiency. Delegations and Headquarters need to undertake further efforts to send concurring messages to IFIs, both on strategic priorities and specific projects.
oThere is also still room for improvement of the monitoring and evaluation functions. The MTE recommended introducing a results-based monitoring system to be applied to all NIF projects. Currently, blending projects undergo general ROM monitoring. However, a method has been developed by the Commission that takes into account blending project specificities. This method will be tested in the course of 2017 in 15 pilot projects.
oThe Financial Regulation introduces rules specific to financial instruments. These rules have been applicable since 2014. The Financial Regulation provides an important improvement in the legislative framework through the definition of concepts and principles, the simplification of the management modes used for blending and the possibilities created for using innovative financing tools.
·Main risks
Framework Agreement and contracting templates have been negotiated with the European Financial Institutions, last in 2016. There was no negative effect on contracting of approved projects.
·General outlook
With the decision on the European External Investment Plan it is expected that financial allocations to the regional investment facilities will substantially increase over the next years. The NIF will continue to channel funds from the National or Regional Indicative Programs through the blending mechanisms. The expected raise in funds is, among other motives, related to the context of the ongoing refugee crisis blending operations may usefully contribute to stabilisation responses in crisis or post-crisis situations, especially when it comes to economic recovery or concerning local infrastructure investments and reconstruction needs.
6.2.Investment Facility for Central Asia (IFCA) & Asian Investment Facility (AIF)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG DEVCO
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG DEVCO
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
Eligible Financial Institutions
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 50 000 000
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 348 567 000
|
Envisaged overall budget for IFCA and AIF concerning the period 2014-2020:
|
EUR 480 000 000 (out of which EUR 140 000 000 for IFCA and EUR 340 000 000 for AIF)
|
A -Summary
In general terms IFCA and AIF have proven to be effective instruments, in particular by leveraging significant financial resources through the Union contributions under both Facilities.
Key investments are essential to implement reform strategies in line with the EU-Asia and Central Asia policy framework. Blending loans supported by the European Financial Institutions and by the Commission will be an important tool in the post 2015 financial perspective to address the investment needs, notably, in energy efficiency, environment, water, climate change mitigation, and SME development.
For IFCA the Commission contributions of EUR 143 million supported a total investment volume of circa EUR 970 million, including also other public and private investments.
For AIF the Commission contributions of EUR 142 million supported a total investment volume of circa EUR 3 152 million, including also other public and private investments.
B -Description
The breakdown of the current overall budget is as follows:
Decision Reference
|
Cumulated amount of global commitment (maximum envelope)
|
Budget line
|
Investment Facility for Central Asia (IFCA)
|
ACA/2010/021-627
|
20 000 000
|
19 10 02
|
ACA/2011/023-117
|
45 000 000
|
19 10 02
|
ACA/2013/024-950
|
20 567 000
|
19 10 02
|
ACA/2014/037-538
|
20 000 000
|
21 02 03
|
ACA/2015/038-116
|
40 000 000
|
21 02 03
|
ACA/2016/039-632
|
20 000 000
|
21 02 03
|
TOTAL
|
165 567 000
|
|
Asia Investment Facility (AIF)
|
ACA/2011/022-036
|
15 000 000
|
19 10 01 01
|
ACA/2011/022-036
|
15 000 000
|
19 10 01 01
|
ACA/2013/024-917
|
30 000 000
|
19 10 01 01
|
ACA/2014//037-548
|
22 000 000
|
19 10 01 01
|
ACA/2014/037-548
|
31 000 000
|
21 02 02
|
ACA/2014/038-088
|
25 000 000
|
21 02 02
|
ACA/2015/038-088
|
20 000 000
|
21 02 02
|
ACA/2016/039-604
|
25 000 000
|
21 02 02
|
TOTAL
|
183 000 000
|
|
In comparison to the 2015 for IFCA the budget has increased with EUR 20 million during 2016 whereas the budget for AIF has increased with EUR 45 million during 2016. AIF has been recreated in 2014 for the Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020, with an initial financing decision of EUR 22 million, whereas IFCA was recreated by the end of 2014 through a new financing decision of 20 million under the budget 2015. A total amount of EUR 140 million for IFCA and of EUR 340 million for AIF are foreseen for the current MFF.
(a) Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act
Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation, (OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 41). Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation for the period 2014-2020, (OJ L 77, 15.04.2014, p. 44), Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 laying down common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for financing external action, (OJ L 77, 15.04.2014, p. 95).
Based on the first results from the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF), the Commission proposed to set up investment facilities targeting countries under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) Regulation, initially in Central Asia, Asia, and Latin America. Two facilities were set up for Asia: the Investment Facility for Central Asia (IFCA) in 2010 and the Asian Investment Facility (AIF) in 2011. Those two facilities have been modelled based on the NIF and have the same types of objectives and scope as those defined in the NIF General Framework agreed in March 2008 (cf. section of this report on NIF)
(b) Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution
Policy objectives and scope
The IFCA's main objective is to promote sustainable regional development and economic growth by providing funding for key infrastructures with a priority focus on energy, environment, SME development and social infrastructure. The AIF's main objective is the promotion of a green economy through the leverage of additional investments and key infrastructure with a priority focus on climate change relevant and "green" investments in areas of environment, energy as well as in SME's and social infrastructure. In addition, capital may be provided in particular to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and to social sector investments.
Geographical coverage and final recipients
The final recipients of these two facilities are the countries of those two regions. IFCA aims to implement investments in five partner countries in Central Asia: Kazakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. As regards AIF, partner countries are Asian countries eligible under the Regional Indicative Programme for Asia being Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. Other final recipients will be the private sector and, in particular SMEs.
Main technical characteristics
The types of operations to be financed can be the following:
·investment co-financing in public infrastructure projects,
·loan guarantee cost financing,
·interest rate subsidy,
·technical assistance,
·risk capital operations,
·any other risk-sharing instruments.
As regards risk capital operations, guarantees or any other risk sharing mechanisms, the risk-sharing involves the utilisation of financial resources by the Commission (from the EU contribution) and the entrusted entity and consequentely sharing losses and gains primarily from underlying debt assets, while in some cases from equity assets as well.
Implementation arrangements at Blending framework level
In order to improve the effectiveness of blending operations (including the ones for IFCA and AIF) in meeting their policy objectives of poverty reduction and socio-economic development as well as the efficiency of their management including a reduction of transaction costs, it was agreed in the context of the EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation (EUBEC) to organise four blending "frameworks" according to the financing instruments (EDF – ENI – DCI – IPA). At the same time, in order to be able to address the different regional strategic priorities, to increase policy leverage and effectively use blending operations for policy dialogue, and for reporting purposes, it was agreed to designate under each framework geographically defined "facilities". The financing comes essentially from the regional programmes defined under the different instruments, in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the programming documents, in dialogue with partner countries and relevant regional organisations. Where relevant and appropriate, financing could also come from specific national/regional programmes, to support priorities and objectives in these countries/regions as defined in the relevant programming documents. Should there be an interest from Members States or other donors to contribute to blending operations, this will be done through dedicated fund(s). There is one single governance structure for each blending framework, governing Commission funds as well as EU Members States or other donor’s contributions through dedicated funds. Decision making is organised in a two-level structure. Opinions on projects proposals are formulated at the Board level. Such opinions are prepared by a technical level assessment. Boards, chaired by the Commission, include the EEAS, the EU MS as voting members, and Financial Institutions as observers. They are responsible for formulating opinions on individual blending operations, providing guidance to participating institutions, monitoring and reviewing the project pipeline, examining project related results and monitoring the portfolio of approved projects, as well as drawing on the specific expertise of the Financial Institutions as appropriate, ensuring division of labour. The technical assessment of project proposals includes regular technical meetings chaired by the Commission (involving relevant DGs as appropriate) with the participation of EEAS and Financial Institutions that discuss the pipeline and assess the projects to be submitted to the Boards.
Implementation arrangements
Individual projects financed under IFCA and AIF are implemented through indirect management mode. This means that the Commission delegates budget implementation tasks to eligible Financial Institutions which have successfully undergone an ex-ante assessment in accordance with Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012.
Budget implementation tasks consist of the launch of public procurement and grant award procedures and of concluding and managing the resulting contracts as well as execution of payments. The entrusted Member State agency or international organisation shall also monitor and evaluate the project and report on it.
In addition, budget-implementation tasks may be sub-delegated by the entrusted entity to the partner country in accordance with Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2014. The entrusted budget-implementation tasks shall be carried out according to the rules assessed and approved by the Lead Financial Institution.
Climate Change Window
Addressing climate change issues, both mitigation and adaptation, will require a huge amount of funds. According to the Commission Communication of September 2009 "Stepping-up international climate finance," the financial needs for developing countries could reach about USD 100 billion per year by 2020. Hence, that Window is applicable to all the EU Blending Facilities.
Added value
EU added value of IFCA and AIF can occur at different levels e.g:
I.at the strategy and policy level, IFCA and AIF provide policy leverage, enhance the supply of public goods, increase EU visibility, assist in managing debt sustainability thresholds and contribute to aid effectiveness;
II.at the financial level, IFCA and AIF provide financial leverage, help mitigate risks and lower borrowing costs and provide flexibility to tailor assistance to financing needs;
III.at the operational level, IFCA and AIF stimulate financial discipline, efficient administration and monitoring, enable the acceleration of projects, improve project quality and increase donor coordination.
In addition, the expected results for both facilities are increased investments in the following sectors contributing inter alia to:
1)better energy infrastructure, notably:
·improved transit connections between Asian countries, thus increasing security of energy supply for Asian countries;
·improved safety and security of energy infrastructure;
·improved energy efficiency and energy savings;
·increased production and use of renewable energy (wind, solar energy).
2)Increased protection of the environment and better focus and control of climate changes impacts, notably:
·introduction of integrated water management, including necessary related infrastructure;
·reduction of air, soil and water pollution including monitoring infrastructure when needed;
·increased forest protection including by strengthening forest governance;
·promotion of climate change related investments, i.e. renewable energy, energy saving and cleaner production and other environment friendly techniques;
·promotion of integrated waste management (household, municipal and industrial) including necessary related infrastructures.
3)Creation and growth of SMEs and improvement of the employment situations:
·better access to financing for SMEs (availability of a larger range of financial products than currently available) at the different stages of enterprise creation, restructuring, modernisation, etc.;
·creation of technological poles, enterprise incubators, etc.
4)Improved social services and infrastructures:
·better access to health care and improved health services installations in urban and rural areas;
·better education facilities, increased access to education in urban and rural areas;
·improve vocational training facilities.
And in addition for the AIF:
5)better transport infrastructure, notably in the area of climate change relevant and "green" investments:
·better (faster, cheaper and safer, environmental friendly) transport infrastructure within beneficiary countries and between them;
·better interconnection between Asian countries;
·faster and cheaper movement of people and goods within Asia.
Expected results and impacts are further specified at individual project level for each proposal submitted for examination under the facility.
(c) The financial institutions involved in implementation
The main entrusted entities to which the Commission delegates the implementation of the projects financed under IFCA and AIF are multilateral and national European financial institutions. They are eligible to ensure the role as a Lead financial institution to propose lending operations that could benefit from AIF and IFCA support.
Multilateral finance institutions such as the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) are eligible for both Facilities. Regional financial institutions active in Asia, like the Asian Development Bank, may be associated in projects supported by AIF. For IFCA, the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB) is also eligible. Eligibility of other multilateral finance institutions will be examined on a case-by-case basis.
National European development finance institutions such as the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), the Cassa depositi e prestiti (CDP) and the Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (AECID) are already eligible under the AIF and IFCA.
C -Implementation
(d) The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget
Aggregate Budgetary Commitments as 31/12/2016:
|
IFCA: EUR 165 567 000
|
AIF: EUR 183 000 000
|
TOTAL: EUR 348 567 000
|
Aggregate Budgetary Payments as 31/12/2016 EUR
|
IFCA: EUR 81 947 112
|
AIF: EUR 50 168 615
|
TOTAL: EUR 132 115 727
|
(e) The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised
IFCA
Through IFCA the Commission has until the end of 2016 approved funding for 22 new projects (corresponding to 25 proposals) amounting to EUR 143 million of EU contribution. These projects have mobilised another EUR 605 million from European financial institutions and reached a total investment volume of EUR 970 million, including also other public and private investments. Four of the projects are implemented in Kazakhstan, eight in the Kyrgyz Republic, two in Tajikistan, two in Turkmenistan, one in Uzbekistan and five have a regional implementing dimension.
In 2016, two new projects (corresponding to three proposals) were approved through a Commission Decision following positive opinion of the DCI Blending Framework for IFCA and totalling to EUR 24 million. The overall investment cost of these projects reached EUR 140 million, mobilising another EUR 53 million from eligible European Finance Institutions.
As of end 2016 and based on projects that have received Board's positive opinion, around 61,1% of the facility contribution to the project was in the form of investment grant, 30,5% as technical assistance and 8,4% in the form of risk-sharing instruments.
AIF
AIF has until the end of 2016 committed a total of 142 million for 24 projects thereby mobilising EUR 1 782 million from European financial institutions. The total investment costs of these projects amount to EUR 3 152 million. The countries where those projects are implemented are Bangladesh (four), Vietnam (three), India (two), Myanmar (two), Pakistan (two), Indonesia (two), Nepal (one), Cambodia (one), Philippines (one), Sri Lanka (one), Laos (one) and Mongolia (one). In addition to these, three projects are of regional character.
In 2016, six new projects were approved trough a Commission Decision following positive opinion of the DCI Blending Framework for AIF totalling EUR 53 million. The total investment cost of these projects reached more than EUR 531 million, mobilising EUR 349 million from eligible European Finance Institutions.
Another project received the positive opinion of the Board in November 2016 for an AIF contribution before fees of EUR 5 million (Commisison decision to be taken after 2016). The total cost of this project is circa EUR 27 million.
As of end 2016 and based on projects that have received Board's positive opinion, around 33,0% of the facility contribution to the project was made in the form of investment grant, 57,5% as technical assistance and 9,5% in the form of risk-sharing instruments.
(f) An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6
N/A for IFCA and AIF.
(g) The balance of the fiduciary account
EUR 9 229 960
N/A for IFCA and AIF.
MIFA Debt Fund (“Microfinance Initiative for Asia” funded under both IFCA and AIF).
MIFA (in EUR)
|
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
0
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
N/A
|
Term deposits < 3 months
|
|
Term deposits > 3 months < 1 year
|
|
Term deposits > 1 year
|
|
Bonds current
|
|
Bonds non-current
|
|
Equity investment (see also point i)
|
9 229 960
|
Other assets (if applicable)
|
|
= Total assets
|
9 229 960
|
Impact of negative interest rates on IFCA AIF: no impact as at 31/12/2015.
SMED – Support for Mongolian economic diversification (in EUR)
|
Balance on the fiduciary account
(as per 31/12/2016 provisional accounts)
|
1 500 008
|
(h) Revenues and repayments
N/A for IFCA and AIF.
(i) The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years
MIFA Debt Fund (“Microfinance Initiative for Asia” funded under both IFCA and AIF)
Equity investments in USD*
|
31.12.2016
|
31.12.2015
|
C2 shares
|
6 885 872
|
6 833 522
|
C3 shares
|
2 843 429
|
2 818 715
|
* The value in USD is the equivalent of the EUR 9 229 960 equity investment in point g (see above).
(j) The accumulated figures on impairments / on called guarantees for guarantee instruments
N/A for IFCA and AIF.
(k) The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect
·For 2007-2016:
oIFCA
The achieved leverage effect based on historical leverage experience during the period 2010-2016 (since the Facility was only created in 2010) for the IFCA was 6,8 (total project cost = circa EUR 970 million/IFCA contributions = EUR 143 million).
oAIF
The achieved leverage effect based on historical leverage experience during the period 2011-2016 (since the Facility was created only in 2011) for the AIF was 22,2 (total project cost = circa EUR 3 152 million/AIF contributions = EUR 142 million).
·For 2014-2020:
oIFCA
The target leverage effect as indicated in the ex-ante evaluation of IFCA is 4 to 5 over the lifetime of the IFCA (2014-2020), based on the leverage attained since its creation.
On the basis of the target leverage of the instrument, it is estimated that the total amount of EUR 140 million foreseen for the concerned period, investments/loan volumes mobilised would range from EUR 560 million to 700 million for the entire duration of the Facility. Thus, the investment leverage ratio used is equal to the value of investment (total project cost) divided by the total amount of the EU blending facility contribution relating to the investment leverage.
oAIF
The target leverage effect as indicated in the ex-ante evaluation is 4 to 5 over the lifetime of the AIF (2014-2020), based on the leverage attained since its creation.
On the basis of the target leverage of the instrument, it is estimated that the total amount of EUR 340 million foreseen for the concerned period, investments/loan volumes mobilised would range from EUR 1,4 billion to 1,7 billion for the entire duration of the Facility. Thus, the investment leverage ratio used is equal to the value of investment (total project cost) divided by the total amount of the EU blending facility contribution relating to the investment leverage.
The facility cannot accurately report yet on achieved leverage, since the number and size of projects concluded so far are not enough to provide a sizeable sample to the achieved leverage of the instrument. However, we expect the final achieved leverage not to be too far from the expected leverage mentioned above for the first years of the instrument.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l) The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
IFCA
As at the end of 2016, IFCA already contributed to finance 22 projects with a total investment cost of nearly EUR 970 million and had thus an important impact on the real economy of our partners as described below. IFCA contributions during the same period amounted to EUR 143 Million.
AIF
As at the end of 2016, AIF contributed to finance 24 projects with a total investment cost of nearly EUR 3 152 million and had thus an important impact on the real economy of our partners as described below. AIF contributions during the same period amounted to EUR 142 million.
Operations financed by financial institutions pooling their loan resources in consortia with AIF support has allowed an increase in risk and credit ceilings to the benefit of Asian countries and promote the financing of categories of investments which at present cannot be financed either by the market or by the development financial institutions separately.
E -Other key points and issues
· Main issues for implementation: for both Facilities
oA stable political and security climate at the regional level in general and at the country level in particular is needed to promote and secure investments. Partner countries must be ready to increase the level of investments through their own resources as well as through loans. The pipeline of operations must be of sufficient quality and volume and supply sufficient EU additionality. Strong commitment is needed from recipients (for IFCA). Financial Institutions' capability to provide sufficient loan amounts also depends on the availability/accessibility of financial guarantees/grant resources in countries with a concessionality requirement (for AIF).
oThe financial allocation to the regional investment facilities will substantially increase during the ongoing programming period. For IFCA, an amount of EUR 140 million is foreseen whereas the expected allocation for AIF amounts to EUR 340 million. To these amounts, funds from the National Indicative Programmes may be added. The management of such an increase represents a significant challenge for the Commission.
oOne of the priorities for the current programming period, in line with the Agenda for Change, is a higher share of EU aid to be channelled through facilities for blending grants and loans. A greater use of financial instruments such as guarantees, equity and other risk-sharing instruments is one way to use the catalytic effect of blending in crowding in more private financing.
oThe Facilities will continue to operate by providing support for loans to partner countries from EIB, and from other multilateral and national development financial institutions. By financing technical assistance and providing complementary grants, the Facility will encourage the recipient governments and institutions to make essential investments, which would otherwise be postponed due to lack of resources.
oAIF will also provide better access to finance for Small and Medium Enterprises, and include investments in the transport sector, as well as contributing to the ASEAN Connectivity Master Plan
oEUBEC Platform: The EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation (EUBEC) was launched as an EC Expert Group on 14 December 2012. The objective of the EUBEC is to improve the quality and efficiency of EU development and external cooperation blending mechanisms, taking due account of the policy frameworks that govern the EU relations with the different partner countries, notably EU Development, Neighbourhood and Enlargement policies.
The EUBEC should provide guidance for the harmonisation of key principles regarding blending activities whilst allowing for differentiation by sectors and regions. It should focus on sectors where financial instruments can be most usefully deployed, within and across geographical regions, and help to strengthen the coherence of blending activities with EU policies.
The EUBEC works through the Policy Group (PG) that is chaired by the EC and composed of representatives of the EU Member States and the European External Action Service (EEAS), with the European Parliament (EP) and the Financial Institutions (FIs) involved in the technical work as observers. Technical work is pursued by the EC services, the EEAS, FIs and a number of representatives from Member States, as well as the EP.
In 2016, two specific Technical Groups (TGs) presented their conclusions, one focusing on the mobilisation of private sector resources and the other on the fight against climate change. A Technical Meeting on the Use of Blending to Tackle the Root Causes of Economic Migration was held in May 2016. The Policy Group in June 2016 presented the first basis of the External Investment Plan (EIP) following the EC Communication on establishing a new Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration.
·Main risks:
oAn evaluation of blending was finalised in 2016 and published on 3 April 2017. It covers EU support through seven investment facilities over the period 2007-2014: EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund; Neighbourhood Investment Facility; Latin American Investment Facility; Caribbean Investment Facility; Investment Facility for Central Asia; Asian Investment Facility; and Investment Facility for the Pacific. Its objective was to assess blending as an aid modality. It considered in particular the strategic relevance of blending, its added value and the results of the blending projects. Overall, the evaluation is positive about blending. The report shows the strategic value of blending and identifies key lessons and recommendations to improve and inform future choices of blending..
In terms of strategic relevance, the evaluation concludes that blending allowed the EU to engage more broadly and with strategic advantage, particularly in support of large infrastructure projects and for cooperating with countries in transition to medium income status. It enabled the EU to engage in countries, sectors and projects (with specific policy challenges), which would have been mostly out of reach with grants alone. The evaluation also shows that blending, particularly for earlier projects, did not reach its full strategic potential and did not address as fully as it could have the development challenges of lower income countries.
In terms of added value, the evaluation shows that blending, in many instances, added significant value to the EU’s grant-based development cooperation by contributing to the advancement of the national policy reform agendas and by leading to robust and well-functioning and well-prepared projects, by widening the access to loan finance and reducing the financial barriers for MSMEs. It has also contributed to strengthen donor coordination.
At the same time the evaluation also found cases, particularly for the older projects, where the value added was less than the potential in terms of influence on policy reforms or unnecessary offer of credit lines. Transaction costs of some blending projects were considered high due to the use of procurement and other rules that were difficult to apply by implementers.
Whilst there was compliance with visibility rules and criteria, the evaluation recommends to take a pro-active stance on visibility where such visibility is particularly important or likely to lead to political capital or other gains.
In terms of results of the blending projects, the evaluation found that to a large extent blending projects have been successful and have already achieved or are likely to achieve the intended results and there is evidence that the project outputs are being used and appreciated by the beneficiaries. However, there is little information available on the effects of blending projects on job creation and there were missed opportunities to better and more directly target the poor.
The recommendations of the evaluation are being taken into account to further step up efforts undertaken by the Commission and EU Delegations to overcome the remaining challenges of blending as an aid modality.
·General outlook:
oFor AIF, the 2016 indicative pipeline of operations includes 23 projects for a total amount of approximatively EUR 2 600 million with an indicative potential for AIF budget contribution of EUR 196 million. Increased involvement of the Asian Development Bank and other partners in the region could expand this pipeline further.
oConcerning IFCA, the 2016 indicative pipeline of operations includes 9 projects for a total amount of EUR 979 million with an indicative potential for IFCA budget contribution of almost EUR 69 million.
6.3.Latin America Investment Facility (LAIF)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG DEVCO
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG DEVCO
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
Eligible Financial Institutions
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 10 850 000
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 322 700 000
|
Envisaged overall budget for the period 2014-2020:
|
EUR 320 000 000
|
A -Summary
In general terms, the LAIF has proven to be an effective instrument within the European External Policy in particular by leveraging significant financial resources through grants. For the period 2009-2016, LAIF grant contributions of EUR 274 million were associated with a total investment volume of circa EUR 7 538 million.
Building on the results of the several regional facilities achieved so far, blending, including LAIF, is set to be an increasingly important aid modality for the EU in the current Multiannual Financial Framework (2014-2020).
A stronger role of the EU Delegations in the decision-making progress, increased ownership by countries and increased coordination and policy coherence between the EU and the IFIs is improving the impact of LAIF funds.
B -Description
The breakdown of the current overall budget is as follows:
CRIS Decision reference
|
Cumulated amount of global commitment
|
Budget line
|
DCI-ALA/2009/021-734
|
180 400 000
|
19 09 01
|
DCI-ALA/2014-2015/037-570
|
72 342 737
|
21 02 12 / 21 02 01
|
DCI-ALA/2016/037-570
|
52 657 263
|
21 02 01
|
DCI ENV/023-403
|
17 300 000
|
21 04 01
|
Total
|
322 700 000
|
|
In comparison to the 2015 overall budget, there has been an increase of EUR 52 657 263 during 2016.
LAIF was recreated in 2014 for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020, through an initial financing decision of EUR 30 million. A total indicative grant amount of EUR 320 million is foreseen for the current MFF 2014-2020.
(a) Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation, (OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 41).
Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation for the period 2014-2020 (OJ L 77, 15.04.2014, p. 44), Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 laying down common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for financing external action (OJ L 77, 15.04.2014, p. 95).
Based on the first results from the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF), the Commission proposed to set up investment facilities targeting countries under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) Regulation, initially in Central Asia, Asia, and Latin America. The LAIF was set up in 2009 and it was modelled based on the NIF.
(b) Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
The LAIF was officially launched by the Commission and the Spanish Presidency of the European Union during the VI EU-Latin America and the Caribbean (EU-LAC) Summit in 2010.
The LAIF's main purpose is to promote additional investments and infrastructures in the transport, energy, and environment (including water and sanitation as well as agriculture and rural development) sectors and to support social sector such as health and education, and private sector development in the Latin American countries. The Facility will support the growth of SMEs, by making available a range of financial instruments in Latin America. A stronger role of the private sector in LAIF projects is actively being promoted. LAIF interventions should focus indicatively on the following sectors:
In coherence with the priorities established in the Multiannual indicative programme 2014 2020 for regional cooperation with Latin America under the DCI, LAIF interventions should focus indicatively on the following sectors:
A) Energy: Priority will be given to projects including:
-
Energy efficiency projects.
-
Projects which foresee social measures like the “social rate” in order to ensure the development impact and local.
-
Energy interconnections among countries to foster regional integration.
-
Renewable energies, especially of the innovative kind.
B) Transport: Priority should be given to projects whose aim is to improve regional integration such as trans-borders cooperation as well as trade facilitation.
C) Environment:
-
Integrated waste management including necessary related infrastructures.
-
Promotion of climate change related investments, i.e. renewable energy, energy efficiency and cleaner industrial production and other environment friendly techniques. An area wich could benefit from additional support would be resilient infrastructure in order to support adaptation measures.
-
urban sustainability, including integrated planning, green areas, resilient management.
D) SMEs: Support to the private sector through programmes aimed at:
-
Improving financial inclusion and access to finance for SMEs at the different stages of enterprise creation, restructuring and modernization, with a particular focus on the green economy.
-
Sustainable jobs creation.
-
Internationalization (helping SMEs in exporting their products)
-
Women and/or youth entrepreneurship, technological poles, enterprise incubators etc.
E) ICT: interconnectivity among Latin American countries and from the region to the EU should be a priority.
F) Social services, including:
1) Better access to health care and improved health services installations.
2) Better education facilities, increased access to education.
Financing and implementing large infrastructure projects requires considerable amounts of finance. The aim of LAIF is to create a partnership, pooling together grant resources from the Commission and using them to leverage loans from European and Latin American Finance Institutions as well as own contributions from partners countries in Latin America while also crowding-in private sector resources.
The LAIF also included, in 2011, a Climate Change Window to support the implementation of projects helping partner countries tackle climate change through mitigation and/or adaptation measures. An endowment of EUR 17,3 million was approved by a Commission Implementing Decision in 2011 (C (2011) 9538) under DCI-ENV shared with the NIF, although it was finally entirely used under the LAIF.
Geographical coverage and final recipents
The final recipients will be the Latin American countries (Argentina, Boliva, Brasil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela) foreseen in the DCI Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 and the DCI Regulation (EU) No 233/2014. Other final recipients will be the private sector and in particular SMEs for categories of operations dedicated to private sector development. Eligible finance institutions will be the entrusted entities and important stakeholders of the financial instrument’s operations. The LAIF Board encourages geographic and sectorial variety. Innovative instruments, such as guarantees and risk capital operations, if appropriately justified and its risk shared among the participating institutions, are encouraged.
Main technical characteristics
The types of operations to be financed under the LAIF can be the following:
·investment co-financing in public infrastructure projects,
·loan guarantee cost financing,
·interest rate subsidy,
·technical assistance,
·risk capital operations,
·any other risk-sharing mechanisms.
Implementation arrangements at Blending framework level
In order to improve the effectiveness of blending operations (including the one for LAIF) in meeting their policy objectives of poverty reduction and socio-economic development as well as the efficiency of their management including a reduction of transaction costs, it was agreed in the context of the The Platform for Blending in External Cooperation (EUBEC) to organise four blending "frameworks" according to the financing instruments (EDF – ENI – DCI – IPA).
Implementation arrangements at individual project level
Individual projects financed under LAIF are implemented through indirect management mode. This means that the Commission delegates budget implementation tasks to eligible Financial Institutions which have successfully undergone an ex-ante assessment in accordance with Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012.
Added value
The added value of LAIF can occur at different levels e.g.:
I.at the strategy and policy level, LAIF provides policy leverage, enhances the supply of public goods, increases EU visibility, assists in managing debt sustainability thresholds, and contributes to aid effectiveness;
II.at the financial level LAIF, provides financial leverage, helps mitigate risks and lower borrowing costs and provides flexibility to tailor assistance to financing needs;
III.at the operational level, LAIF stimulates financial discipline, efficient administration and monitoring, enables the acceleration of projects, improves project quality and increases donor coordination.
The expected results of the LAIF would be increased investment in key sectors of the economy contributing inter alia to:
1)better transport infrastructure,
2)improved energy infrastructure,
3)increased protection of the environment,
4)improved social services and infrastructures,
5)creation and growth of SMEs and improvement of the employment situations.
Moreover, in order to ensure the EU added value, the following criteria will be considered for giving preference to an operation which support the EU strategy in the region:
·investments addressing environmental threats or climate change mitigation and adaptation, with cross border effects (land, river and sea);
·investments focusing on renewable energy, energy efficiency and on promoting the use of clean energy technologies;
·investments in sustainable social infrastructure with a particular focus on social inclusiveness and on less developed areas, helping to reduce disparities in access to social infrastructure within and between the countries;
·operations supporting the access to finance, including for higher risk activities, in particular for the micro, small and medium enterprises;
·operations in which two or more countries from the region are cooperating;
·investments identified in national, sub-regional or regional priority plans;
·investments in sectors with limited borrowing capacity.
Special attention will be paid to a balanced involvement of the different sub-regions and countries in LAIF, while ensuring support for quality operation proposals and keeping in mind the absorption capacity of individual countries and regions.
(c) The financial institutions involved in implementation;
In accordance with Article 4.1(e) of the Regulation (EU) No 236/2014, this contribution may be implemented through indirect management whenever possible under the lead of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in line with its external mandate under Decision No 1080/2011/EU, a multilateral European Financial Institution (FI) such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), or a bilateral European FI, e.g. bilateral development banks.
The Commission entrusts budget implementation tasks to Lead FIs which have been assessed through the pillar assessment pursuant to article 60 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, and have transparent, non-discriminatory, efficient and effective review procedures in place.
Once the Lead FI is known, a complementary financing decision needs to be adopted in order to fulfil the requirements of Article 84.3 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. The Lead FI is contracted for an individual operation based on its operational and financial capacity.
The Lead FIs of LAIF projects in implementation or to be implemented until the end of 2016 have been: European Investment Bank (EIB),, Agence Française de Développement (AFD), Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) and Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (AECID).
Regional Development Banks participating as co-financiers: the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI); (CAF) Development Bank of Latin America, and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).
C -Implementation
(d) The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate Budgetary Commitments as 31/12/2016:
|
LAIF: EUR 305 400 000
|
Aggregate Budgetary Payments as 31/12/2016 EUR
|
LAIF: EUR 151 171 825
|
In addition:
Climate Change Window:
Aggregate Budgetary Commitments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 17 300 000
Aggregate Budgetary Payments as at 31/12/2016 EUR 15 800 000
(e) The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
The LAIF has served its purpose well during its years of operation. By adding a grant element to loan funding from Lead European development Financial Institutions and Latin American development banks, LAIF has helped to secure and mobilise funds for major infrastructure projects at national and regional level in Latin America. It has helped consolidate the position of the European Union and its member states as leading supporters of economic growth and social progress in the region. A key factor in the success of the LAIF has been the participation of the regional Latin American development finance institutions which has boosted partnership and cooperation between them and European finance institutions.
LAIF contributes to achieve the objectives of the EU’s Development Cooperation Instrument and its Regional Strategy for Latin America.
The total Union budget of the LAIF by the end of 2016 is EUR 305 400 000 and it includes EUR 255 400 000 from the Union budget Regional Latin America and EUR 50 000 000 earmarked for Nicaragua. The allocation of EUR 17 300 000 for the Climate Change Window, initially planned to be shared with the NIF, was finally entirely used for LAIF projects.
Until the end of 2016, 33 projects have been approved, which represent a total LAIF contribution of EUR 274 million. The total amount of investments supported was approximatively EUR 7 538 million, out of which the eligible European Finance Institutions mobilised circa EUR 3 672 million. In 2016, five new LAIF projects were approved through a Commission Decision following positive opinion of the Board of the DCI Blending Framework. The total LAIF contribution to those five projects amounts to circa EUR 42 million.
In addition, five projects received the positive opinion of the Board in November 2016 for a LAIF contribution before fees of circa EUR 31 million (Commission decision to be taken after 2016). The total cost of these projects is circa EUR 522 million.
As of end 2016 and based on projects that have received Board's positive opinion, 55,2% of the facility contribution to the projects was made in the form of investment grant, 40,5% as technical assistance and 4,3% in the form of risk-sharing instruments.
(f) An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A.
(g) The balance of the fiduciary account;
N/A.
Impact of negative interest rates on LAIF: no impact as at 31/12/2016.
(h) Revenues and repayments;
N/A
(i) The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
N/A.
(j) The accumulated figures on impairments/ on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
N/A.
(k) The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
For 2007-2016 instruments:
The achieved leverage effect based on historical leverage experience during the period 2010-2016 for the LAIF was 27,5 (circa total project cost = EUR 7 538 million/LAIF contributions = EUR 274 million).
For 2016-2020 instruments:
The target leverage effect as indicated in the ex-ante evaluation is at least for 4 to 5 over the lifetime of the LAIF (2014-2020) as included also in the financing decision of the LAIF.
On the basis of the target leverage of the instrument, it is estimated that the total amount of EUR 320 million foreseen for the concerned period, investments/loan volumes mobilised would range from EUR 1,3 billion to 1,6 billion for the entire duration of the Facility. Thus, the investment leverage ratio used is equal to the value of investment (total project cost) divided by the total amount of the EU blending facility contribution relating to the investment leverage.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l) The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
As at the end of 2016, LAIF already contributed to provide approximatively EUR 7 538 million EUR in investments to eligible Final Recipients and had thus an important impact on the real economy of our partners as described below. LAIF contributions during the same period amounted to EUR 274 million. In 2017, contracts with two new countries in LAIF, Costa Rica and Cuba, will be signed. Three projects will be, also, signed in Ecuador in 2017, in the context of a renewed support to the catastrophic earthquake that devastated the country in 2016.
The LAIF has proven to be an effective instrument within Union External Policy and achieved its goal of leveraging significant financial resources through grants.
LAIF projects are overall relevant to LAIF strategic objectives, which include: to promote additional investments and infrastructures in the transport, energy, and environment sectors and to support social sector such as health and education, and private sector development in the Latin American countries. It also supports the growth of SMEs, by making available a range of financial instruments in the region. There is a relatively balanced geographical and sectorial distribution of projects.
The LAIF has significantly contributed to the development of partnerships and increased co-ordination between the financial institutions and the Commission, as well as amongst the financial institutions themselves. So far, it mobilized the total estimated amount of investments of EUR 7 538 million.
Building on the results of the several regional facilities so far, blending is set to be an increasingly important aid modality for the EU in the current Multiannual Financial Framework (2014-2020).
E -Other key points and issues
·Main issues for the implementation:
oattention must be paid to the aspects of the regional interconnectivity, as well as to the crosscutting objectives including the policy dialogue. The potential of regional projects in interconnection projects remains yet to be untapped.
oAs stated in the context of the current Multiannual Indicative Programme and priorities for 2014-2020, and based on the experience on the LAIF, blending will be a major mechanism of implementation, in particular to support investments complementing the objectives of each priority area, and clearly linked to the overall EU objectives and policy priorities in the region. The fact that more and more countries in Latin America have reached the graduated status or are on the way to graduation only stresses this fact. Blending is becoming more and more the right tool to promote investment and engage in policy dialogue joining forces with other donors and achieving larger impact.
oThe financial allocation to the regional investment facilities will substantially increase during the ongoing programming period. For LAIF an amount of EUR 320 million is foreseen to which funds from the National Indicative Programmes may be added. The management of such an increase represents a significant challenge for the Commission. Where Delegations are involved early on in the design and preparation of blending operations, the alignment with their priorities and channels is fostered. LAIF works best when it is an integral part of the projects.
oA stable political and security climate at the regional level in general and at the country level in particular is needed to promote and secure investments. Partner countries should increase the level of investments through their own resources as well as through loans. The pipeline of operations must target the specific policy priorities and sectors set for the region/partner country, be of sufficient quality and volume, and provide the required EU additionality.
oOne of the priorities for the current programming period, in line with the Agenda for Change, is a higher share of EU aid to be channelled through facilities for blending grants and loans. A greater use of financial instruments such as guarantees, equity and other risk-sharing instruments is one way to use the catalytic effect of blending in crowding in more private financing. LAIF is going to support its first Financial Instrument Delegation Agreement through Eco-business Fund in 2017. This proves a challenge and an opportunity for the EU to expand its operations and its capacities.
oThe Facilities will continue to operate by providing support for loans to partner countries from eligible development financial institutions. By financing technical assistance, innovative instruments (such as risk sharing) and providing complementary grants, LAIF will encourage the recipient governments and institutions to make essential investments, which would otherwise be postponed due to lack of resources. LAIF should also provide better access to finance for Small and Medium Enterprises.
o
Reporting is very heterogeneous in quality and quantity; continued effort is being undertaken for the EU both in HQ and in the EU Delegations to ensure follow-up of the projects and proper flow of information.
oEUBEC Platform and evaluation of blending:please refer to IFCA/AIF section
·General outlook:
oThe indicative pipeline of potential projects updated at the end of 2016 includes 14 projects for a total investment cost of EUR 1 577 million with an indicative potential LAIF contribution of EUR 141 million.
oProjects to be funded under the 2014-2020 programming are subject to the availability of funds and its subsequent commitment.
6.4.Support to the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment Partnership (FEMIP)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG NEAR
|
Implementing Body in charge:
|
EIB
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 32 million*
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 224 million**
|
*Appropriations per the Basic Act
**Under the ENPI Regulation
A -Summary
In line with its objectives and scope, the Support to FEMIP has provided capital to the ENP South partner countries and invested directly or indirectly in private sector, i.e. enabled the creation, restructuring or growth of enterprises. It has strengthened the role of the local financial sector by supporting the creation of new institutions or the establishment of new activities for the benefit of the private sector.
With EUR 33 million allocated to technical assistance, (originally 44 million less 11 that was returned unused), the Support to FEMIP backed investment activities in several southern Mediterranean countries, assisting promoters during different stages of the project cycle and encouraging the modernisation and opening-up of the partner countries’ economies. Technical assistance funds were used inter alia to prepare environmental investments in the region under the Mediterranean Hot Spot Investment Programme (MeHSIP), to prepare various transport projects in Tunisia, to assist the Palestinian water authorities in the preparation of a seawater desalination project, to support the transformation process of the Arab Centre for Agricultural Development (microfinance), to participate in the rehabilitation programme of 17 Moroccan hospitals and to promote the use of space technology applications under the Space for Med Acceleration Program. Several sectors have benefited so far from the Technical assistance with significant contribution to the transport and water distribution sector.
As far as risk capital operations are concerned, the Support to FEMIP has played a strong catalytic role for other borrowers and investors. The Support to FEMIP helped to foster private sector activity in various sectors and assisted SMEs operating in any of the eligible sectors: agribusiness sector, financial sector, ICT sector and in particular the industry and the healthcare sectors, these latter currently being the most highly represented sectors. The overall investment amount supported by 2015 amounted to EUR 6 714 million.
The Support to FEMIP has also generated employment opportunities. It is estimated that thanks to the risk capital investments in equity funds, aggregate direct jobs of historical companies supported have increased by more than 1,2 times over the EIB holding period. This is equivalent to an average growth annual rate of circa 5% over the EIB holding period. It is further estimated that a notable share of the portfolio companies (more than 68%) have witnessed an increase of their employment figures over the EIB holding period.
As regard the overall performance, the European Court of Auditors carried out a Follow-up audit of the recommendations made in its Special Report No 1/2009 “Banking measures in the Mediterranean context of the MEDA programme and the previous protocols” in 2013 and further to that follow-up audit, the Court of Auditors informed the Commission that all recommendations have been assessed as fully implemented. In particular, the Commission is currently working on the last recommendation, i.e. the final evaluation of the Facility.
B -Description
(a) Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
The current act for the FEMIP is the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI for 2007-2013) for which the legal basis is Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.
(b) Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
The objective of the support to FEMIP is to provide capital to the private sector of Mediterranean partner countries pari passu with other commercial investors in the region,in the form of risk capital, technical assistance and microfinance.
a) Risk capital is invested directly or indirectly in order to (i) support the private sector, i.e. enable the creation, restructuring or growth of enterprises (ii) strengthen the role of the local financial sector by supporting the creation of new institutions or the establishment of new activities for the benefit of the private sector. The Risk Capital operations consist of private equity and microfinance operations.
The EIB obtained the Commission’s prior agreement for each Operation that it intended to carry out.
Geographical coverage and final recipients
Support to FEMIP covers the nine Southern Mediterranean States. The recipients of the Risk Capital Facility are the private sector in general and SMEs as well as financial intermediaries.
Implementation arrangements
This action with the objective of financing Risk Capital and micro-finance. Operations will be implemented in indirect centralised management with the European Investment Bank. The EIB is entrusted to carry out the implementation of these Operations.
Duration and impact on the budget
There has been an annual budgetary commitment of EUR 32 million against budget line 19 08 01 01. The final date for signature under the 2013 envelope was 31 December 2014.
Added value
Support to FEMIP provided a much-needed capital supply in a region where risk capital operations are the exception. Access to finance in the region is very limited and is one of the most serious hindrances to development facing especially small and medium-sized enterprises in the region. EIB's capacity to supply capital targeted at reducing this problem is therefore a direct response to this development cooperation challenge.
(c) The financial institutions involved in implementation;
European Investment Bank (EIB)
C -Implementation
(d) The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget
Aggregate Budgetary Commitments as of 31/12/2016 EUR 224 000 000
Aggregated Budgetary Payments as of 31/12/2016 EUR 224 000 000
(e) The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
·EUR 180,3 million was allocated to 28 risk capital operations of which EUR 52,9 million has been cancelled and returned to the Commission.
·EUR 10,62 million have not been used to finance projects, mostly as a consequence of the instable situation in the region following the events of the "Arab Spring" and the difficulty to arrive to the project signature stage during that period.
·The balance was allocated to techncial assistance operations.
·All FEMIP investments had been completed by 31 December 2014.
(f) An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A, see explanation below.
(g) The balance of the fiduciary account
Aggregate balance of the fiduciary account as at 31/12/2016 EUR 45 369 052
The amount of EUR 13,7 million referred to below has been and will be partly reused to pay for management fees of the instrument. Of this total, EUR 7,8 million have been used for management fees already and EUR 5,8 million have been returned to the general budget.The balance of EUR 0,1 million will be recovered by the Commission and returned to the general budget in 2017 ;
ENPI RCO account in EUR as of 31/12/2016EUR 16 885 278
ENPI RCO account in USD as of 31/12/2016EUR 19 211 114
ENPI RCO capital reflow in EUR as of 31/12/2016EUR 117 703
ENPI RCO revenue reflow in EUR as of 31/12/2016EUR 4 465
FEMIP TA account EUR 9 150 492
TOTAL as of 31/12/2016EUR 45 369 052
(h) Revenues and repayments;
To date, EUR 13,7 million has been earmarked as revenues and repayments from investments made under the Support to FEMIP envelope.
(i)The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
Cost of Direct Equity Investment as of 31/12/2015EUR 8 237 280
Value of Equity Investment as of 31/12/2015EUR 8 030 464
Cost of Direct Equity Investment as of 31/12/2016EUR 8 237 280
Value of Equity Investment as of 31/12/2016EUR 8 125 498
Venture Capital Fund
Cost as of 31/12/2015EUR 57 466 137
Cost as of 31/12/2016EUR 64 835 317
Value of Venture Capital Funds as of 31/12/2015EUR 69 221 696
Value of Venture Capital Funds as of 31/12/2016EUR 73 251 774
(j) The accumulated figures on impairments of assets of equity or risk-sharing instruments, and on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
For equity instruments:
Impairement as at 31/12/2015EUR – 7 918 838
Impairement as at 31/12/2016 EUR – 8 913 137
Loans and receivables:
Nominal loans and receivables as at 31/12/2015EUR 12 855 670
Nominal loans and receivables as at 31/12/2016EUR 14 546 469
(The increase is due to the loan disbursement(s)).
(k)The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
The leverage effect for the risk capital operations as estimated by the EIB is 6,0 for the period 2007-2014 and 26,8 for 2014. EIB has calculated this estimated leverage on the basis of total amounts committed to equity funds, divided by amounts committed by EIB to these funds.
D - Strategic importance/relevance
(l)The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
The overall objective of FEMIP is to promote sustainable economic growth in the region through investments in infrastructure and especially in private sector development. With 33 million of TA funding, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has supported investments amounting to EUR 4 376 million. The EIB co-financing of these investment projects amounted to EUR 2 338 million. The EIB has committed EUR 143 million under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) (2007-2013) for risk capital operations. As far as private equity funds are concerned, the EIB had budgetary resources at work in over 150 companies across the Mediterranean Partner Countries, which employed about 78 000 persons, of whom 24% are women. The portfolio also includes 13 investments in 11 Microfinance Institutions (totalling around 1 000 000 active micro-borrowers).
The Support to FEMIP has generated employment opportunities. It is estimated that thanks to the risk capital investments in equity funds, aggregate direct jobs of historical companies supported have increased by more than 1,2 times over the EIB holding period.
The Union budget allocated a funding of EUR 32 million to the EIB each year from 2007 to 2013 (i.e. EUR 224 million in total). The annual budget has been consistently used, other than in 2011/12, when the political situation in the region led to approximately EUR 10,62 million not being used
E - Other key points and issues
·Main issues for the implementation:
orisk capital operations depend on mobilising third party resources, particularly when investing in funds. The political instability in the region has frequently made this difficult, particularly in Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan, as commercial investors have been reluctant to commit.
oIt is crucial to link TA operations with concrete investments to be financed as a result of the TA work.
oThe activities targeting Risk Capital Operations in the region implemented by the EIB need to be closely coordinated with the activities carried out by other donors in the region.
·Main risks:
othe transposition of the requirements relies on the Bank, which shall apply them irrespective of the size of the investment. Possible applicability of Commission requirements to small investments may appear more challenging. In the Financial Regulation, the selection of the FI’s has been regulated and the capacity of the bank to select the FI has been assessed as required.
oAs regard the overall performance, the European Court of Auditors carried out a Follow-up audit of the recommendations made in its Special Report No 1/2009 “Banking measures in the Mediterranean context of the MEDA programme and the previous protocols” in 2013 and further to this follow-up audit, the Court informed the Commission that all recommendations have been assessed as fully implemented. In particular, the Commission is currently working on the last reccomendation, i.e. the final evaluation of the Facility.
·General outlook:
othe requirement for risk capital in the region remains evident, as demonstrated by the low levels of SME access to finance and private equity in the region. Mediterranean Partner Countries (MPC) need more economic growth to improve living standards and create jobs as well as to stabilise the transition towards democracy started with the Arab Spring.
oAccording to the demographics, however, a large number of young people will enter the labour market in the coming years, which is likely to create a great pressure on the market and on the political environment.
It is generally assumed that governments in MPCs need to implement structural reforms to increase labour productivity. This includes public investment to improve the quality of infrastructure, better-quality education, labour market reforms (in particular increasing female labour force participation), and a better business environment, which should encourage exports and investment. A dynamic private sector could provide more and better jobs for the MPCs, which suffer from a persistent high unemployment.
6.5.Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund (GEEREF)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG DEVCO
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG DEVCO
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
EIB and EIF
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
EUR 25 million
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
EUR 81,1 million*
|
* The EUR 81,1 million also include an amount for Technical Assistance of EUR 5 million. In addition, EUR 20 million are financed under EDF.
A -Summary
GEEREF is an innovative financing vehicle aiming at promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy in developing countries and economies in transition. Structured as a Fund-of-Funds, GEEREF’s strategy is to invest in – and thus help develop – regional private equity funds whose investments will target small and medium sized energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. GEEREF aims to improve the economic and social circumstances of underserved or disadvantaged populations, encourage sustainable development, and promote environmental protection by increasing access to low carbon, secure and affordable energy. Its objective is to contribute to the expansion of renewable energy, energy efficiency and other related clean energy technologies in developing countries and economies in transition.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation;
Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation for the period 2014-2020;
Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 laying down common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for financing external action;
The GEEREF was approved in the annual action plans (AAPs) of the four-year Thematic Programme for Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources including Energy (ENRTP2007-2010);
Legal basis for the Regional Fund Support Facility (RFSF): preparatory action within the meaning of Article 49(6) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
(b) Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
GEEREF is an innovative financing vehicle aiming at promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy in developing countries and economies in transition. Structured as a Fund-of-Funds, GEEREF’s strategy is to invest in – and thus help develop – regional private equity funds whose investments will target small and medium-sized energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
GEEREF aims to improve the economic and social circumstances of underserved or disadvantaged populations, encourage sustainable development, and promote environmental protection by increasing access to low carbon, secure and affordable energy. Its objective is to contribute to the expansion of renewable energy, energy efficiency and other related clean energy technologies in developing countries and economies in transition.
Geographical coverage and final recipients
The scope of GEEREF is to support regional sub-funds for Sub-Saharan Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific Island States, the countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy and Russia, Latin America, and Asia (including Central Asia and the Middle East). There is a special emphasis on serving the needs of the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.
Implementation arrangements
The GEEREF is managed by a Board of Directors comprising delegates appointed by its shareholders and advised by the EIF and the EIB. DEVCO has appointed one Board member. Additionally, GEEREF investment decisions are taken by an Investment Committee, also comprising delegates appointed by its shareholders. The Commission is represented in the Investment Committee by DG DEVCO.
The Union contribution is being made available via centralised indirect management (Financial Regulation No 1605/2020, Article 54 (2) (b)) with implementing tasks delegated to the EIF. In 2007 the EIF received a delegation of powers from the Commission to subscribe shares to the GEEREF, hold those funds in a separate trust account on behalf of the Commission, take part in the decision making organs of the GEEREF (except in the Investment Committee), monitor the progress of the GEEREF and report to the Commission. Those tasks have been detailed in an agreement concluded between the Commission and the EIF, which was subject to the provisions and the conditions provided for in the Financial Regulation for indirect centralised management based on existing cases.
Added value/Expected results
The Fund contributes to the expansion of renewable energy, energy efficiency and other related clean energy technologies to markets and services by increasing access to financing.
It is also expected that the GEEREF will lead to an increased engagement of the private sector in the energy efficiency and renewable energy business in the areas of investments. The provision of “patient capital” provided on a long term and subordinated return basis will buy down the cost of capital for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects/SMEs. This will improve the investment conditions for private equity co-investors or senior lenders, thereby making the project/SMEs eligible for funding from these sources. The latter will thus have access to resources previously outside their reach.
(c) The financial institutions involved in implementation;
GEEREF was established via a SICAV registered in Luxembourg, with a life of 15 years from the initial closing date, 6 November 2008.
In addition to the Commission, Norway and Germany have invested approximately EUR 13 and 23 million respectively in GEEREF and were actively involved in its creation. The Commission, Norway and Germany have all subscribed "junior shares", and are called "A-shareholders". These public investors have purchased first-loss shares in the fund.
In addition, 24 private investors (from Europe, North America and Australia) have now committed EUR 110 million to the fund, while the EIB has also invested EUR 10 million. The EIB and the private investors (called “B Shareholders") have second-loss shares in the fund. The fundraising campaign has been completed. This closing date was finally set to 29 May 2015.
C -Implementation
(d) The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate Budgetary Commitments as at 31/12/2016: EUR 81 100 000
Aggregate Budgetary Payments as at 31/12/2016: EUR 79 500 000
(e) The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
As of the end of 2016, fourteen investments have been approved by the GEEREF Investment Committee, focussing on projects in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. The following have already commenced activities on the ground:
·an investment of EUR 12,5 million in Berkeley Energy’s Renewable Energy Asia Fund (REAF) for India, Philippines, Bangladesh and Nepal.
·An investment of approximately EUR 8 million in the Evolution One Fund, dedicated to clean energy investment in Southern Africa.
·An investment of EUR 10 million in DI Frontier Market Energy & Carbon Fund, which focuses on clean energy investment in Sub Saharan Africa.
·An investment of approximately EUR 10 million in Armstrong S.E. Asia Clean Energy LP, a new fund focussing on renewable energy investments in Southeast Asia.
·An investment of approximately EUR 10 million in the MGM Sustainable Energy Fund (MSEF)- a fund focusing primarily on energy efficiency projects in Central America and the Caribbean.
·An investment of EUR 12 million in Solar Arise ,an India-focused corporate vehicle targeting solar photovoltaic (PV) investments. This is GEEREF's first investment in a corporate vehicle.
·a USD 13 million conditional commitment agreement to the Caucasus Clean Energy Fund (CCEF), a specialist fund focused on small and medium sized hydro power plants (HPPs) in the Republic of Georgia. The fund will invest primarily in small and medium scale green-field run-of-river HPPs, with a capacity of approximately 10-20 MW. The fund will seek to make 8-12 investments, with envisaged all-in project costs of USD 15-30 million, for a total portfolio of around 150 MW.
·a USD 19,6 million commitment into the Africa Renewable Energy Fund (AREF), a fund focusing on renewable energy infrastructure investments across Sub-Saharan Africa. GEEREF’s commitment helped the fund reaching a size of USD 200,1million on its final closing date.
·In 2011, GEEREF made a conditional commitment of the USD equivalent of EUR 12.5m to (converted into USD 18.1m) to Emerging Energy Latin America Fund II (formerly Cleantech Latin America Fund II), a private equity fund investing primarily in renewable energy infrastructure in Latin America and the Caribbean. Signature of the conditional commitment was completed on 4 July 2011. The first closing of Emerging Energy Latin America Fund II (“EELAF II”) was achieved end of January 2012. The fund has a size of USD 39.3m. The fund has made only one investment as of end of 2015. Given the unsatisfactory deployment for EELAF II during Q1 2016, GEEREF, together with the co-investors IFC and CAF, decided to end the investment period of EELAF II and liquidate it. The fund entered dissolution and liquidation by end of March 2016. It is foreseen, that its only asset will have been sold and the fund wound down by Q4 2016.
·In December 2015, GEEREF signed a conditional commitment of up to EUR 15m to the Renewable Energy Asia Fund II (REAF II). REAF II is the first follow-on fund from the existing GEEREF portfolio and successor to the Renewable Energy Asia Fund. REAF II invests in renewable energy projects in South and South East Asia, most notably India, the Philippines and Indonesia. The fund makes equity investments into development stage renewable energy projects and project developers, builds these projects into operation and generates returns through exits either on an individual basis or as portfolio of assets. As GEEREF was a cornerstone investor in REAF, a first close was achieved with FMO, IFC and Oikocredit in March 2016. The fund is now developing its first projects.
·On 8 July 2016, GEEREF signed a USD 16.6m commitment to the Catalyst MENA Clean Energy Fund (“CMCEF”), a USD 100m target size fund concentrating on renewable energy and energy efficiency investments in the Middle East and Northern Africa. The fund will mainly target Jordan but may also invest in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt, and has a strong focus on solar PV projects. FMO and Finnfund also signed USD 13m and USD 5m commitments respectively on the day which, combined with the USD 2m from the general partner, enabled the fund to reach its first closing. DEG subsequently joined the fund with a USD 11.1m commitment on 02 September 2016.
·In late 2016 GEEREF signed a USD 21m conditional commitment to Evolution II, the sucessor fund to Evolution I. The fund, which has a target fund size of USD 250m, reached its minimum fund size of USD 75m, thereby fulfilling GEEREF’s condition for investment in December 2016. Evolution II will invest in renewable energy and resource efficiency in South Africa and prioritised countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.
·In addition, as of the end of 2016, GEEREF Investment Committee approved one additional commitment that remained to be signed: an EUR 20m commitment to Frontier Energy II, the sucessor fund to DI Frontier Fund, that will invest in renewable energy in Sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the commitments approved by the GEEREF Investment Committee has not materialized. In December 2013, GEEREF committed EUR 9m to Small Hydropower Energy Fund focusing on investments in Ukraine. The fund did not reach the conditions precedent for its closing due to political and economic crisis in Ukraine and was abandoned in June 2015.
In total, GEEREF has committed to investments of EUR 148 million in regional private equity funds (Q4 2016 exchange rate EUR/USD). These funds have subsequently invested in 84 recipient projects including solar, wind, waste/biogas and hydro power generation as well as energy efficiency.
In parallel with GEEREF, a Technical Support Facility (the GEEREF Regional Fund Support Facility - RFSF) has been established to support the creation, the operations and pipeline development of Regional Funds and/or stimulate the renewable energy and energy efficiency market in general. RFSF has supported the development of eight regional private equity funds, three of which have received GEEREF investments already.
Amount of EU Contribution committed to financial intermediaries,
and the corresponding number of financial intermediaries;
|
EUR 74,27 million
1
|
Amount of financing expected to be provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients,
and expected number of eligible final recipients;
|
EUR 222 million
N/A
|
Total investment expected to be provided
|
Approx. EUR 8 billion
|
Amount of financing already provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
|
Approx. EUR 148 million
invested in 10 regional private equity funds and one corporate vehicle.
|
Total amount of financing raised from investors by the final recipients, including GEEREF
|
Approx. EUR 919 million
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the received financing, if applicable.
|
Approx. three billion EUR in investments / projects with a contibution of EUR 526 million by the final recipients
|
(f) An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6;
N/A.
(g) The balance of the fiduciary account
EUR 73 581 776*
In EUR
|
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
1 235 919*
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
|
Term deposits < 3 months
|
|
Term deposits > 3 months < 1 year
|
|
Term deposits > 1 year
|
|
Bonds current
|
|
Bonds non-current
|
|
Equity investment (see also point i)
|
72 345 857*
|
Other assets (if applicable)
|
|
= Total assets
|
73 581 776*
|
*as per 31/12/2016 provisional accounts
Impact of negative interest rates on GEEREF: no impact as at 31/12/2016.
(h) Revenues and repayments (Art.140.6);
N/A.
(i) The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
EUR 72 345 857
(j) The accumulated figures on impairments/ on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
No impairment for GEEREF
(k) The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
The target leverage effect
The target leverage effect of European Union budgetary contribution of EUR 81,1 million at the GEEREF Fund of Funds level is approximately 2,74 for the final GEEREF fund size of around EUR 222 million. Fundraising activities closed on 29 May 2015.
The achieved leverage effect
1.Out of the total budgetary EU contribution of EUR 81,1 million, EUR 74,27 million are used by the GEEREF Fund of Funds for further investments. As of end 2016, the ‘A-Shareholders’ contributions (EU contribution together with contributions from Norway and Germany of about EUR 36 million) have mobilised approximately EUR 110,4 million from other investors (so-called GEEREF B-Shareholders) leading to a total GEEREF fund size of EUR 222 million, reaching a leverage of 2,74.
2.Out of the current total GEEREF fund size of EUR 222 million, EUR 148 million have been invested in ten equity fund investments and one corporate vehicle investment. This amount invested is mobilising additional equity capital for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in Africa, Asia, the Neighbourhood and Latin America in line with the targeted leverage of 6,2. Most of the GEEREF-funded regional equity fund investments are still at the beginning of their investment period, but have already attracted additional equity and debt from other investors to renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Regarding these projects the invested equity contributions achieved a leverage of almost 6 at investee/project level. Hence, the achieved leverage based on the partially invested GEEREF funds reached the targeted leverage of 36.
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l) The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
As of end 2016, the total investment supported with Union contribution in GEEREF was approximately EUR 3 billion. At the Fund of Funds level, GEEREF targets a leverage rate of 2,74 as it reached EUR 222 million based on an original European Union budgetary contribution of EUR 81,1 million.
The pie chart with geographic breakdown based on amount provided by the fund is not applicable since GEEREF is not a geographical facility such as AIF/IFCA and LAIF.
By 2016, GEEREF's impact was, on a provisional basis, the following :
·Financial
oEUR 222 Million commitment from private investors, EC, Germany and Norway
oEUR 526 Million invested in equity by the final recipients in investments
oLeverage >50x on public capital
·Energy
oBy end of 2016 projects with capacity of 692MW installed
oOver lifetime of existing funds 1,5 GW installed
oIn 2016, 1 580 GWHS of electricity generated
oOver lifetime generation of 124 GWHS generation
oIn 2016, 52 GWHS of electricity saved
·Environmental
o1,4 million tonnes of carbon emissions reduced in 2016
·Social
oImproving access for people: over 300 000 households by end of 2016
oThe projects provide electricity to about 4,5 million households over the lifetime
E -Other key points and issues
·Main issues for the implementation:
·GEEREF's current portfolio contains 10 fund investments and one corporate vehicle investment. The pipeline of further feasible and attractive private equity investments to commit the rest of its capital within its designated investment period, which is due to end in May 2019 (the investment period may terminate earlier if 85% of GEEREF total commitments have been committed to investments) is identified.
·Main risks:
·no specific risk identified.
·General outlook:
·the need for investment to catalyse renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in developing countries remains large and well documented.
·However, the ability to attract private investment into these sectors is entirely dependent on the investment climate and its stability in each developing country.
·It remains challenging to find suitable commercial opportunities in these sectors with risk/return profiles appropriate, attractive to the private sector and in line with EU Tax Policy.
·GEEREF team has started the process to raise funds for a second Fund of Funds – GEEREF NeXt.
6.6.Thematic blending (ElectriFI, AgriFI, Climate Change)
Policy DG in charge:
|
DG DEVCO
|
Implementing DG in charge:
|
DG DEVCO
|
Operating Body in charge:
|
AFD, FMO, KfW, PROPARCO
|
Initial Overall Budget Envelope:
|
74 851 742
|
Current Overall Budget:
|
270 311 212
|
A -Summary
·ElectriFI aims at bridging the gaps in structuring and financing of investments, addressing the lack of access to clean, reliable and affordable electricity and energy services all over the world.
·AgriFI main aim is to develop inclusive and sustainable agriculture based value chains.
·Climate Change actions aim at developing local climate strategies into action plans, budgets, and investment projects.
B -Description
(a)Identification of the financial instrument and the basic act;
·Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation;
·Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation for the period 2014-2020;
·Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 laying down common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for financing external action;
·The DCI is also the legal basis of the thematic programme 'Global Public Goods and Challenges' (GPGC). The GPGC programme seeks to foster economically, socially and environmentally sustainable development in an integrated and holistic way aiming of promoting good governance, political stability and security and the requirement for policy coherence in external action. The overall objective is to support inclusive sustainable development: environment and climate change, sustainable energy, human development, food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture, migration and asylum.
(b) Description of the financial instrument, implementation arrangements and the added value of the Union contribution;
Policy objectives and scope
·ElectriFI: The aims of the financial instruments are to a) bridge the gaps in structuring and financing of investments addressing the lack of access to clean, reliable and affordable electricity and energy services all over the world with a view to attracting the development financing sector and, b) de-risk investments to attract the interest of a wider range of financial institutions, including commercial banks.
·AgriFI: The main objective is to develop inclusive, sustainable and climate-smart agriculture based value chains. For this, three priorities have been set: a) Produce knowledge and analyse experiences to help policy makers and investors to design strategies, policies and projects; b) Facilitate the establishment of public-private stakeholder alliances and strengthen capacities of various operators along the value chain (farmers and their organisations, micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), market organisations etc.) to improve governance, to access existing and new markets (domestic and international), and to remain competitive; and c) Increase investments in the agriculture value chain to start ‘rural transformations’ through blending mechanisms.
·Climate Change: The action’s objectives are as follows: a) Meeting the demand of low-carbon and climate change resilient infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa; b) Systematically translating local climate strategies into concrete investments; c) Fully achieving/maximising climate co-benefits of urban projects; d) Building local governments’ capacities to implement climate-friendly urban projects; e) Contributing to the dissemination of local climate strategies in sub-Saharan Africa, in complementarity with existing initiatives; f) Completing a low carbon cities mechanism in Africa, in connection with the deployment of the Covenant of Mayors to sub-Saharan Africa and other major initiatives; g) Ensuring the contribution of cities for countries to abide by their Intended National Determined Contributions (INDCs), which is central for the implementation of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
Geographical coverage and final recipients
·Thematic initiatives are not attributed a priori to a specific geographical region under the corresponding financing instrument. Targeted countries are countries eligible under the DCI financing instrument.
Implementation arrangements
·Implementation arrangements at Blending framework level: In order to improve the effectiveness of blending operations (including the ones for thematic blending) in meeting their policy objectives of poverty reduction and socio-economic development as well as the efficiency of their management including a reduction of transaction costs, it was agreed in the context of the Platform for Blending in External Cooperation (EUBEC) to organise four blending "frameworks" according to the financing instruments (EDF – ENI – DCI – IPA
). So far, thematic projects have been managed in the context of DCI blending framework.
·Implementation arrangements at individual project level: Individual projects are implemented through indirect management mode. This means that the Commission delegates budget implementation tasks to eligible Financial Institutions which have successfully undergone an ex-ante assessment in accordance with Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. So far, lead financing institutions in the context of thematic blending (contracts singed up to December 2016) are: FMO, PROPARCO and AFD. Another project under the leadership of KfW has been approved by the DCI Blending Board but the contract has not been signed yet.
Added value/Expected results
·ElectriFI: The main expected results would be: a) mobilisation of private sector investments increasing access to modern, affordable and sustainable energy services and/or improving access to save reliable, affordable and sustainable energy for populations living principally in rural and underserved areas, as well as areas affected by unreliable power supply; b) increase of operations in the field of renewable energy with emphasis on decentralised energy solutions, not excluding grid extension programs; and c) leverage of additional financing for such investments, including from global partners and the local banking sector.
·AgriFI: The main expected results would be: a) making available valuable knowledge for accountability, enhanced project management and policy decision making on value chains operations; b) improving the value chains governance; c) enhancing, through adoption of technological innovation, value chains productive capacity and access to markets of small scale farmers and agribusinesses; d) increasing responsible investment on agriculture based value chains.
·Climate Change: The projects financed will reinforce the capacities of the municipalities and improve the quality of life of their inhabitants. Greenhouse effect gases reduction impacts or vulnerability reduction impact will be followed for each project. The technical assistance will contribute to accompany local governments on the long-term in the definition of low-carbon and climate-resilient urban strategy and in the implementation of these strategies into concrete investments, in order to reduce their vulnerability to climate change impacts (which carry higher risks for the more vulnerable populations), and to reduce their greenhouse effect gases emissions. This will entail know-how and methodology transfer to African States and local authorities in terms of climate issues management in an urban context.
(c) The financial institutions involved in implementation;
· In accordance with Article 4.1(e) of the Regulation (EU) No 236/2014, this contribution may be implemented through indirect management whenever possible under the lead of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in line with its external mandate under Decision No 1080/2011/EU, a multilateral European Financial Institution (FI) such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), or a bilateral European FI, e.g. bilateral development banks.
·The Commission entrusts budget implementation tasks to Lead FIs which have been assessed through the pillar assessment pursuant to article 60 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, and have transparent, non-discriminatory, efficient and effective review procedures in place.
·Once the Lead FI is known, a complementary financing decision needs to be adopted in order to fulfil the requirements of Article 84.3 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. The Lead FI is contracted for an individual operation based on its operational and financial capacity.
·The Lead FIs of thematic blending projects to be implemented until the end of 2016 have been: Agence Française de Développement (AFD), PROPARCO (a subsidiary of AFD devoted to private sector funding) and Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden (FMO).
C -Implementation
(d) The aggregate budgetary commitments and payments from the budget;
Aggregate Budgetary Commitments as at 31/12/2016: EUR 270 311 212
Aggregate Budgetary Payments as at 31/12/2016: EUR 34 889 381
(e) The performance of the financial instrument, including investments realised;
Amount of EU Contribution committed to financial intermediaries,
and the corresponding number of financial intermediaries;
|
NA
|
Amount of financing expected to be provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients ,
and expected number of eligible final recipients;
|
NA
|
Total investment expected to be provided
|
EUR 1,9 billion
|
Amount of financing already provided by financial intermediaries to eligible final recipients,
and the corresponding number of eligible final recipients;
|
0
|
Amount of investments already made by eligible final recipients due to the received financing, if applicable.
|
0
|
·ElectriFI: The first deal under the delegation agreement with FMO (EDFI ElectriFI) has been closed upon receiving final clearance in December 2016. This is a USD 2.5mln investment (convertible notes) in Sigora (Haiti), a start-up company that meets innovation, impact and major footprint criteria while providing attractive return potential and downside protection. Sigora is incorporated as a for-profit Haitian corporation, acting as a micro utility company providing clean, reliable and affordable electricity in Haiti. Sigora builds, owns, and operates the North-West micro-grid, provides service 24/7 and collects revenue from residential and commercial customers using its proprietary prepaid metering technology. The first disbursement to Sigora is expected in the first quarter of 2017.
·AgriFI: No investments realized so far, as no delegation agreement has been signed by December 2016.
(f) An evaluation of the use of any amounts returned to the instrument as internal assigned revenue under paragraph 6; NA
(g) The balance of the fiduciary account
EUR 30 289 382
ElectriFI In EUR
|
Balance on the fiduciary account (current account)
|
30 289 382
|
Term deposits/Bonds (if applicable)
|
|
Term deposits < 3 months
|
|
Term deposits > 3 months < 1 year
|
|
Term deposits > 1 year
|
|
Bonds current
|
|
Bonds non-current
|
|
Equity investment (see also point i)
|
|
Other assets (if applicable)
|
|
= Total assets
|
30 289 382
|
(h) Revenues and repayments (Art.140.6);
Neither revenues nor repayments have been made by December 2016.
(i) The value of equity investments, with respect to previous years;
NA
(j) The accumulated figures on impairments/ on called guarantees for guarantee instruments;
Neither impairments nor called guarantees have occurred by December 2016.
(k) The target leverage effect, and the achieved leverage effect;
·ElectriFI: Total project cost (circa EUR 968 million) / ElectriFI contribution ( EUR 131 million) = 7,4 (refers to projects approved through a Commission decision following positive opinion of the Board of the DCI Blending Framework by December 2016).
·AgriFI: Total project cost (circa EUR 234 million) / EU contribution (EUR 30 million ) = 7,8 (refers to projects approved through a Commission decision following positive opinion of the Board of the DCI Blending Framework by December 2016)
D -Strategic importance/relevance
(l) The contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the objectives of the programme concerned as measured by the established indicators, including, where applicable, the geographical diversification;
·ElectriFI: under the delegation agreement with FMO (EDFI ElectriFI), at the end of 2016, 6 applications were at preparation stage for pre-approval, 7 have been pre-approved and 1 has received final approval. The potential investment is EUR 26.6 million, which would imply the following impact:
oInstalled capacity of 38.3 MW,
oAverage cost of EUR 4.1 mln per MW,
oLeverage of 5.9
o1.1 million new connections created.
E -Other key points and issues
·Main issues for the implementation:
·ElectriFI: some of the selected applicants indicated that they had expected ElectriFI to provide low-cost capital or grants. The observation that ElectriFI seeks to be additional to, but not competing with other investors resulting in market-based pricing of financial products led some applicants to conclude that ElectriFI funding was not as much needed by them as initially indicated (i.e. they were actually loking for cheap concessional funding). The next Call for Proposals will more explicitly state and explain the positioning and pricing methodology of ElectriFI funding, clearly indicating that low-cost capital and grants are not provided.
·A few applicants indicated in their initial application that they were in a more advanced stage than they actually turned out to be (e.g. no pre-feasibility studies or pilots undertaken yet). In the next Call for Proposals a more thorough check will be done to ensure only proposals for advanced ventures are received and selected.
·Main risks:
NA
·General outlook:
·ElectriFI.
oAs in 2016 a significant amount of time has been dedicated to setting up the EDFI ElectriFI organisation and as the majority of the organisational processes is now in place, it is foreseen that relatively more time can be spent on project investments accelerating access to electricity and on promoting ElectriFI.
oEDFI ElectriFI will continue to actively engage with clients, undertake due diligence trips, visit project sites, negotiate term sheets and present projects to the Inves,ent Committee. A second Call for Proposals (Round 2) will be announced early 2017.
IV. ANNEX A - General Context
1.The EU Economy in 2016
In order to outline the macroeconomic background against which EU financial instruments operated in 2016, the fundamental evolution of key macro-financial variables is sketched out below in this section.
Real GDP
In 2016, the European economy entered its fourth year of recovery, which however has been atypical as the investment gap persisted, the current account surplus remained high, and inflation stayed subdued. In 2016, economic growth in the EU benefitted from favourable factors like low oil prices, a still low euro exchange rate, supportive accommodative monetary policy and broadly neutral fiscal stance. To some extent, public consumption was boosted by refugee-related expenditures. The drop in oil prices has pushed the purchasing power of households but also weighed negatively on the rebound of inflation from its very low level.
Private consumption, the largest contributor to GDP growth, benefitted from the increase in real disposable income of households as the headline inflation fell and the situation on labour market improved. Investment continued to expand, but the pace of expansion remained rather limited despite the low funding costs and an improved access to funding for non-financial companies.
elevated policy uncertainty. Growth of potential output was also held back by the legacies from the crisis and the output gap continued to close only slowly in 2016 (from -1.7% in 2015 to -1.1% of potential GDP in the euro area).
In 2016, real GDP grew by 1,9% in the EU (Figure 1) and by 1,8% in the Euro Area, almost entirely driven by domestic demand whereas the contribution of net exports of goods and services turned neutral. Indeed, growth of global GDP and trade was weak in 2016. Looking ahead, economic activity is forecast to remain constant at 1.9% in the EU, whereas real GDP growth is expected to slightly moderate in the euro area to 1,7% in 2017 and to increase marginally to 1,8% in 2018.
Figure 1: Real GDP, EA
|
Figure 2: Labour market, EU
|
|
|
Note: Figures above horizontal bars are annual growth rates.Source: European Commission (2017)
Labour market
Since the start of the economic recovery in 2013, employment growth has been relatively robust, benefiting from the ongoing economic expansion, modest wage growth, structural reforms and specific policy measures in some Member States. Unemployment rates continued following a moderate downward trend throughout 2016 (Figure 2). In the Euro area the unemployment rate is expected to further fall to 9.4% in 2017 and 8.9% in 2018, its lowest level since the start of 2009. However, the recovery of labour market remains incomplete as employment and the unemployment rate are not expected to reach pre-crisis levels by 2018 and youth unemployment and long term unemployment are still very high, especially in certain Member States. Nevertheless there is a continued reduction in the dispersion of unemployment rates across EU countries, with unemployment projected to fall in almost all euro-area countries over the forecast horizon but to remain elevated in the former ‘stressed countries’.
Public finance
Public finance continued improving as the general government deficit further declined from 2.4% of GDP in 2015 to 1.7% in 2016 in the EU and from 2.1% of GDP in 2015 to 1.5% in 2016 in the euro area. Government debt fell from 86.5% of GDP in 2015 to 85.1% in 2016 in the EU and from 92.5% to 91.3% in the euro area.
Inflation and the exchange rate
HICP Headline inflation in the EU and the euro area stood at 0.2% in 2016, after a fall in 2015. It has picked up in late 2016 and early 2017, driven by temporary factors like energy base-effect and the recovery of oil prices.. However, core inflation has not yet shown any meaningful acceleration. Besides the impact of low energy prices, the persistence of low inflation can also be associated with the remaining slack in the economy.
The narrowing of the output gapThe Euro's nominal effective exchange rate rose by 2.3% from the end of 2015 to the end of 2016.
Financial markets
On the financial side, 2016 was kick-started with the announcement by the ECB of an extension of the quantitative easing programme in December 2015, which boosted investor sentiment. Nevertheless, intermittant bouts of volatility persisted throughout the year amid a weakening global growth outlook, growing emerging market concerns and falling oil prices. The diverging monetary policy stance between the US Federal Reserve and the ECB was reflected in fluctuations on foreign exchange markets and the overall weakening of the euro vis-à-vis the US dollar during the year.
Investor sentiment towards euro area banks continued to strengthen amid further progress in bank balance sheet repair and an improved macro financial environment. The resilience of the banking sector continued to strengthen in 2016, as both the liquidity and solvency of banks improved. Despite historically low interest rates, banks increased their deposit base, making their liabilities less volatile. This improvement was accompanied by a recovery in bank lending. In addition, progress made on the Banking Union in 2016 further weakened the links between sovereigns and banks. The establishment of the Single Supervisory Mechanism and Single Resolution Mechanism have been crucial in this respect.
During 2016, Euro area financial system stress remained low, despite periods of volatility. Broad-based indicators of financial markets and banking system risk have fluctuated at low levels, reverting almost to pre-crisis standards.
Despite progress by banks and governments, and in the financial system at large, financial stability challenges persisted.
Financial stability risks faced by the euro area during 2016 stem from “legacy” issues from the global financial crisis. Despite levels of non-performing loans (NPLs) stabilising and the coverage ratio increasing, NPLs remained high in some Member States. There has been growing concern that high levels of NPLs on bank balance sheets may impede new lending, thereby indirectly hindering the economic recovery.
Profitability in European banking remained low and tended to fall across Member States. Weak bank profitability could become a systemic concern if banks’ ability to improve their shock-absorbing capacity via retained earnings and provisioning is restrained. This could prevent banks from engaging in new lending activities and lead to more structural business model-related concerns. Low profitability is also linked to risks associated with banks' search for yield. Banks may be tempted to take on more risk to improve profitability, which in turn could make them more vulnerable to future shocks.
Figure 3: Euro Area interest rates on loans to non-financial entities
(1-year maturity)
Source: European Central Bank
The downward trend of interest rates in 2016 (figure 3) reflected ECB monetary policy actions implemented during 2016. The easing of credit standards on loans to corporations of all sizes will be analysed more in detail in the next section with specific focus on SMEs.
Relevance of the macro-financial context for financial instruments
The macro-financial dynamics depicted above are bound to affect the performance of EU financial instruments through various channels. For example, the demand of EU financial instruments by financial intermediaries is affected by the overall still subdued, though somewhat accelerating, economic activity and very low interest rates, which inevitably impact on the final recipients' demand for loans and equity. Also the continued adjustment of business models and balance sheets of EU banks has an impact on avaialable bank funding and, in consequence, on demand for other sources of funding, in particular via capital markets. In addition, the negative interest rates introduced by several central banks (including the ECB) have had repercussions both on interest rates linked to debt instruments, and on the remuneration of fiduciary accounts for the financial instruments.
In addition, favourable labour market conditions may enhance the job creation targeted by financial instruments. As a further example, public finance retrenchment may impair a Member State's resource availability, and hence prompt additional demand for loans and equity on the part of financial instruments' final recipients. Moreover, changes in the internal or external value of the currency may affect firms' competitiveness and hence their need for EU financing support.
The following sections analyse in more detail the economic and financial situation of target groups that are of particular interest for EU policy-making.
2.Strategic Target Groups
The EU has identified recipients in the business sector based on firm employment, turnover and/or balance sheet, including SMEs (i.e. micro, small and medium-sized enterprises) and small innovative midcaps.
2.1.EU SMEs
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in the EU amount to more than 22 million, and constitute the connective tissue of the EU productive fabric: they represent 99,8% of EU companies, almost 58% of GDP (total value added) and near 67% of the total workforce.
Yet despite their economic importance, SMEs typically face greater problems than larger firms in several dimensions, including access to finance, especially (but not exclusively) during financial crises.
Among the external sources of financing in 2016, debt was the most relevant for EU SMEs, with bank loans declining in importance but still being considered by half of them. As for equity, 13% of EU SMEs deemed it relevant.
2.1.1.SME Loan Market
2.1.1.1.Demand for SME loan finance
According to the UEAPME (2017), the overall business environment for European SMEs remains stable, exhibiting moderate but steady growth.
Considering the geographical dimension, the situation is quite similar and stable for both the North & Centre and the South & Periphery areas. In the former area (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and UK) – "North” in the graph – the Climate index has reached 77,3 percentage points (i.e., +0,2 compared to last semester), whereas in the latter area (Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain) – "South" in the graph – it has increased by 0,4 points, recording 72,1 points, indicating a homogenous growth path. As noted in UEAPME (2017), a gap between the North and the South persists, showing some lingering heterogeneity across the EU economies. In addition, while the between-group growth path may have stabilised, within-group differences are sharpening.
Source: UEAPME (2017).
Note: The UEAPME SME Business Climate Index is calculated as the average of the current situation and the expectations for the next period, resulting from the sum of positive and neutral (meaning: no change) answers pertaining to the overall situation for the business. For example, for “semester A” with 25% positive, neutral 55%, and 20% negative answers, the Index would be (25 + 55 =) 80, and for “semester B” with 40% positive, 30% neutral, and 30% negative answers, it would fall to (40 + 30 =) 70. However, the respective balances of positive minus negative answers would show an opposite result, growing from “semester A” (25 – 20 =) 5% to “semester B” (40 – 30 =) 10%. Therefore, these balances should also be examined, and are reported in UEAPME (2017).
2.1.1.2.Supply of SME loan finance
The current status of bank lending to non-financial corporations – including SMEs – is analysed in the ECB Bank Lending Survey. The survey reports the net percentage of banks contributing to tightening credit standards for SMEs. As shown by Figure 6, a general decrease in net tightening for loans to SMEs has occurred since the first quarter of 2013. In January 2014, a negative net tightening (i.e. a net easing) was attained for the first time after almost seven years. Henceforth, the net easing of SME credit standards experienced uneven improvements: after a backlash in May 2015, it continuously reprised at a moderate pace until the end of 2016 while remaining slightly better than that for large enterprises.
Across the different firm sizes, credit standards were again eased more strongly on loans to SMEs than on loans to large firms. For the large euro area countries, credit standards on loans to enterprises continued to ease considerably in Italy and remained unchanged in the other countries, with the exception of France where they continued to tighten somewhat in net terms (ECB 2016).
Figure 6: Changes in credit standards applied to the approval of loans or credit lines to enterprises (SMEs versus large enterprises)
Note: A positive net percentage indicates that a larger proportion of banks has tightened credit standards (“net tightening”), whereas a negative net percentage indicates that a larger proportion of banks has eased credit standards (“net easing”).
During 2016, several factors contributed in net terms to the easing of credit standards for SMEs (Figure 7), most notably bank competition, industry or firm specific situations, liquidity position and access to market financing.
Figure 7: Factors contributing to tightening credit standards for SMEs
Note: The net percentages for responses to questions related to the factors are defined as the difference between the percentage of banks reporting that the given factor contributed to a tightening and the percentage reporting that it contributed to an easing.
2.1.1.3.Market loan volumes and interest rates
Volumes of SME loans
Credit growth and lending conditions for the private sector in general, and SMEs in particular, have not yet fully incorporated the change in the business climate and financial stability.This picture of still difficult conditions for corporate lending in some Member States and especially for SMEs has been compounded by the continued grim situation in regard to lending volumes. Using small loans (below EUR 1 million) as a proxy for SME loans, ECB data on bank loans to non-financial corporations show that new volumes within the Euro Area decreased continuously by 56.9% from their peak in July 2007 until August 2014, and although they increased thereafter, by the end of 2016 the annual amount of loans up to EUR 1 million was still 16,6% below its 2004 level. In comparison, large loans reached a volume of only 8,5 % below their 2004 level.
Across the Euro Area countries, new bank lending to SMEs seemed to pick up slightly from the decline during the crisis through 2016 (Figure 8). Among "periphery" countries, there was a slight increase in Spain and in Ireland from 2015, where economic recovery is taking hold, and also in Greece and Cyprus, where liquidity pressures and credit quality deterioration had contributed to a sharp decline in new lending to SMEs through 2014. In "core" countries, lending volumes slightly decreased in 2014 across the board, except for Germany. While during the height of the financial crisis the volatility in SME loan volumes has been higher in periphery countries than in core countries, in the latest years this phenomenon has reverted course, with periphery countries enjoying a greater loan stability than core countries.
Figure 8: Loan Volumes:Millions of Euro (New Business)
Note: Loans up to and including EUR 1 million.
Source: ECB Data Warehouse
Interest rates on SME loans
Figure 9 illustrates the evolution of interest rate levels for different loan sizes by maturity over the past two years. The graph suggests that the ECB’s quantitative easing efforts have continued to trickle down, resulting in declining interest rates for loans to non-financial corporations, over all size-classes and all maturities. Overall, interest rates for all the amounts and maturities during 2016 did not exceed 3,5%. In addition, regardless of maturity, but especially in the short-run, small loans continue to be burdened with higher interest rates.
Figure 9: Interest rates by loan size and maturity, and the interest rate size spread. Sep 2014 to Sep 2016.
Looking at the country breakdown, interest rates on new loans to businesses up to EUR 1 million have mostly declined since the start of 2015, with Ireland as an exception, and the spreads between "North" and "South" countries have narrowed, while remaining substantial (Figure 10). While part of this differential reflects differences in macroeconomic risk among euro area countries, this could also indicate that SMEs with similar risk profiles tend to suffer from higher lending costs depending on the country in which they are located. This fragmentation could be explained by the still fragile situation of many banks in some countries, which are plagued with high levels of non-performing loans. Indeed, banks with high levels of NPLs tend to lend less as they are less profitable, have weaker capital buffers and higher funding costs (Aiyar et al., 2015).
Figure 10: Interest Rates on New Loans to SMEs. Comparison EU South and Periphery vs EU North and Centre. (Loans up to and including EUR 1million)
Figure 10a: EU "South"
|
Figure 10b: EU "North"
|
Source: ECB Data Warehouse
2.1.1.4.Access to loan finance of EU SMEs
As a consequence of this credit dynamics, access to finance is still an important concern for a number of small and medium sized EU enterprises. Younger and smaller firms are the most badly affected, according to the latest "Access to Finance" survey covering the whole EU, released by the European Commission and European Central Bank.
Although EU SMEs are optimistic about their growth prospects, many are still concerned about the lack of access to finance: 9% of survey respondents still regard access to finance as the most important problem for their companies. However, in the last round of the survey, EU SMEs considered access to finance the least important problem that they faced (9%, down from 10% in the previous round), although results differ across countries.
In 2016, 27% of SMEs in the 28 EU Member States applied for a bank loan, a proportion similar to 2015. Most of them were successful: 70% (67% in 2015) of all applications were granted in full. In 2016, the rejection rate for bank loan applications was 7% compared to 8% in 2015.
However, there are large differences between countries regarding the proportion of SMEs applying for bank loans. In France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Portugal and Slovenia the proportion was equal or higher than the EU28 average of 27%. In Ireland, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Denmark, Cyprus, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and Cyprus the proportion of SMEs applying for bank loans was less than 20%. It should be noted that in Greece, many SMEs (26%) did not apply for bank loans because of fear of rejection but this is an improvement compared to 37% of 2015; to a lesser extent, the same holds for Cyprus (12%). The survey also shows that SMEs continued to be confronted with higher rejection rates compared to larger corporations. Indeed, the highest rejection rate was among micro companies employing fewer than 10 people (9%) and the lowest applied to large companies employing more than 250 people (1%).
Figure 11 illustrates the change in availability of bank loans for SMEs in the euro area.
Figure 11: Change in availability of bank loans for euro area SMEs (over the preceding 6 months; % of respondents)
Note: “Net percentage” means the difference between the percentage of firms reporting an increase (or an improvement) for a given factor and that reporting a decrease (or deterioration).
Based on EC and ECB (2016) SAFE data, it can be estimated that up to 3,5% of EU SMEs have had difficulty in accessing loan finance despite being in fact financially viable, in the sense of having exhibited a positive turnover growth in the previous six months. The difficulty in accessing finance is compounded by the fact that a majority of EU SMEs look at external finance as their only source of financing, and bank loans are a relevant source of external finance for 50% of them.
2.1.2.SMEs and the European Equity Market
2.1.2.1.SME Demand for Equity
In 2016, only 22% of SMEs felt confident to discuss financing and obtain the desired results with equity investors and venture capital enterprises, compared to 67% feeling confident to discuss financing with banks. Smaller firms, regardless of their innovation profile, are less confident in their financial competences; in fact, 17% of EU SMEs considers equity financing not relevant to their enterprise (an improvement in comparison with the previous year's result of 18%). As a consequence, only 2% of Euro area SMEs used equity financing in 2016, a percentage which remains unchanged with regards to 2015, (Figure 12). Overall debt financing continues to be preferred to equity financing by EU SMEs: indeed, 18% of them used bank loans, while only 2% used equity financing.
Figure 12: Share of SMEs that used equity financing in the previous 6 months, Euro Area
Access to equity financing is slightly more common among larger businesses in the EU (4% of those with 250+ employees), reflecting diffuse difficulties in accessing this specific financial instrument.
2.1.2.2.Supply of Equity for SMEs
In 2016, most categories of enterprises reported a slight decrease (minus one percentage point with respect to 2015) in the willingness of investors to invest in equity or debt (Figure 13). Among the 54% of EU SMEs expressing an opinion about the willingness of investors to invest in equity in the past 6 months, most reported no change (39%), 10% reported an improvement while 5% reported a deterioration.
Figure 13 : Change over the past six months in the willingness of investors to invest in firm equity or debt securities
Source: ECB and EC (2016)
The findings in the aforementioned SAFE study show that 14% of SMEs report an improvement in the availability of equity as a way of financing. However, the lack of equity finance in Europe is increasingly being recognised as a key bottleneck to the provision of further overall SME funding.
Among the different opportunities of equity financing for SMEs, a crucial role is played by Venture Capital financing, a segment of private equity mostly focusing on start-up firms and small businesses. Spanning from the seed to the growth phase of companies' development, Venture Capital investments serve 86% of European SMEs seeking equity financing, and 83% in terms of total amounts invested in SMEs.
2.1.2.3.Access to Venture Capital of EU SMEs
From a broad supply perspective, the structural challenges in the European Venture Capital market, the difficult fundraising environment, and the still somewhat risk-averse market sentiment, are all sources of significant problems for fund managers in the access to funding in general, and for new funds in particular. Moreover, markets for analysis are underdeveloped, and both private and public investors are disadvantaged in accessing credit information, and therefore find it harder to operate on an equal footing with established players in the debt-financing sector.
The latest available figures from Invest Europe (2017) – formerly EVCA - point to the following trends in the European Venture Capital sector:
a) Fundraising
·Venture Capital fundraising in Europe totalled EUR 6,4 billion in 2016 which represents an increase of 37% compared to 5,3 billion in 2015; it exceeds the previous highest amount of 2013 (Figure 14) and reaches the highest level since 2008. Government agencies remained the most prominent provider of funding, representing more than 25 % of the total funds raised (compared to 14% in 2007).
Figure 14: Venture Capital – Funds raised by type of investor
Note: Incremental amount raised during the year - % of total
Source: Invest Europe (2017)
·As regards the geographic breakdown, 39,9% of the funding came from France and the Benelux region, followed by 12,3% from the DACH region (Germany, Austria and Switzerland), 10,8% from Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece), and 9,9% from the UK and Ireland, a significant drop compared to 19,3% in 2015; 9,2% came from North America.
b) Investments
·The total amount of Venture Capital invested in 2016 reached EUR 4,4 billion, up 4% from 2015. This figure is in the same order of magnitude as the volumes recorded each year since 2009 and significantly lower than pre-crisis levels.
·Over 3000 companies received investments backed by VC funds in 2016 (a reduction of 7% compared to 2015) which indicates a trend towards larger financing rounds. Start-up companies were at the centre of Venture Capital funds' attention, as they received almost half of the amounts invested.
·As regards sectors, ICT, bio-tech and healthcare, consumer goods and services accounted for over 80% of all Venture Capital investments.
·In terms of geographic breakdown by equity amount invested in 2016, most of the Venture Capital funds' investment occurred within Europe, either domestically (EUR 2,7 billion) or cross-border (EUR 1,3 billion), with inflows and outflows outside Europe almost netting out (EUR 425 million vs EUR 499 million).
·While Venture Capital funds invested 84% of their capital in SMEs (representing 97% of their target group, Figure 15),
Private Equity funds only invested 28% of their capital in SMEs (which still constitute 83% of their target group).
Figure 15: Venture Capital – Investment in SMEs (2016)
Source: Invest Europe (2017)
c) Divestments
·Venture Capital divestments increased to EUR 2,5 billion in 2016, up from EUR 2,2 billion in 2015 (+14%), lying within the range of EUR 1,9 to 2,5 billion recorded since 2008. Trade sale to another private equity firm was the most common exit route, representing 27% of all divestments.
·The number of exited Venture Capital financed companies stood close to 1300.
·The highest financial volumes earned in exits were realised in ICT and consumer goods and services (Figure 16). The volumes earned in exits in financial services decreased from 18,3% in 2013 to 2% in 2016.
Figure 16: Divestments at cost by sector – Venture Capital / Buyout / Growth
Source: Invest Europe (2017)
As shown above, in 2016, around 25% of funding for Venture Capital came from government agencies, and the total amount raised from such agencies for Venture Capital funds in Europe was around EUR 1,6 billion with government agencies significantly stepping up investments starting in 2009. However, such efforts target mostly national Venture Capital markets, thus contributing less to the emergence of a robust pan-European Venture Capital industry, a crucial factor when it comes to the overall innovative and high-growth capacity of the EU economy.
Importantly, public grants usually dry up as a concept moves from the basic research stage through to applied research, and then to piloting, while private capital is not available until the later stages, when technological and commercial risks have diminished.
2.1.2.4.Equity Financing Gap for Innovative SMEs
A study commissioned by the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) draws on and synthesises the outputs of a wide range of sources to examine, amongst other topics, the interrelated questions of whether innovative EU SMEs suffer from an insufficient supply of Venture Capital and if Venture Capital funds suffer from a lack of demand from SMEs.
The study found that the supply of Venture Capital is low in Europe because many institutional investors either withdrew from the Venture Capital market following losses from the bursting of the dot.com bubble and have not returned, or, in the wake of the financial crisis, have ceased to invest in Venture Capital or have moved their focus from seed and start-up Venture Capital investments to later-stage Venture Capital or private equity investments. Europe lacks a pool of large pension funds, university endowments, foundations and family offices willing and able to fill the gap, though public efforts have gone some way to compensate, with government agencies significantly stepping up investments over the past few years.
In addition, Europe suffers from a problem in the quality of the funds supplying Venture Capital: not many are large enough to attract institutional investors or sufficiently experienced in selecting promising companies. Furthermore, the persistent segmentation of the market along national lines reduces cross-border operations and undermines attempts to achieve economies of scale in both fund-raising and investment.
On the demand side, the study found that a common complaint of Venture Capital funds in Europe is the limited number of high-potential firms worth investing in, especially in the early stages, and particularly firms that can be expected to deliver an acceptable rate of return. The causes identified include low relative and absolute levels of R&D expenditure in most Member States, disadvantaging the generation of new ideas; insufficient investment in mechanisms supporting TT and commercialisation; lack of business skills on the part of company management teams and a raft of framework conditions linked to IP rights, public procurement practices, tax regimes, and the flexibility of labour markets.
In the study on financial instruments accompanying the impact assessment for COSME, the authors reject the idea of equating the aggregate financing gap in the EU with the amount that would be needed to approach the ratio of Venture Capital investments to GDP found in the US. They argue that this method overlooks structural differences between the two economies and neglects issues of absorption capacity, such as difficulties in increasing the numbers of skilled Venture Capital fund-managers, or the dearth of investment opportunities. Instead, their approach is to target a doubling of the recent level of Venture Capital investments over five years, requiring, so the authors estimate, a progressively gap-filling increment of about EUR 800 million per year.
2.2.EU Small and Innovative Midcaps
While SMEs are at the centre of EU policy initiatives, small mid-caps are increasingly recognised for their important role in growth and employment. At this stage of the economic cycle and following the constraints posed for the whole EU economy by the aftermath of the financial crisis, small mid-caps play a key role in economic recovery, growth and employment in Europe.
Small mid-caps, in certain circumstances, could also face financing constraints comparable to those affecting SMEs. Such may be the case for mid-caps carrying out R&D and innovation activities alongside initial investment in production facilities, including market replication, and whose track record does not enable potential investors to make relevant assumptions as regards the future market prospects of such activities. However, they benefit from better name recognition, longer credit history and better product track record than SMEs. A stable growth trajectory could even reduce information asymmetries and allow them to gain better access to finance than SMEs, including access to capital market financing. But several small mid-caps in the EU are facing the challenge of being obliged to expand and innovate or else lose their competitive edge. Those mid-caps usually need to invest in research and development (R&D) and pursue a more active internationalisation strategy than SMEs, with the corresponding needs for equity and debt finance.
While data on the consistency of small mid-caps are not readily available, an EIB-commissioned study (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2012) gauged the number of mid-caps at around 39 000, with about half of them being innovative midcaps. A great part of them has relied on debt finance as their main source of external finance in the recent past.
2.3.EU Micro-enterprises
While SMEs represent 99,8% of EU companies, micro-enterprises constitute 92,8% of them; they are thus decisive for boosting jobs, growth and investment in Europe. In addition, they play an even more important role when it comes to the impact on job creation for vulnerable groups and a resulting positive social inclusion effect.
Micro-enterprises share the same difficulties as other SMEs, yet typically to a higher degree; this is shown in figure 16, which illustrates how micro-enterprises' overall situation – while following the general SME favourable evolution in 2016 – continues to rank systematically below all other SME size classes.
Figure 16: Overall situation of SMEs by size class
Source: UEAPME (2017)
A similar argument can be made in relation to access to finance. Data from the latest Survey on the Access to Finance of Enterprises (SAFE) show that micro-enterprises in the Euro area reported “access to finance” as their least pressing problem, in line with all the other firms' class sizes; compared to the previous survey wave, the percentage of companies listing access to finance as their most pressing problem has in fact decreased for all enterprise sizes, including micro-enterprises (from 10% to 9%).
However, analysing the responses from the SAFE regarding interest rates, micro-enterprises rank highest when considering bank loans as not relevant for their activity because interest rates or price are too high (10% vs 7% and 4%, respectively for small and medium-large enterprises). Additionally, this category is characterised by the lowest percentage regarding the decline in the interest rates: only 27% responded that interest rates decreased in the last six months, compared to 38% for small enterprises and 45% for medium-large ones.
Again based on 2016 SAFE data, approximately 15% of micro-enterprises which demanded a loan were denied access to finance.
Considering the supply side, the main channel of financing of micro-enterprises is the micro-finance market, which provides micro-loans of up to EUR 25,000. This market is as diverse as its actors. To a large extent, this diversity of institutional structures is related to differences in the national legal environment for loan provision, differences in the established financial systems and the variety of micro-enterprise promotion and underlying policy directions. The main institutional forms of Micro-Finance Institutions (MFIs) are Non-Bank Financial Institutions (NBFIs), Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), Credit Unions and Cooperatives, and Banks (Figure 19). The decrease of MFIs surveyed structured as NGOs and corresponding rise of NBFIs might be explained by a maturing of the European micro-finance sector: existing NGOs may be scaling down their business and consequently changing their legal status to NBFIs, since NBFIs can offer a wider range of services and access commercial sources of capital, as they operate under a license from the central bank.
Figure 19: Distribution of MFIs by institutional type
Source: EMN (2016a)
In addition to the institutional variety, the European micro-finance markets are characterised by a large diversification of the products offered, especially the underlying product features: current average loan term, average interest rate and the presence of additional fees.
Moreover, due to its social sustainability, the micro-finance sector presents important complementarities with social entrepreneurship. Micro-finance providers contribute to job creation and facilitate social inclusion supporting new entrepreneurs, some of whom might become social entrepreneurs. Furthermore, micro-finance providers are often social enterprises themselves. Nonetheless, micro-finance providers generally have less capacity to finance social enterprises, especially when the latter have already reached a certain size, as they are structured to specifically satisfy individuals' and micro-enterprises' financial needs; the most important funding gap for social enterprises is between EUR 100 000 and EUR 250 000.
Based on the most recent European Microfinance Network Overview Survey, the average business micro-loan was reported to have featured an interest rate around 10% with large variations across countries.
In 2015, all MFIs covered by the EMN Survey disbursed 220 305 business micro-loans amounting to a total volume of around EUR 917 million. Combined with the results of past EMN surveys, this indicates a steady growth of the observed business micro-lending activities among the MFIs surveyed in Europe since 2009. Compared to 2014, the number of business loans disbursed increased by 8%, and the reported total loan volume increased by 6% since 2009, with a reduction of the average loan size.
Overall, at the level of general supply of micro-finance in Europe, the overall distribution of micro-loans is shifting towards personal microloans (between 2014-2015, the personal microloan portfolio grew by 35% compared to +9% for the business portfolio). Commercial banks – which represent a large component of supply – are expected to keep reducing their lending to small start-ups and micro-enterprises. If commercial banks continue to reduce their already limited exposure to risky small-scale loan operations over the coming years, the access to finance for micro-borrowers may be expected to further deteriorate.
Over the past years, support for microThe provision of microloans is regarded as particularly suitable for addressing a variety of different social and economic problems. Apart from mitigating financial exclusion and the persistent high unemployment rates in Europe, the microfinance sector has more recently developed to offer green microloans for renewables, energy efficiency and environmentally-friendly activities. Although the trend is still subdued, the EMN survey (2016) suggests that the promotion of green microloans is carried out or planned by nearly one-third of respondents, thus ensuring potential for a future growth in the segment.
HoweverThe development of stable funding patterns remains a challenge. The general public support for micro-finance provision is expected to decline in the coming years, due to budget restrictions and high deficits at national and regional levels. Therefore, the availability of affordable funding is more and more limited and prone to external influences. Consequently, MFIs are attempting to prepare for this by developing more efficient and lean processes and reducing costs. Many of them are already looking for additional sources of funding. Especially fast growing organisations report a need for additional equity to secure lending operations and to collect funding in the formal financial market. In this context, the micro-finance instruments adopted by the EU represent an important measure to address micro-enterprises' financing gaps by leveraging public and (possibly) private funds while minimising market distortions.
3.Strategic Target Sectors
At the sectorial level, the broad infrastructure sector (comprising both tangible and intangible infrastructure) performs a crucial role in both development and sustainable growth, in contexts where private enterprises of all sizes and public entities interact to provide the necessary output. Infrastructure improves the productivity of the rest of the economy, enabling growth, and facilitates the interconnection of the internal market. The infrastructure in the EU comprises a number of strategic sectors, such as Research and Innovation, Transport, Energy Infrastructure and Efficiency, Digital (ICT and Broadband), Social Enterprises, Education and Culture.
The EU tangible infrastructure market has been evolving extremely quickly. Whereas institutional investors in Europe were reluctant to enter the long-term infrastructure financing market until a couple of years ago, recent months have witnessed an increased liquidity in the market although largely targeted at a restricted number of countries and sectors. In this context, analysing the existing trends and correctly forecasting the medium-to-long-term orientation of the market will be crucial for creating successful financial instruments. A fundamental challenge for the EU will be to build capacity to perform such tasks covering a variety of sectors.
Investment needs for transport, energy, and telecom infrastructure networks of EU importance – that is, cross-border and of large amounts – are estimated at EUR 1 trillion for the period up to 2020. Significant investment will also be needed in human capital and in R&D, new technologies and innovation as well as energy efficiency under the Europe 2020 strategy and the 2030 climate and energy package. Given the scale of the investment required and the reduction in infrastructure investment by the majority of Member States, it is clear that private sector financing will be important, and should be complemented by possible interventions at a global (e.g., EU) level.
In order to increase the ability of the private sector to undertake these investments, EU financial instruments can contribute to provide financing which otherwise would not be available and absorb some of the risks, which the private sector is not able or willing to take.
Given that one of the key market failures emerging in infrastructure is the lack of mature projects, efforts should be concentrated not only on the development of appropriate instruments but also on the provision of technical assistance to assist national authorities to prepare eligible projects. In this respect, additional efforts will be made to extend the pipeline of projects benefiting from EU financial instruments outside of the core sectors and core geographical markets.
The long-term financing required to fund infrastructure embodies some key features that the policy-maker should take in due consideration:
·It finances productive activities which support growth by reducing costs, diversifying means of production and creating jobs in a smart, sustainable and inclusive way;
·It is patient, in that investors take into account the long-term performance and risks of their investments, rather than short-term price fluctuations. This long-term perspective acts in a counter-cyclical manner and promotes financial stability;
·It is committed, in that investors take longer-term aspects such as environmental, social, governance issues into account in their investment strategies.
The climate of uncertainty and risk aversion created by the financial and economic crisis has affected both the demand and the supply of long-term financing. On the demand side, this has been evidenced by reduced demand from SMEs, Private Public Partnerships and other investment projects requiring long-term financing, resulting in a suboptimal level of long-term investment and financing. On the supply side, the crisis has increased risk aversion, leading to a preference for liquidity. This, together with bank deleveraging, has affected the economy's ability to finance projects at long maturities. The sub-optimal levels of long-term financing also reflect market failures and inefficiencies in the intermediation chain.
Additionally, social infrastructure, as a subset of the broad definition of infrastructure, is also undergoing financial difficulties, albeit for reasons different from those affecting tangible infrastructure.
3.1.Research and Innovation
The financial crisis had a significant negative impact on innovation. Since 2015, the percentage of firms that managed to bring new or improved products to the market has declined across all industries in the EU-28. There are various reasons for this:
·public support for innovation decreased in several countries because of the priority given to fiscal consolidation;
·a fragile banking sector forced to restore its balance sheets meant that innovating firms had additional difficulties finding external financing;
·the reduced demand for goods and services, together with greater uncertainty about the future, made long-term R&D projects with high sunk costs more risky (OECD 2012).
The above effects were only partially compensated by other offsetting factors. First, there was a shift of focus towards process innovation, aiming at reducing costs and prices. Second, by lowering demand, the financial crisis reduced the opportunity costs of spending on innovation rather than output (OECD 2012, Barlevy 2007).
Nonetheless, EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard data and PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) patent applications from the World Intellectual Property Organization database show that innovation activities declined. As compared with pre-recession levels, a large proportion of European firms decreased their spending on innovation following the outbreak of the crisis. Indeed, the 2009 Innobarometer also provides evidence of the negative impact of the crisis, showing a substantial impact on firms in the medium and high innovation-intensive sectors. Trends over the past 6 years show a hesitant recovery of companies based in the EU, especially in terms of net sales. In 2015/2016, 590 EU companies among the top world 2500 R&D investors increased R&D by 7.5%, while decreasing net sales (-3.6%)..
The bulk of positive externalities derived from improvements in Research and Innovation renders this sector one of the main drivers of European economic and social growth. On this basis, the declining trend of innovation among European firms has to be addressed.
Furthermore, an effective pursuit of the Europe 2020 Strategy's objectives and headline targets requires a recovery of R&D activities, and possibly an acceleration to meet the 2020 target of 3% R&D expenditure over GDP. From a financial viewpoint, banks typically lack the ability to value knowledge assets, and are therefore often unwilling to invest in knowledge-based companies or do so only if compensated with a significant risk premium. Consequently, many established and innovative firms (typically SMEs) find it hard to obtain loans for R&I activities.
3.2.Transport
The existence and quality of an integrated transport network (comprising road, rail, inland waterways, maritime, airports and air traffic management) is strongly correlated with the international competitiveness of the country, due to reduced travel and transportation times, better interconnections between the modes of transport, and integration of regional and national production sites with distribution and selling channels targeting the national and global markets.
Transport infrastructure is therefore fundamental for the mobility of persons and goods in the internal market, and for the economic, social, and territorial cohesion of the European Union. According to DG MOVE data, the EU comprises 5 000 000 km of paved roads (of which circa 74 300 km are motorways), over 220 000 km of rail lines (of which more than 115 200 km electrified), and nearly 42 000 km of navigable inland waterways.
In order to address the associated transport investment from a systemic perspective, the EU adopted in 2013 a regulation providing Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T Guidelines). The regulation establishes a legally binding obligation for the Member States to develop the so-called "core" and "comprehensive" TEN-T networks. In addition, the regulation identifies projects of common interest and specifies the requirements to be complied with in the implementation of such projects.
The core network overlays the comprehensive network and consists of its strategically most important parts. It constitutes the backbone of the multi-modal mobility network Europe's citizens and businesses need. It concentrates on those components of TEN-T with the highest European added value: cross-border missing links, key bottlenecks and multi-modal nodes. The core network is to be in place by 31 December 2030 at the latest.
The cost of EU transport infrastructure development is estimated at over EUR 1,5 trillion for 2010-2030. The completion of the TEN-T network alone requires about EUR 550 billion until 2020 out of which some EUR 215 billion can be referred to the removal of major bottlenecks. This compares with total investment on transport infrastructure during the period 2000-2006 of EUR 859 billion.
In October 2016, the Commission launched four calls for proposals for co-financing projects with EUR 1.94 billion of EU funding to improve European transport connections (around EUR 1.1 billion to be allocated under the Cohesion envelope, while the remaining EUR 0.84 billion awarded to the General envelope call). Both the multi-annual Cohesion and General envelope have registered a considerable oversubscription rate, providing evidence of the need for expansion of financial instruments dedicated to transport facility investments.
3.3.Energy Infrastructure and Energy Efficiency
Major efforts are needed to modernise and expand Europe's energy infrastructure as well as to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy and interconnect networks across borders to meet the Union's core energy policy objectives of competitiveness, sustainability, and security of supply.
For the next years to come the EU is projected to invest annually at least some EUR 200 billion on average in the energy sector, with energy efficiency measures alone amounting to some EUR 100 billion. Since the Commission's Communication on energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond, adopted on 17 November 2010, the existing Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E) policy and financing framework have been overhauled to coordinate and optimise network development on a pan-continental scale.
The main aim is to ensure the completion of the internal energy market and the security of energy supply, while promoting energy efficiency and energy saving as well as the development of new and renewable forms of energy.
The framework for the policy is now defined in the TEN-E guidelines regulation adopted in April 2013. It is estimated that in electricity alone the transmission grid expansion to accommodate these changes would require EUR 104 billion until 2022 (or, extrapolating, EUR 207 billion until 2030) in addition to the normal replacement of assets, estimated at EUR 76 billion until 2035. In addition, approximately EUR 40 billion will be required by 2020 for a smart grid investment on the transmission and distribution level. Some EUR 70 billion will need to be invested by 2020 in gas transmission assets of European importance such as gas interconnectors, storages, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) regasification terminals. These costs will be predominantly financed from network fees paid by the energy end-users.
The projects will be developed by Transmission System Operators (TSOs) i.e. companies set up specifically to develop and run the electricity and gas transmission networks. TSOs operate in a highly regulated business environment. Although regulations differ from Member State to Member State, they frequently include aspects such as agreed investment volumes, maximum debt ratios, maximum debt remuneration, etc. The regulatory approved revenue is normally linked to the book value of the assets they operate, the so-called Regulated Asset Base (RAB).
3.4.ICT/Broadband
The Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE) recognises the role of fast and ultra-fast broadband access platforms for innovation and growth and sets ambitious targets for broadband coverage and take-up: (i) making basic broadband access available to all EU by 2013, (ii) making broadband access at internet speeds of above 30 Mbps available to all EU by 2020 and (iii) ensuring that by 2020 50% of EU households subscribe to internet broadband of 100 Mbps or higher. More recently, the Commisison has put forward the European Gigabit Society strategy that sets three strategic objectives to be reached by 2025: (i) gigabit connectivity for all main socio-economic drivers such as schools, transport hubs and main providers of public services as well as digitally intensive enterprises; (ii) high performance 5G connectivity: by 2020 a fully-fledged commercial service in at least one major city in each of the 28 Member States and by 2025 uninterrupted 5G coverage of all urban areas and major terrestrial transport paths; and (iii) all European households, rural or urban, to have access to Internet connectivity offering download speed of at least 100 Mbps, upgradable to Gigabit speed.
Full coverage with basic broadband has recently been achieved (with a combination of fixed, mobile and satellite technologies) and the focus is now shifting to the challenges associated with the deployment of Next Generation Access (NGA) networks and take-up.
The last two broadband targets ("NGA targets") require substantial investments in the modernisation of access networks. Total investment needs are difficult to quantify with precision, but indicative estimates from different sources suggest that total investment costs for NGA may exceed EUR 300 billion. As of mid-2015, NGA coverage at 30Mbps is at 71% of the European population and only 11% of broadband subscriptions are 100 Mbps and above.
The European Gigabit Society strategy identified a clear investment gap to reach the 2025 strategic objectives. In addition to the improved regulatory environment that the proposed Electronic Communications Code would bring about, a significant investment gap is expected to persist after 2020. Out of the estimated investment need of € 500 billion to reach the EU's objectives, "an additional € 155 billion [is required] over and above a simple continuation of the trend of current network investment and modernisation efforts of the connectivity providers".
Despite projects being initiated at various levels, current investment plans in fixed network infrastructure are subject to frequent revisions. However, even if they were fully implemented they would most likely not be sufficient to achieve the necessary coverage for the Digital Agenda NGA targets nor the Gigabit Society strategic objectives, especially as far as rural areas are concerned. All in all, the current pace of broadband roll-out is likely to leave a sizeable investment gap in the years to 2020 and beyond.
Traditionally, the bulk of network investment in telecoms has been shouldered by vertically integrated telecom network and cable operators and to an increasing extent by alternative telecom carriers and municipalities. Along with these actors, a number of alternative investors and new business models have been recently emerging.
An alternative group of investors is represented by regional or local utilities, especially in the energy sector. Network investments initiated by municipalities or regional governments represent another class of projects.
In addition, there is a growing trend of investment initiatives from private open access providers operating on a purely commercial basis, who provide fibre network services, from rolling out to maintenance, to municipalities or regional governments. These companies remain relatively small compared to traditional telecom operators, provided they are mostly relying on their own funds to develop.
The correlation of broadband investment increasing costs with decreasing population density gives rise to a specific issue: a significant part of the EU population lives in areas situated between urban clusters (where there is a clear business case for commercially-driven roll-out). In such rural regions broadband deployment without public support is often not conceivable, although exceptions exist. If a number of conditions are fulfilled, a business case exists for these areas; however, this business case is usually not as compelling and clear-cut as in or at the fringe of conurbations. Specifically, the question is often whether expected revenues and cash-flows can adequately remunerate the risks associated with the project.
Equally, there is often a mismatch between the risk-return profile of projects and the type of investments targeted by investors providing the bulk of financing. On the debt side, long payback cycles combined with high levels of construction and demand risk (at least in the early stages of operation) mean that broadband projects may not qualify for standard senior bank lending; where lenders are ready to extend credit, loan tenors often do not match the long asset lives of telecom networks. At the same time, debt capital market solutions may not be available to fill the gap because transaction costs are prohibitive in relation to the relatively small size of the projects.
On the equity side, the weakness of broadband investments is that they do not fit the definition of common asset classes: broadband projects carry greater risk than more traditional infrastructure in transport, energy or water and are by no means comparable to the high-risk/high-return strategies with short- to medium-term exit of other fund investors.
The above constraints are exacerbated by additional factors, which impede the matching process between investors and candidate projects. Both senior lenders and other investors have difficulties with appraising the risks associated with smaller broadband projects and with valuing telecom network assets. Especially, regulatory risk is perceived as a major hindrance in the telecommunications sector, and regulatory uncertainty on potential infrastructure competition and pricing implications for broadband networks severely impedes decisions of investing in open access network operators. Moreover, small ticket sizes and lack of standardisation across projects may further complicate the deal-making process. These factors drive transaction costs up and often prove to be a decisive obstacle.
3.5.Social enterprises
Traditionally, the European social model has always been characterised by the prominent role played by a variety of organisations that differ from mainstream private corporations and traditional non-profit organizations/social economy entities. These private organisations that are grouped under the notion of "social enterprise" pursue an explicit and primary social aim. Their main purpose is to achieve measurable, positive social impacts, rather than to generate financial gains for their owners or stakeholders. They provide goods and services which generate a social return and/or employ methods of production of goods or services that embody a social objective. Social enterprises are revenue-generating entities working in the market which, by definition, aim to maximise their social mission. Profits are mainly oriented toward delivering on the social objectives underpinning their business models. Social enterprises are important engines for social innovation and contribute to EU's employment, social cohesion, regional and rural development, environmental and consumer protection, etc.
There are 2 million social economy entities in Europe, which are partly social enterprises. The social economy represents 10% of all businesses in the EU, and employs more than 11 million people – about 6% of the EU’s employees. Social economy organisations are traditionally structured in the legal forms of cooperatives, mutual undertakings, associations and foundations. They have various objectives ranging from agriculture and banking to provision of employment and sheltered workshops.
These enterprises, which have been active in Europe for nearly two centuries, have been recognised and regulated in many countries through specific legal forms (including in particular the cooperative, the mutual, the foundation and the association, as well as other legal forms and business models recently developing), have set up their own representative organisations to interact with public authorities, and have contributed in various ways to the social and economic development of Europe. In fact recent studies highlight the correlation (and at some point the causality) between social capital and economic growth. Moreover, the recent crisis has pointed out the fragility of an economic and financial system merely based on the profit maximisation benchmark.
Social enterprises play an important role in complementing the action of public authorities, not least because of their innovative nature. They also create jobs often more sustainable and of better quality than those in the mainstream economy. However, they face a number of obstacles to growth, notably (but not exclusively) in accessing finance. Particularly in some Member States the social enterprise sector is still underdeveloped.
Furthermore, a great number of social enterprises are at a pre-bankable stage without the means to generate stable cash flows from their activities or provide collateral against a bank loan, and therefore without access to traditional forms of debt financing. Thus, mainstream banks are not suitable channels for supporting social enterprises in so much as they are unable to lend to non-bankable entities without a full guarantee on such bank loans. In addition, the depth of the social banking market is limited since at present approximately 29 social and ethical banks and financial institutions exist in the EU with 11 of them located in 3 MS. Social banks, although they do provide banking services, are not in the business of lending to social enterprises but rather focus on lending to socially marginalised individuals as a way to promote social inclusion.
In the Social Business Initiative, the Commission pointed out that “the funding system for social enterprises is underdeveloped in relation to that used by other businesses”. This was confirmed by a 2013 study on imperfections in the social investment market as well as by a number of national studies.
A recent study, outlining several constraints to starting and scaling-up social enterprise activity, shows how access to finance was identified across almost every European country as a significant barrier. For example, over a third of social enterprises in Denmark do not have any lines of credit and in the Netherlands this figure rises to 40%. Moreover, a number of Member States have highlighted the limited range of financial instruments available to social investors. Stakeholders in Hungary noted that financing options available to SMEs (such as investment funds and state guarantees) were not available for social enterprises. In contrast, although available private funds are significant in Germany, they are usually conservatively managed and not necessarily accessible for innovative social enterprises or start-ups.
Another factor is the investment readiness of social enterprises. There is often a lack of understanding on both sides (supply and demand for social finance), an unwillingness to pay interest rates, an orientation towards the so-called grant economy or a lack of necessary documents such as impact reports or business plans.
Moreover, an additional main barrier to the development of a social enterprise is the lack of specialist business development services and support such as incubators, mentoring and training schemes, investment readiness support etc. Most social enterprise support needs are similar to those of mainstream businesses, but at the same time social enterprises have specific features (their dual missions, business models, target groups, sectors of activity etc.) that create complex needs which require diversified and, at times, tailored solutions. Even if the number of social enterprise incubators, mentoring schemes, and investment readiness services across the EU is progressively growing (examples can be found in countries like Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Hungary, etc.), in most countries, specialist support for social enterprises is largely absent.
Thus, there is a clear mismatch between existing funding supply and demand, and a critical gap still remains in providing capital support to a rapidly growing number of enterprises in need of financing in order to grow and innovate. And, in terms of transaction size, most experts agree that there is an individual funding gap below EUR 500k. Depending on the level of development of the social finance markets, the stage of development of social enterprises, their field of activity, and the relevant readily available financial/funding options (grants and financial instruments), this funding gap may range anywhere between EUR 100-500k (with the lower limit being even smaller for less mature contexts).
3.6.Education and Cultural & Creative Sectors
Education and training are at the core of the Europe 2020 Strategy and of the Integrated Guidelines for the Economic and Employment Policies of the Member States. Arguably none of the Europe 2020 objectives and headline targets will be reached without strong investment in human capital.
There is a positive and statistically significant relationship between the level of cognitive skills in a population, productivity and economic growth. For example, an average increase of 25 points in PISA performance across the EU countries could lead to a 3% gain in GDP per capita. The increase in average educational attainments by emerging countries makes the human capital accumulation for EU an even more important challenge in light of international competition for growth. The benefits of learning mobility are clear with significant benefits to graduate employability as well as personal development. This importance is recognised by the agreement of the EU and 'Bologna' mobility target that by 2020, at least 20% European Higher Education Area graduates should have had a study or training period abroad.
The total amount of investment in education over the last years has been dampened by adverse economic and financial conditions on both the demand and supply side. In particular:
·The financial crisis increased uncertainty and risk aversion, lowering long-term private investments in human capital and hampering cross-border student mobility.
·The sovereign debt crisis led to fiscal consolidations, especially in peripheral countries exhibiting low growth / high debt dynamics (such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy), jeopardising previous levels of public spending in education.
The cultural and creative sectors (CCS) have been recognised as important contributors to societal development. With almost EUR 535,9 billions coming from the 11 creative and cultural industry sectors (2012), the CCS represent nearly 4,2% of the EU's GDP. The sector employs over 7.06 million people, predominantly in very small enterprises, and provides work to many who are self-employed.
CCS are by nature inter-disciplinary, as they combine culture, economy, and many other connected areas such as education and innovation. Thus the investments made in CCS may also relate to research and innovation (entrepreneurship, SMEs, clusters, networks), information society (digitisation), education, youth, urban regeneration (as part of integrated projects), improvement of human and social capital and skills development.
Even if CCS grow quickly and there is no evidence that the industry in Europe underperforms in terms of profitability and financial health compared to other sectors, they still suffer from negative stereotypes when their economic performance has to be assessed. Various studies on cultural and creative sectors highlight the fact that access to finance currently is a core barrier to further development. In addition to the barriers to accessing finance for SMEs in general, mainly in the seed stage, specific characteristics of CCS organisations reinforce this particular problem:
·intrinsic characteristics of CCS activities, such as lack of tangible assets, dependence on intangible assets, high uncertainty of market demand, lack of uniform sector definition, asymmetries of information, under-capitalisation, low investment readiness, atypical cash-flow plans and project-centric plans;
·characteristics of organisations and entrepreneurs within the CCS, such as (perceived)
lack of business skills, dependence on public investment schemes and
·specific market conditions, such as size of the market, lack of good market
intelligence, pressure on existing business models.
A further characteristic that heightens the problem of access to finance for the CCS in Europe is the "missing middle" phenomenon, i.e. the lack of middle-sized firms. Due to the criticalities in good access to bank loans for small CCS organisations, even those with the potential to grow have difficulty becoming medium-sized firms suitable to be financed.
All the issues mentioned above result in a large discouragement in applying for external finance, and in particular for bank loans, mainly requested for short term and project-led financing. According to the results of the Survey on access to finance for cultural and creative sectors, only about half of the loans requested have been accepted for at least 75% of the amount applied for.
A total financing gap in the CCS over a 7-year period has been estimated, ranging from EUR 8bn (when on average only 30% of the business plans of CCS organisations are sufficiently solid for financiers) to EUR 13,4bn (when on average, 50% of the business plans of CCS organisations are sufficiently solid for financiers).
4.Strategic Target Non-EU Regions
The European Union is a global economic and political player, with regional and global interests and responsibilities. Its network of international agreements with partners and organisations all over the world, not matched by individual Member States, gives all of them influence in almost all fields of international relations.
This delicate role can be primarily developed by maintaining sound international relations, also in view of the growth of the world's economy, especially through the financial support to strategic world economies, with possible gains in terms of trade with Member States.
Besides this, the EU international role is particularly important to prepare access to the Union for Enlargement countries, through economic, technical and administrative support.
4.1.Enlargement Countries
Enlargement countries are composed of five candidates, one applicant which has put the accession negotiations on hold and two potential candidates.
Source: DG NEAR
The Treaty on the European Union states that any European country may apply for membership if it respects the democratic values of the EU and is committed to promoting them.
The first step is for the country to meet the key criteria for accession. These were mainly defined at the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 and are hence referred to as the 'Copenhagen criteria'. Countries wishing to join need to have:
·stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
·a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
·the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
The EU also needs to be able to integrate new members.
In the case of the Western Balkans, additional conditions for membership were set out in the so-called 'Stabilisation and Association process', mostly relating to regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations.
The longer-term nature of the challenges faced by the enlargement countries underlines the need for a strong focus on the principle of "fundamentals first" in the accession process. Enlargement can only be of benefit to the EU and to partner countries if there is a genuine, sustainable reform process. Through this process countries will become fully ready to join the EU and be able to reap the benefits and assume the obligations that arise from membership.
The Commission supports the reform process in candidate countries and potential candidates by providing both financial assistance through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance and technical assistance, through TAIEX, which is the Commission’s Technical Assistance and Information Exchange instrument.
4.2.Neighbourhood Countries
There are 16 neighbourhood countries to the East and the South of the EU. The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) offers these partners political association and economic integration with the EU. Available instruments are of a political, sectorial, and financial nature. In 2015 there was an extensive public consultation on the ENP in both Member States and partner countries which led to the Joint Communication of 18 November 2015 reviewing the ENP.
. The ENP builds upon the legal agreements in place between the EU and the partner in question: Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCA) or Association Agreements (AA). Central to the ENP have been the bilateral Action Plans or Association Agendas between the EU and each ENP partner (12 of them were agreed). These were designed to set out an agenda of political and economic reforms with short and medium-term priorities of 3 to 5 years. With the ENP Review, the aim has been to have the Action Plans replaced by Partnership Priorities (or similar documents to highlight jointly agreed political priorities for cooperation) and to have the Association Agendas updated. Partnership Priorities (including Compacts) with Lebanon and Jordan were adopted at the end of 2016. Partnership Priorities with Algeria [and, respectively, Egypt] were adopted in 2017. With Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus consultations on such joint political documents have advanced. It is also envisaged to launch similar consultations with Israel and Palestine. With Tunisia, it has recently been agreed that a new framework, to replace the current Action Plan, was needed to reflect the complexity of the future bilateral partnership. Reaching out to Morocco will depend on developments at bilateral level. In some cases where, for the moment, it is not possible to discuss Partnership Priorities (Syria, Libya), bilateral cooperation will be discussed in the framework of specific political/security dialogues. The process of updating the Association Agendas with Georgia and Moldova has advanced. As regards Ukraine, the current Association Agenda was updated in March 2015 and a further update may be envisaged for 2018 or 2019.
Financial cooperation with European Neighbourhood Partner Countries is one of the key areas of interest, where funding focuses on shared political objectives and underpins reforms set out in agreements or Action Plans/ Partnership Priorities, respectively updated Association Agendas with the partners. The bulk of funding comes from the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), with over €15bn for 2014-2020. Apart from providing grants, the EU is also leveraging additional, substantial funding through cooperation with International Financial institutions (EIB, EBRD, WB, etc), and notably through a specific mechanism, the Neighbourhood Investment Facility.
The Ukraine crisis and Syrian conflict and its spill-over effects, both regional and at the EU level, tense situation in Egypt and the significantly worsening state of internal affairs and security situation in Libya also underline the need for effective partnerships and have been taken into account in the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy, launched by the European Commission and the External Action Service in November 2015.
4.3.Countries covered by the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)
Investment needs in EU partner countries are immense. Governments and other public donors' funds are far from sufficient to cover all substantial needs in EU partner countries. In parallel global realities have changed in the past 15 years. Many emerging economies are now thriving, with incomes in some upper middle-income countries outscoring those of EU countries. Nevertheless, there are a number of emerging countries who are currently facing a decline in economic growth or have found themselves in a deep economic crisis (e.g China and Brazil). At the same time, income disparities within a number of developing countries are increasing with negative impacts on sustainable economic growth and social cohesion.
The strategic role of the EU in sustainable social and economic growth of the DCI countries as a condicio sine qua non for poverty reduction lies in its capacity to mobilise a critical mass of financial and political support, having a significant impact on a given social or economic issue. The European Union, through its common resources and the available national capabilities, has means, experience and expertise to act efficiently and in a cost-effective way.
The Agenda for Change emphasises the support of inclusive growth and job creation as a key priority of EU external cooperation. In this context blending, combining EU grants with loans or with equity from other public and private financiers as a financial instrument, leverages additional resources, increasing the impact of EU aid and driving sustainable growth as a basis for poverty reduction.
5.Additional Information on the European Equity Market
The structure of the European Equity Market
The European equity market is composed of different types of private equity investment funds. The nature of such funds depends on the stage of the company's development the funds invest in. Although different definitions and terminologies exist, a commonly accepted approach to split equity funds' investments is described in Box 1:
Box 1: Equity investment stages
1. Pre-Seed/Seed: in this phase the major focus of the company's activities is on research activities and product development, so as to transfer the new idea into usable results, and set up a functional prototype. It is at this stage that company founders need to prepare a sustainable business plan in order to attract potential investors.
2. Start-up and Early Stage: this phase includes the planning and preparation of production. Targeted project management is important in order to keep control of the market entry schedule as well as the cost of R&D projects.
3. Emerging Growth: this phase is characterised by the establishment of the company at both the organisational and institutional level. At this stage it is crucial to establish and expand manufacturing capacities and sales channels so as to ensure revenue growth.
4. Development: beyond the breakeven point, profits enable the company to expand the product portfolio and tap new markets. A company is usually considered to be an established company if it reaches the fifth year after its foundation.
Further information is contained in Figure 20, which also links the different stages of SME development with a set of equity instruments that are the most appropriate to address the needs of the market.
Figure 20: Different stages of SME's development and most typical financial sources.
Source: European Commission (2014), based on EIF (2014)
Box 2 further expands on the characteristics of the different markets depicted above and discusses key data on alternative equity financing sources.
Box 2: Characteristics of equity market stages
Technology Transfer Institutions, Business angels, Crowdfunding
The term Technology Transfer Institutions (TTIs) is used to describe organisations which help the staff at research organizations to i) identify and manage the organization’s intellectual assets, including protecting intellectual property and transferring or licensing rights to other parties to enhance prospects for further development, and ii) create new companies (spin-offs) to develop or commercialise an invention such as Technology Parks and Incubators.
Business angels are individual investors, usually with business experience, who provide capital for firms in early-stage. They are an important source of equity for small firms long before they become attractive for venture capital funds.
The expression crowdfunding refers merely to a channel of financing promoted through internet and social media, which can be used in many different ways. Financing can come in the form of donations (donation-based crowdfunding), or contributions based on rewards and/or product pre-sales. Other crowdfunding campaigns may also offer some form of financial return, by promising a share of future profits. Security-based crowdfunding involves issuing equity or debt to contributors (crowd investing). Finally, crowd lending campaigners borrow money from people and promise to pay back the capital on specified terms with (or in certain cases without) interests.
Venture Capital Funds
Venture Capital (Venture Capital) Funds are typically private partnerships or closely-held corporations pooling money from private and public pension funds, endowment funds, foundations, corporations and wealthy individuals, to provide equity investment for young, rapidly growing companies that have the potential to develop into significant economic actors. The equity investment is usually provided to companies placed between the seed stage and the growth/expansion stage, and it is supported by expertise in the form of technical knowledge, business contacts and strategic advice.
Private equity
Private equity (PE) refers to investments made in companies whose shares are not quoted in some form of stock exchange. Normally, public equity investors make hands-off purchases of shares in these listed companies. The investors are not usually involved in providing advice or otherwise assisting the owners or managers in the development of the firm.
PE investment funds are "vehicles" enabling pooled investment by a number of investors in equity and equity-related securities of companies. These are generally private companies whose shares are not quoted on a stock exchange. These funds may take the form of either a company or an unincorporated arrangement such as a Limited Partnership.
Regulatory framework for the Venture Capital market
The regulatory framework varies significantly between Member States, and hence the Venture Capital market is highly fragmented, with each country having created a different operating environment. Cross-border fundraising and investing, while possible, is complex and costly.
In this context:
·The European Venture Capital Funds Regulation
(EUVeCa) created an opt-in regulatory regime for fund managers whose funds are below the EUR 500 million threshold requiring registration under the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD). EUVeCa introduced the protected designation of "European Venture Capital Fund" (EUVeCa).
·After a domestic registration process, a fund manager can market EUVeCa-qualified funds
in all Member States without further national registration or approval by national regulators. The aim is that the implementation of EUVeCa will lead to larger and more cost-effective funds that can also specialise by type of investment or sector, increased competition between funds, a wider diversification of funds' investments, and ultimately to SMEs having greater access to equity finance.
·As regards tax aspects, tax incentives have become an increasingly important part of the investment and innovation policy mix in the EU and beyond. A 2017 study investigates the part that tax incentives for venture capital and business angels can play in fostering investment, with the intention of promoting the diffusion of best practice across Member States. The study is an action of the Capital Markets Union project that aims to strengthen the single market by deepening the integration of investment across the European Union. Improved access to finance is a key component of this project, in particular for start-ups, SMEs, and young companies with innovative growth plans.
·The prudential regulation of Venture Capital investors, such as Solvency II for insurers, has increased investors' risk aversion and further constrained fundraising.
·The Commission has adopted guidelines
setting out the conditions under which Member States can grant aid to facilitate access to finance by European SMEs and companies with a medium capitalisation (the so-called "midcaps"). These guidelines are part of the Commission's State Aid Modernisation (SAM) strategy, which aims at fostering growth in the Single Market.
V. ANNEX B – Strategic Targets
1.Strategic target groups: SMEs
Generally, SMEs emerge as the business category experiencing particular difficulties in accessing finance, and all the more so since the start of the financial and sovereign debt crises.
To address market failures linked to asymmetric information, several guarantee facilities have been set up to extend greater loan volumes at better conditions to a riskier set of enterprises. Those facilities aim to foster the development of a pan-European SME finance market and to address market failures that are more appropriately tackled at EU level given their widespread nature. As such, they are capable of achieving economies of scale and diffusing best practices:
1.The SME Guarantee Facility (SMEG07) under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) has enhanced SMEs’ access to debt finance. As of 30 December 2016, a total of over 385 000 SMEs had benefited from over EUR 21 billion in guaranteed loans over 2007-2016, surpassing the target of 315 000;
2.The COSME Loan Guarantee Facility, the successor to SMEG07, provides SMEs with capped guarantees for debt financing via loans or leasing, in order to reduce the particular difficulties that viable SMEs face in accessing finance due to their perceived high risk or lack of sufficient available collateral. By the end of 2016, in combination with EFSI, the facility had already supported more than EUR 5,5 billion financing, reaching over 143 000 final recipients, and the European Investment Fund (EIF) had concluded due diligence and signed guarantee agreements with 61 financial intermediaries for a total of almost EUR 19 billion for over 290 000 SMEs. This performance is already within the target cumulative total financing to be mobilised for 20142020, which ranges from EUR 14,3 to 21,5 billion, and the target number of final beneficiaries, lying between 220 000 and 330 000 SMEs;
3.The EU SME Initiative, designed as a crisis-response instrument, provides uncapped guarantee and/or securitisation to improve access to finance for SMEs, including innovative and high-risk SMEs. It is a joint instrument, combining COSME and Horizon 2020 funds with the Member States' ERDF-EAFRD resources in cooperation with the EIB/EIF in order to generate additional lending to SMEs. A first SME Initiative guarantee instrument was set up with Spain. With a commitment of EUR 823 million from the ERDF and Horizon 2020, the volume of new SME loans supported in Spain is targeted to reach EUR 5 723 million for all Spanish regions. Malta was the second EU Member State to opt-in for the uncapped guarantee instrument under the SMEI. Malta's ERDF contribution of EUR 15 million will support more than EUR 60 million of financing to SMEs.
SMEs also face particular challenges in raising equity capital, with European venture capital suffering a slow-down in private equity activity since the beginning of the financial crisis in terms of fund-raising, investment levels and divestment conditions that has been recovered only in the last year, and remaining fragmented across countries and all the more dependent on a lifeline from public investors.
Support via EU-level financial instruments is key to addressing that fragmentation. Several equity finance facilities have been set up to strengthen the internal market for venture capital by tackling the market failures encountered (especially by early-stage and expansion-stage SMEs that have the potential to achieve high growth), bring innovation to the market and create high addedvalue jobs:
4.The Equity Facility for Growth (EFG) under COSME, the successor of GIF2, aims to stimulate the take-up and supply of equity finance for SMEs in their expansion and growth phase. For 2014-2020, it is expected that an indicative commitment of EUR 490 million will support venture capital investments in the range of EUR 2,6 to 3,9 billion, reaching some 360 to 540 SMEs.
Graph A: 2007-2013 financial instruments for SMEs as of 31 December 2016 (EUR billion)
Instruments considered: SMEG 07.
Graph B: 2014-2020 financial instruments for SMEs as of 31 December 2016 (EUR billion)
Instruments considered: COSME LGF, EU SME Initiative, COSME EFG.
Including updates of initial budget envelope and corresponding financing and investment amounts
2.Strategic target sectors: Tangible and intangible infrastructure
Strategic sectors include infrastructure sectors in a broad sense, comprising both tangible and intangible infrastructure such as research and innovation.
Research and innovation (R&I)
Evidence that larger, established R&I-intensive firms have problems in accessing debt finance to fund innovation projects is mixed and harder, methodologically, to establish. However, a recent econometric study, as well as empirical experience, suggest that demand for R&I debt financing far exceeds current supply. A similar excess demand from R&I firms plagues the fragile EU private equity market.
To address R&I debt financing needs, the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility, the Risk-Sharing Instrument (RSI) (2007-2013) and, under Horizon 2020, the InnovFin Large Projects, InnovFin MidCap Growth Finance and InnovFin MidCap Guarantee, and the InnovFin SME Guarantee (2014-2020) were set up:
1.The Risk-Sharing Finance Facility (2007-2013) offers loans and hybrid or mezzanine finance to improve access to risk finance for R&I projects. The Union’s 2007-2016 RSFF contribution of EUR 961 million supported financing amounts for over EUR 10 billion and investment activity worth twice as much;
2.The Horizon 2020 Loans Service for R&I (2014-2020), the successor to RSFF, also offers loans and hybrid or mezzanine finance to improve access to risk finance for R&I projects. As of end 2016, a commitment of under EUR 800 million has supported financing of EUR 3,5 billion and is expected to generate EUR 5,9 billion shortly. For the entire 2014-2020 period, the EU contribution of EUR 1 060 million is targeted to mobilise financing of over EUR 13 billion for the final recipients;
3.The Risk-Sharing Instrument (RSI) under the 7th Framework Programme is a dedicated guarantee facility for loan and lease finance addressing the finance gap for innovative SMEs and small midcaps (enterprises with up to 499 employees). It has so far provided EUR 2,33 billion in guarantees and counter-guarantees to 35 banks and guarantee societies, which will enable them to support over 4 000 innovative SMEs and small midcaps;
4.The InnovFin SME Guarantee under Horizon 2020, the successor facility for innovative SMEs and small midcaps for 2014-2020, is expected to mobilise a total loan volume of around EUR 9,5 billion, with a Union contribution of around EUR 1 060 million. By 2016, the overall value of financing supported by the Union commitments is expected to be around EUR 8,6 billion, while about EUR 2 billion has already been provided.
To address R&I equity financing needs, the High Growth and Innovative SME Facility (GIF) under the CIP (2007-2013) and the InnovFin SME Venture Capital under Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) were set up:
5.The High Growth and Innovative SME Facility (GIF) under the CIP aims to increase the supply of equity for innovative SMEs in their early stage (GIF1) and in the expansion phase (GIF2). By the end of 2016, a total of EUR 600,2 million in net commitments from the Union budget supported 43 venture capital funds and 570 final recipients, catalysing over EUR 1,4 billion in equity finance and expected to mobilise EUR 3,08 billion for 516 eligible SMEs;
6.The InnovFin SME Venture Capital under Horizon 2020, the successor of GIF1, is designed to improve early-stage R&I-driven SMEs’ and small midcaps’ access to risk finance. An envelope of EUR 495 million indicatively planned for 2014-2020 is expected to support nearly EUR 3 billion of equity financing.
Infrastructure, climate action, environment and energy efficiency
Transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures play a crucial role in development and sustainable growth in contexts where private enterprises of all sizes and public entities interact to provide the necessary output. Infrastructure improves the productivity of the economy, enabling growth, and facilitates the interconnection of the internal market.
In addition, energy efficiency and its promotion are becoming increasingly important in the Union, in particular in view of its 2020 20% headline target on energy efficiency and further objectives beyond that date.
The goal of EU financial intervention in those sectors is to contribute to overcoming the deficiencies of European capital markets. EU financial instrument programmes for various sub-sectors (transport and energy infrastructure, energy efficiency, including environment and climate action, and ICT) include:
1.The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) consisting of:
a.the Risk-sharing Debt Instrument (CEF-DI) will target projects of common interest in the transport, broadband and energy networks sectors. Started in 2015, the instrument built on the existing Project Bond Initiative and the Loan Guarantee for TEN-Transport. Assuming the full budgetary allocation of EUR 2,5 billion is made available to the instrument, total funding of EUR 14,4 to 36 billion could be attracted thanks to the Union contribution;
b. the Equity Instrument (CEF-Equity) aims to support funding for broadband investment through the establishment of the Connecting Europe Broadband Fund. The Commission has committed EUR 100 million planned for 2014-2020, with the aim of generating EUR 1-1,7 billion investment;
2.The Private Finance for Energy Efficiency Instruments (PF4EE), a pilot instrument financed under the LIFE programme, which provides inter alia a risk-sharing facility designed to reduce the credit risk faced by financial intermediaries when lending to the energy efficiency sector, combined with technical assistance to financial intermediaries for building a new market segment. The Union contribution of EUR 80 million was expected to support total investment up to about EUR 540 million for 2014-2017. However, on the basis of the 4 deals expected to be signed in 2017 (Croatia, UK, Greece and Cyprus) and the 6 operations signed by the end of 2016 (in the Czech Republic, Spain, France, Portugal, Belgium and Italy), the EIB targets to achieve EUR 1 billion of new investments in energy efficiency by the end of 2017. Given the interest of the market, the European Commission is working to continue the PF4EE pilot phase over the 2018–2020 period;
3.The 2020 European Fund for Energy, Climate Change and Infrastructure (Marguerite), a pan-European equity fund which supports infrastructure investment in the transport (TEN-T), energy (TEN-E) and renewables sectors in Member States. The Union contribution of EUR 80 million has supported by end 2016 12 projects with funding volumes of EUR 5,4 billion, more than halfway through the final target of EUR 10 billion;
4.The European Energy Efficiency Fund (EEEF), a spin-off of the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR), which invests in energy efficiency, renewable energy projects and clean urban transport. By the end of December 2016, EUR 128 million have been allocated to 12 projects that have generated some EUR 231 million of total investments. EEEF technical assistance support has proved to be useful in helping public authorities prepare projects that will subsequently be financed.
5.The Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF), which in 2014-2020 will finance revenuegenerating or cost-saving pilot projects promoting the conservation, restoration, management and enhancement of natural capital in order to contribute to Union objectives in the areas of nature and biodiversity, and climate-change adaptation. The planned Union contribution for the pilot phase is EUR 60 million (most of which has already been committed) for a target financing of EUR 120-240 million.
Social and micro enterprises
Among the businesses suffering from credit access difficulties, social enterprises deserve particular attention due to the correlation between social capital and economic growth. Their primary objective is the achievement of measurable and positive social impact.
However, the fact that social enterprises do not primarily seek to maximise profit exposes them to more acute difficulties in accessing finance, as traditional bankers are reluctant to assess their business plans and find it difficult to do so.
Most social enterprises are of a small or very small size, and look at the microfinance market to finance their undertakings. The European micro-finance sector is characterised by a steady increase in lending (but a gradual withdrawal of commercial banks), national governments’ limited capacity to support micro-finance and strong demand for it on the market.
More specifically, studies carried out for the Commission show that ‘in several EU Member States high levels of youth unemployment call for ongoing support of inclusive entrepreneurship as an option to (re-)enter the labour market. Micro-loan provision is an important tool for this’. Specific micro-finance and social facilities have been set up, aiming at easing loan access for social and micro enterprises, which play an important role in creating jobs but continue to face even more difficulties than other SMEs:
1.The European Progress Micro-finance Facility (EPMF) which consists of:
a.EPMF-G, a guarantee facility, which provides up to 20% capped guarantees on portfolios of micro-loans granted by intermediaries to micro–enterprises and self-employed. As of end 2016 the EUR 23,60 million EU commitment had provided a tenfold amount of financing for almost 20 000 micro-borrowers and vulnerable persons, supporting over 37 000 jobs; and
b.EPMF - FCP-FIS, the Fonds commun de placement – Fonds d’investissement spécialisé, a specialised investment fund aimed at increasing access to micro-finance for micro–enterprises and self-employed through a range of financial products (notably loans). As of end 2016 the EUR 80 million EU commitment had generated EUR 236 million in financing for over 32 000 recipients, and an amount of financing expected to exceed EUR 400 million.
Overall, the EPMF Facility has already surpassed the initial target of 46 000 microloans, and new loans will also be included between now and 2018;
2.Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI), the successor to the above instrument, which consists of:
a.EaSI−Micro-finance and Social Entrepreneurship, aimed at increasing access to micro-finance for vulnerable groups and micro-enterprises by providing support to micro-credit providers, and at supporting the development of social enterprises. By the end of 2016, the total EU commitment of EUR 68,79 million had supported almost EUR 158 million of new micro-loans and loans to social entrerprises, benefitting 63 Social Enterprises and 12 741 Microenterprises. Based on the signed guarantee agreements, the expected volumes of loans to final recipients are estimated at EUR 754 million.
b.EaSI – Capacity Building Investments, aiming at supporting Financial Intermediaries in the Micro-finance and Social Entrepreneurship sectors with a Union contribution of EUR 16 million, targeted to support twice as much in financing, benefitting 8-10 Financial Intermediaries and Sub-Intermediaries for the purpose of capacity building.
The Education and the Cultural and Creative Sectors
As a form of human capital accumulation, education is a primary source of economic growth, but to the extent it can be accessed by students of different social and economic backgrounds, it also contributes to social equity and cohesion. Moreover, student mobility has been proven significantly to affect social and economic development.
The Student Loan Guarantee Facility under the Erasmus+ programme aims to support mobility, equity and study excellence via guarantees to financial institutions that agree to provide Erasmus+ Master Loans to students for Master’s studies in another country. In 2015 the scheme kicked off and the first banks signed up to the guarantee facility, providing up to EUR 160 million in Master loans. The first Erasmus+-guaranteed Master loans were disbursed in 2015.
The Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility under the Creative Europe programme will provide guarantees to banks dealing with cultural and creative SMEs, thereby strengthening financial capacity in those sectors. The scheme has begun in 2016 and the overall amount of additional loans in the sectors supported by the Union contribution of EUR 123 million is estimated at around EUR 700 million.
Graph C: 2007-2013 financial instruments for strategic sectors as of 31 December 2016 (EUR billion)
Instruments considered: EPMF-G, RSI, RSFF, LGTT, PBI, FCP-FIS, GIF, Marguerite, EEEF.
Graph D: 2014-2020 financial instruments for strategic sectors as of 31 December 2016 (EUR billion)
Instruments considered: EaSI, InnovFin SME Guarantee, CCS Guarantee Facility, SLGF, PF4EE, InnovFin L-M Guarantee, RSDI, CEF Equity, InnovFin SME VC, NCFF
Including updates of initial budget envelope and corresponding financing and investment amounts
3.Strategic target: non-EU regions
Enlargement countries
Access to loan finance remains one of the biggest difficulties for SMEs in the Western Balkans, in spite of SMEs becoming the most efficient segment in their economies’ transition and a pillar of growth and employment. Due to their lack of financial history, early-stage SMEs find it almost impossible to access bank financing. Access to finance in the energy sector appears generally vulnerable. Those issues are being addressed through the following:
1.The Guarantee Facility under the Western Balkans Enterprise Development and Innovation Facility (EDIF GF1) aims to enhance socio-economic growth by promoting preconditions for the emergence and growth of innovative and high-potential SMEs. The Union’s EDIF GF1 contribution of EUR 21,90 million has supported total financing of almost EUR 118 million;
2.The Guarantee Facility II under the Western Balkans Enterprise Development and Innovation Facility (EDIF GF2), the successor of EDIF GF1, also aims to enhance socio-economic growth by promoting preconditions for the emergence and growth of innovative and high-potential SMEs. The Union’s EDIF GF2 contribution of EUR 17,5 million is estimated to support total financing of EUR 107 million;
3.The Enterprise Expansion Fund (ENEF) under the EDIF aims to enhance socioeconomic growth in the region by creating the conditions for the emergence and growth of innovative and high-potential SMEs in the expansion and development stages. The EU financial contribution of EUR 11 million is expected to leverage a total financing/investment of about EUR 100 million (including the contribution from the additional cofinancing facility of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)) after the second closing;
4.The Enterprise Innovation Fund (ENIF) under the EDIF supports socio-economic growth in the Western Balkans by creating the conditions for the emergence and growth of early-stage innovative SMEs. The Union contribution of EUR 21,2 million is expected to support financing up to approximately EUR 50 million in 2014-2020;
5.The European Fund for Southeast Europe (EFSE) is a form of public-private partnership aimed at attracting capital from the private sector for on-lending to micro and small enterprises and households. The Union contribution of nearly EUR 88 million has so far leveraged total financing of EUR 4,3 billion, benefitting over 700 000 final recipients in the enlargement region;
6.The Green for Growth Fund (GGF) provides dedicated financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects to help the target countries reduce CO2 emissions and energy consumption. The Union contribution of EUR 38,6 million should support nearly EUR 490 million expected financing for final recipients. So far, the facility has provided EUR 430 million financing to nearly 17 000 final recipients, via 39 partner institutions in 19 partner countries. The Fund continued achieving much more than the required 20% energy savings and/or 20% CO2 savings across the energy efficiency and renewable energy portfolio.
7.The SME Recovery Support Loan for Turkey aims to mitigate the impact of the crisis on SMEs, contribute to the development of the Turkish economy and boost employment. The Union contribution of EUR 30 million has so far mobilised a total financing amount of nearly EUR 300 million for 265 final recipients.
Neighbourhood countries
EU-funded programmes aim to foster, amongst others, sustainable, inclusive growth and a favourable investment climate in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) partner countries. The EU pursues the related strategic objectives of its neighbourhood policies — establishing better energy and transport infrastructure interconnections between the EU and neighbouring countries, addressing threats to our common environment and promoting smart growth through support for SMEs — through the following programmes:
1.The Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF), which aims at establishing better and more sustainable energy and transport interconnections between the EU and neighbouring countries and between the neighbouring countries themselves, improving energy efficiency and demand management, promoting the use of renewable energy sources and strengthening energy security; addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as threats to the environment more broadly; and promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth through support to small and medium size enterprises, to the social sector, including human capital development, and to municipal infrastructure development. In 2008-2016, the Union contribution of nearly EUR 1,7 billion leveraged an almost tenfold total financing (including EUR 15,3 billion in loans from European financial institutions), with total costs of the 123 projects estimated at EUR 29 billion;
2.Support for the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment Partnership (FEMIP) provides capital to the private sector in Mediterranean partner countries pari passu with other commercial investors in the region for the creation, restructuring or growth of enterprises. The Union’s current overall contribution is EUR 224 million, with a supported financing of over EUR 6,7 billion.
Countries covered by the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)
In some non-EU countries, the lack of a well-established institutional framework to safeguard property rights, address market failures and provide incentives for private initiatives is often at the root of SMEsector underdevelopment, infrastructure shortages and deficient overall investment in health, education and environmental protection. Addressing those problems by financing-worthy SMEs, infrastructure and productive investments is the main challenge for the EU in its external policy; it does so via the following instruments:
1.The Investment Facility for Central Asia (IFCA) and the Asian Investment Facility (AIF) aim to promote investments and key infrastructures with a focus on better energy infrastructure, increased protection of the environment and SME growth. The current overall commitment amounts to almost EUR 349 million. To date, IFCA contributions of EUR 143 million have leveraged approximately EUR 970 million of investments whereas the AIF contributions of EUR 142 million have leveraged approximately EUR 3,15 billion of investments;;
2.The Latin America Investment Facility (LAIF) aims to promote investments and infrastructures in key sectors such as transport, energy and environment and to support social- and private-sector development in Latin American countries. In 2010-2016,(LAIF was recreated in 2014 for the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020), the overall commitments amounts to almost EUR 323 million. Projects approved through a Commission decision accounted for a total investment volume of approximately 7,5 billion;
3.The Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund (GEEREF) aims to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy in developing countries and economies in transition. As of end 2016, the total investment supported with the Union’s contribution of EUR 81 million was about EUR 3 billion.
4.The Thematic Blending (ElectriFI, AgriFI, Climate Change) which aims at providing financial support to i) addressing the lack of access to clean, reliable and affordable electricity and energy services all over the world (ElectriFI); ii) developing inclusive and sustainable agriculture based value chains (AgriFI); iii) developing local climate strategies into action plans, budgets, and investment projects (Climate Change). , the aggregate budgetary commitments amounted to EUR 270 million. Projects approved through a Commission decision accounted for a total investment volume of EUR 968 million (ElectriFI) and EUR 234 million (AgriFI).
Graph E: 2007-2013 financial instruments for Non-EU Regions as of 31 December 2016 (EUR billion)
Instruments considered: EDIF GF1, EFSE, SME RSLT, ENEF Under EDIF, ENI Under ENEF, Support to FEMIP, GEEREF, GGF, NIF, IFCA-AIF, LAIF
Graph F: 2014-2020 financial instruments for Non-EU Regions as of 31 December 2016 (EUR billion)
Instruments considered: EDIF GF2, Thematic Blending
Including updates of initial budget envelope and corresponding financing and investment amounts
VI. REFERENCES
Aiyar, S. et al. (2015), “A strategy for resolving Europe’s problem loans”, IMF Staff Discussion Note, No. SDN/15/19, International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.
Bain & Company and IIF-Institute of International Finance (2013), Restoring financing and growth to Europe’s SMEs, 2013.
Bendig, M., Unterberg, M., and B. Sarpong (2012), Overview of the Microcredit Sector in the European Union 2010-2011, European Microfinance Network, 27 December 2012.
Beugelsdijk, S. and T. van Schaik (2005), "Social capital and growth in European regions: an empirical test". European Journal of Political Economy, Volume 21, Issue 2, June 2005, Pages 301–324.
Capital for Enterprise Ltd (2012), Overview of publicly backed venture capital and loan funds in the UK, January 2012.
Convergences (2013), Microfinance Barometer 2013, June 2013.
CSES-Centre for Strategy & Evaluation (2011), Final Evaluation of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme, April 2011.
CSES-Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (2012), CIP Final Evaluation report, January 2012.
Dhondt, T., A. Krawchenko, and F. Traxler (2014), "Ad-hoc audit of the pilot phase of the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative". EY Final Report, 17 June.
EC-European Commission (2004), Technology Transfer Institutions in Europe: An Overview, January 2004.
EC-European Commission (2010a), Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond - A Blueprint for an integrated European energy network, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Document COM(2010)0677, November 2010. Available at:
EC-European Commission (2010b), Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Document SEC(2010)1161, October 2010.
EC-European Commission (2010c), Recommendation for a Council Recommendation on broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union - Part I of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines, April 27, 2010, SEC (2010) 488 final. Available at:
EC-European Commission (2010d), Removing tax obstacles to cross-border venture capital investments, Report of Venture Capital Tax Expert Group, 30 April 2010.
EC-European Commission (2011a), Establishing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), Access to Risk Finance sections, Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council. Document COM(2011) 809 final, 30 November 2011.
EC-European Commission (2011b), Establishing the Specific Programme Implementing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), Document COM(2011) 811 final, 30 November 2011.
EC-European Commission (2011c), Establishing a Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (2014 – 2020), Annex II, Document COM(2011) 834 final, 30 November 2011.
EC-European Commission (2011d), Social Business Initiative - Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation, Document COM(2011) 682 final, Brussels, 25 October 2011.
EC-European Commission (2012), Direct tax problems linked to cross-border venture capital investment. Taxation and Customs Union, updated July 2014. Available at:
EC-European Commission (2013b), Ex-ante assessment of the SME Initiative, Commission's Staff Working Document SWD(2013) 517 final. November.
EC-European Commission (2013c), Competitiveness and Innovation Program (CIP). Available at:
EC-European Commission (2014a), EU Industrial Structure Report 2013: Competing in Global Value Chain, February 17.
EC-European Commission (2014b), Ex-Ante Assessment on the Potential Use of Financial Instruments within the Connecting Europe Facility, March.
EC-European Commission (2014c), Long Term Financing of the European Economy, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Document COM (2014) 168 final, March.
EC-European Commission (2014d), A map of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe, report submitted by ICF Consulting Services, 31 October.
EC-European Commission (2015), 2016 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard.
EC-European Commission (2015a) 2015 RTD Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020.
EC-European Commission (2016), "European Economic Forecast - Spring 2016", Institutional Paper 025, May 2016.
EC-European Commission (2016a), 2016 Statistical Pocketbook EU Transport in figures
EC-European Commission (2016b), 2016 CEF Transport Calls for Proposals: Overview of submitted proposals.
EC-European Commission (2016c), Annual Report on European SMEs 2015/2016, Final report, November 2016.
EC-European Commission (2016d), Annual Report on financial instruments supported by the general budget according to Art. 140.8 of the Financial Regulation as at 31 December 2015, Staff Working Document COM(2016) 675 final.
EC-European Commission (2016e), Innobarometer 2016 – The EU business innovation trends.
EC-European Commission (2017), "European Economic Forecast - Spring 2017", Institutional Paper 053, May 2017.
Economisti Associati (2011), Combined ex-ante evaluation and impact assessment of the successor to the Entrepreneurship & Innovation Programme under the Competitiveness & Innovation Framework Programme 2007-2013, Annex A, Financial Instruments, Study commissioned by the Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission, May 2011, p. A.13.
ECB-European Central Bank and EC-European Commission (2015), Survey on access to finance of enterprises (SAFE), Analytical Report, December.
ECB-European Central Bank and EC-European Commission (2016), Survey on access to finance of enterprises (SAFE), Analytical Report, November.
ECB (2015). Financial Stability Review. November 2015.
ECB-European Central Bank (2016), Euro Area Bank Lending Survey – Fourth Quarter 2015, January.
ECB-Data Warehouse, BSI (Balance Sheet Items) and MIR (MIFs Interest Rates Statistics, updated to February 2016
EEFF- European Energy Efficiency Fund, (2013), Annual Report, 2014.
EIB-European Investment Bank (2013), Sharing risk in research, development & innovation (RSFF). Available at:
EIB-European Investment Bank (2014), EIB Quarterly Report, February, 2014.
EIF-European Investment Fund (2012a), EIF Annual Report 2011, May 21.
EIF-European Investment Fund (2012b), GIF-High Growth and Innovative SME Facility, Employment Report. December 31.
EIF-European Investment Fund (2013a), GIF-High Growth and Innovative SME Facility, Quarterly Report. September 30.
EIF-European Investment Fund (2013b), GIF-High Growth and Innovative SME Facility Annual Report, (Table 3). September 30.
EIF-European Investment Fund (2013c), SMEG 2007 Mandate Servicing & Administration, Quarterly Report. December 31.
EIF-European Investment Fund (2013d), EIF Corporate Operational Plan 2014-2016, December.
EIF-European Investment Fund (2014), European Small Business Finance Outlook, December.
EIF-European Investment Fund (2014a), GIF-High Growth and Innovative SME Facility, Quarterly Report. 30 September 2014.
EIF-European Investment Fund (2015), European Small Business Finance Outlook, December 2015.
EMN-European Microfinance Network (2014a), Overview of the microcredit sector in the European Union 2012-13, EMN Policy Note, November 2014.
EMN-European Microfinance Network (2014b), EMN Policy Note on Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship, August 2014.
EMN-European Microfinance Network (2016a), Microfinance in Europe: A Survey of EMN-MFC Members, Report 2014-2015, December 2016.
ENTSOE-European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (2012), Ten-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP). Available at:
European Parliament (2010): Microcredit networks and existing national legislations with a view to the implementation of the microfinance instrument, Directorate-General for internal policies, November 2010.
European Parliament (2012), Potential of Venture Capital in the European Union, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, section 5, 2012.
European Parliament and the Council (2006), Decision No 1639/2006/EC establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 to 2013), 24 October 2006.
EVCA-European Venture Capital Association (2015), 2014 European Private Equity Activity, 11 May 2015.
Eurostat data
Evers & Jung (2014), Study on imperfections in the area of microfinance and options how to address them through an EU financial instrument. Ex-ante evaluation study for the EU Commission on the EaSI Microfinance instrument, 2014.
EY (2011), Global venture capital insights and trends report 2010. The future of venture capital: a conversation with leading investors, Ernst & Young, 10 March 2011.
EY (2014) Adapting and evolving: Global venture capital insights and trends report 2014. Available at:
"Creating growth. Measuring cultural and creative markets in the EU", EY report, December 2014.
Go4Venture Advisers (2013), European Venture & Growth Equity Market, Monthly Bulletin, December 2013.
Humburg, M., R. van der Velden and A. Verhagen (2013), The Employability of Higher Education Graduates: the Employers' Perspective, a report for the European Commission, October.
IDEA (2013) Survey on access to finance for cultural and creative sectors, October 2013.
IIF-Institute of International Finance (2015), Addressing SME Financing Impediments in Europe: A Review of Recent Initiatives, January 12, 2015.
IEA-International Energy Agency (2011), World Energy Outlook 2011. Annual report. 9 November 2011.
IPSOS Mori (2013), 2013 SMEs’ Access to Finance survey, Analytical Report. Survey commissioned by the Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission, in cooperation with the European Central Bank. November 14, 2013.
Kraemer-Eis, H., Lang., F. and S. Gvetadze (2013), "European Small Business Finance Outlook", EIF Working Paper 2013/20. EIF Research & Market Analysis, December 2013.
Mann, E., et al. (2010), Midterm Evaluation of the Risk-Sharing Financial Facility (RSFF). Final Draft of the Group of independent experts 31 July.
Mina, A. with H. Lahr (2011), "Venture Capital in Europe: Recovery, Downsizing or Breakdown?", FINNOV FP7 Working paper 3.2, 2011.
National Audit Office (2009), Venture Capital Support to Small Businesses, Report by the UK Comptroller and Auditor General. HC 23, Session 2009–2010. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 10 December 2009.
OECD-Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2016), 2016 Economic Survey of the Euro Area.
PwC-PricewaterhouseCoopers (2012), EIB Innovative Mid-Cap Financing. Study commissioned by the Commission under the EU-EIB RSFF Cooperation Agreement, 2012.
Social Enterprise UK (2015), Leading the World in Social enterprises. State of Social Enterprise Survey 2015, 2015.
Solidar (2014), Promoting the Social Economy as a Driver for Inclusive Growth and Social Progress. Social Economy Framework Paper. Briefing #64, Conny Reuter, March 2014. Available at:
Spiess-Knafl, W. (2013), Imperfections in the social investment market and option on how to address them, Ex-Ante Evaluation for the European Commission. October 2013.
UEAPME-European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (2015), The EU Craft and SME Barometer 2015/H2, October 2015.
UEAPME-European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (2016), The EU Craft and SME Barometer 2016/H1, March 2016.
UEAPME-European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (2016), The EU Craft and SME Barometer 2016/H2, October 2016.
Unquote" and SL Capital Partner (2013), Private Equity Barometer Q3 2013, November 2013.
Working Group of EU Member States Experts (Open Method of Coordination) on Culture and Creative Industries (2012), Policy Handbook on How to strategically use the EU support programmes, including Structural Funds, to foster the potential of culture for local, regional and national development and the spill-over effects on the wider economy?, April 2012.
VII. LIST OF ACRONYMS
·AAPs
Annual Action Plans
·ACP
African Caribbean and Pacific Countries
·AECID
Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo
·AFD
Agence Française de Développement
·AIF
Asian Investment Facility
·AIFMD
Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive
·ALM
Anti Money Laundering
·AML/KYC
Anti Money Laundering/ Know Your Customer
·AQR
Asset Quality Review
·ASEAN
Association of South-East Asian Nations
·BA
Business Angels
·BMZ
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
·CABEI
Central American Bank for Economic Integration
·CARDS
Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and
Stabilisation
·CBS
Capacity Building Scheme under CIP
·CCS
Cultural and Creative Sectors
·CCW
Climate Change Window
·CDC
Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations
·CDP
Cassa Depositi e Prestiti
·CEF
Connecting Europe Facility
·CIP
Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (2007-2013)
·COESIF
Coordination Committee for European Structural and Investments
Funds
·COSME
Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized
Enterprises (2014-2020)
·CPR
Common Provision Regulation
·CRIS
Common Relex Information System
·DACH
German speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland)
·DCI
Development Cooperation Instrument
·DG CLIMA
Directorate General for Climate Action
·DG DEVCO
Directorate General for Development and Cooperation
·DG EAC
Directorate General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture
·DG ECFIN
Directorate General for Economics and Financial Affairs
·DG EMPL
Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
·DG ENER
Directorate General for Energy
·DG ENTR
Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry
·DG ENV
Directorate General for the Environment
·DG MOVE
Directorate General for Mobility and Transport
·DG NEAR
Directorate General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations
·DG REGIO
Directorate General for Regional Policy
·DG RTD
Directorate General for Research and Innovation
·DIV
Dedicated Investment Vehicle
·EA
Euro Area
·EAFRD
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
·EaSI
Employment and Social Innovation Programme
·EBRD
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
·ECA
European Court of Auditors
·ECB
European Central Bank
·EDF
European Development Fund
·EE
Energy Efficiency
·EEE F
European Energy Efficiency Fund
·EELAF II
Emerging Energy Latin America Fund II
·EEPR
European Energy Programme for Recovery
·EFC
Economic Financial Committee
·EFG
Equity Facility for Growth
·EFIs
European Financial Institutions
·EFSE
European Fund for Southeast Europe
·EFSI
European Fund for Strategic Investments
·EFTA
European Free Trade Association
·EIB/BEI
European Investment Bank
·EIF
European Investment Fund
·EIP
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme
·EIPC
European Independent Purchasing Companies
·EMN
European Microfinance Network
·EMN
European Microfinance Network
·ENEF
Enterprise Expansion Fund
·ENIF
Enterprise Innovation Fund
·ENP
European Neighbourhood Policy
·ENPI
European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
·ENRTP
Environment and the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
·EP
European Parliament
·EPEC
European PPP Expertise Centre
·EPMF-G
European Microfinance Guarantee Facility
·EPPA
European Promotional Product Association
·ERDF
European Regional Development Fund
·ERP-EIF
European Recovery Programme-European Investment Fund
·ESCOs
Energy Service Companies
·ESF
European Social Fund
·ESI
Economic Sentiment indicator
·ESIF
EU Structural and Investment Funds
·EUBEC
European Platform for Blending in External Cooperation
·EURATOM
European Atomic Energy Community
·EVCA
European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association
·EVCF
European Venture Capital Fund
·EVCFR
European Venture Capital Funds Regulation
·FAFA
Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement
·FCP-FIS
Fonds Commun de Placement-Fonds d’Investissement Spécialisé
·FEMIP
Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership
·FIs
Financial Intermediaries
·FMA
Fiduciary Management Agreement
·FMO
Netherlands Development Finance Company
·FP7
Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development
·G-20
The Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors
from 20 major economies
·GDP
Gross Domestic Product
·GEEREF
Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund
·GF
Guarantee Facility
·GGF
Green for Growth Fund
·GHG
Green House gasses
·GIF
Growth and Innovative Facility
·GP
General Partners
·HLG
High Level Expert group
·IC
Investment Committee
·ICT
Internet and Communication Technology
·IDB
Inter-American Development Bank
·IFC
International Finance Corporation
·IFCA
Investment Facility for Central Asia
·IFI
International Financial Intermediaries
·IPA
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance
·ITRE
EP Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
·KfW
Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau Banking Group
·KYC
Know Your Customer
·LAIF
Latin America Investment Facility
·LEF
Local Enterprise Facility
·LGF
Loan Guarantee Facility
·LGTT
Loan Guarantee Instrument for Trans-European Transport Network
Projects
·LIFE
Programme for the Environment and the Climate Action
·LNG
Liquefied Natural Gas
·LP
Limited Partners
·MAWP
Multiannual Work-Programme
·MB
Management Board
·MBO
Management Buy Out
·MEDA
Euro - Mediterranean Partnership
·MFF
Multiannual Financial Framework
·MFIs
Micro Finance Institutions
·MIFA
Microfinance Initiative for Asia
·MIPD
Multi-annual Indicative Planning Document
·MPC
Mediterranean Partner Countries
·MPGF
MEDIA Production Guarantee Fund
·MS
Member State
·MSME
Micro Small and Medium Enterprises
·MTE
Mid-Term Evaluation
·NCFF
Natural Capital Financing Facility
·NEEAP
National Energy Efficiency Action Plans
·NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
·NIB
Nordic Investment Bank
·NIF
Neighbourhood Investment Facility
·NPL
Non-Performing Loans
·ODA
Official Development Aid
·OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
·OECD/DAC
OECD's Development Assistance Committee
·OFTO
Offshore Transmission Owners
·PBCE
Project Bond Credit Enhancement
·PBI
Project Bond Initiative
·PCT
Patent Cooperation Treaty
·PF4EE
Private Finance for Energy Efficiency Instruments
·PFLP
Portfolio First Loss Piece
·PIs
Partner Institutions
·PISA
Programme for International Student Assessment
·PMF
Programme Microfinance Mandate
·PPP
Public Private Partnership
·R&I
Research and Innovation
·RAB
Regulatory Asset Base
·RCO
Risk Capital Operations
·RDI
Research Development and Innovation
·RE
Renewable Energies
·RFSF
Regional Fund Support Facility
·ROM
Result Oriented Monitoring
·RRT
Residual Risk Tranche
·RSFF
Risk Sharing and Finance Facility
·RSI
Risk Sharing Instrument
·RSL
Recovery Support Loan Facility for Turkey
·SAFE
Survey on Access to Finance of Small and Medium Enterprises in
Europe
·SB
Supervisory Board
·Se4all
Sustainable Energy for All
·SICAV-FIS
Société d’Investissement à Capital Variable- Fonds d’Investissement
Spécialisé
·SIMEST
Società̀ Italiana per le Imprese all'Estero
·SME
Small and Medium Enterprise
·SMEG
Small and Medium Enterprises Guarantee Facility
·SPV
Special Purpose Vehicle
·SUDeP
Sustainable Urban Demonstration Projects
·TA
Technical Assistance
·TEN-E
Trans- European Network for Energy
·TEN-T
Trans-European Network for Transport
·TMT
Technology, Media and Telecommunications
·TSOs
Transmission System Operators
·TT
Technology Transfer
·UEAPME
European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
·VC
Venture Capital
·WB EDIF
Western Balkans Enterprise Development & Innovation Facility
·WB
Western Balkans