Ad-hoc audit of the pilot of the application of the Regulation 2015/1017 (the EFSI Regulation) : final report.
Date: 2017-05-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU policy, European Investment Fund, audit, common strategy, data collection, economic activity, fund (EU), investment policy, private investment, public investment, regulation (EU)

Ad-hoc audit of the 
application of the 
Regulation 2015/1017  
(the EFSI Regulation) 

Final Report 

6972597 

14 November 2016 

Reliance Restricted 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 
Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet  (http://www.europa.eu) 

Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

Catalogue number :KC-05-16-065-EN-N 

ISBN 978-92-79-64159-6 
doi:10.2765/338524 

© European Union, 2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary 

The context 

The  study  undertaken  by  the  Special  Task  Force  on  Investment  (2014)  and  studies  performed  by 
others in later years, show that there are important investment gaps and market needs in Europe, 
especially  for  high  risk  financing.  The  gap  to  invest  in  R&D,  energy,  ICT,  education,  industry, 
transport & logistics and water & waste is estimated annually up to € 655 billion1. Furthermore, 
studies show that the investment gap in Europe is much higher than the one in the USA, affecting 
the competitiveness of Europe.  
In  response,  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  (EFSI)  is  set  up  by  the  European 
Commission  (EC)  and  the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  to  help  resolve  difficulties  and 
boundaries  to  financing  and  to  implement  strategic,  transformative  and  productive  investments 
that provide a high level of added value to the economy, the environment and the society, aiming 
at reducing unemployment levels and boosting economic growth in Europe. Moreover, EFSI should 
improve access to financing with a special focus on Small and Medium sized Enterprises (‘SMEs’) 
and small mid-cap companies which employ not more than 3,000 people.  
The EU contributes with a €16 billion guarantee and the EIB Group has set aside €5 billion of own 
resources.  The  EIB  will  use  €16  billion  of  EFSI  support  by  providing  financing  via  the 
Infrastructure and Innovation Window  (IIW), whereas the EIF will  use  €5  billion through  the SME 
Window (SMEW) aimed at increasing and facilitating the access to finance for SMEs and mid-caps. 
EFSI  is expected to  ‘crowd in’  public and private  sector finance,  generating  total investments in 
the European Union (EU) of at least €315 billion within 2015-2018.  
The  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  (‘EIAH’)  was  designed  to  offer  advisory  support  for 
investments  within  the    European  Union.  The  objective  is  to  build  upon  existing  EIB  and  EC 
advisory  services  in  order  to  provide  advisory  support  for  the  identification,  preparation  and 
development  of  investment  projects  and  to  act  as  a  single  technical  advisory  hub  for  project 
financing within the EU. 

Scope, methodology and goals of the ad hoc audit 

This ad hoc audit is the independent evaluation on the application of the Regulation 2015/1017 on 
the EFSI and the EIAH. The evaluation covers the time period until 30 June 2016 (first year since 
EFSI became operational). This evaluation has been conducted from 21 September 2016 (signature 
of  the contract) until  14  November 2016.  Data collection took place in  the period 3 October  –  3 
November  2016  and  covered  desk  research,  interviews  with  the  main  stakeholders  (EC,  EIB,  EIF, 
National  Promotional  Banks  (NPB))  and  surveys  among  NPBs,  Financial  Intermediaries  and 
Beneficiaries of the EFSI  and the EAIH.  The evaluation builds upon earlier evaluations  conducted 
by the EC and the EIB where relevant. The short time frame for data collection posed limitations 
to the level of depth of this study and of some evaluation questions being answered.  
The main goals of the evaluation are to assess the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of EFSI 
and the EIAH, as well as the coherence, additionality, and added value of the EFSI intervention and 
the added value and complementarity of EIAH. Furthermore the use of the EU Guarantee in terms 
of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency should be assessed and lessons should be drawn from 
the  implementation  of  the  EFSI  and  EIAH  since  their  establishment  until  the  end-point  period  of 
the evaluation. 

Answering the evaluation questions 
EFSI 

EFSI  is not geographically or  sector-specifically  earmarked  and is demand driven.  Up to 30 June 
2016, 26 out of 28 countries were reached. However, when having a closer look, it shows that the 
EU152 received 91% and the EU13 received a mere  9% of EFSI  support (excluding multi-country 

1 Source: EIB (2016) Restoring EU Competitiveness 
2  EU15:  Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  the 
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
operations). Zooming in further, it proves that EFSI support mainly has been provided in a number 
of  countries.  Within  the  Infrastructure  Investment  Window  (IWW),  UK,  Italy  and  Spain  received 
63.4%,  while  for  the  Small  and  Medium  Enterprises  Window  (SMEW)  Italy,  France  and  Germany 
received 36.1% of total EFSI support.  

Reasons mentioned for the lower EFSI support in Central and Eastern Europe are the competition 
from  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF),  less  capacity  to  develop  large 
projects,  less  experience  with  Public  Private  Partnerships,  a  less  developed  Venture  Capital 
market and  the small  size of  projects . When looking at  the sector coverage, it shows  that EFSI 
contributes mainly to R&D (45%), energy (21%) and ICT (17%) sectors. Some sector gaps are less 
addressed, but this is not seen as a major issue. 

The  design  of  EFSI  enables  the  EIB  to  address  more  risk  financing,  both  by  an  increase  in  the 
volume  of  the  so-called  Special  Activities  (activities  with  a  higher  risk  than  normal  EIB 
operations) and the development of new financial products for risk financing. In this respect EFSI 
is  relevant  in  addressing  market  gaps  by  increasing  the  availability  of  risk  financing  to  eligible 
projects. However, stakeholders indicate that there is a stronger need for EFSI to provide higher 
risk financing, in a complementary and subordinated position to other investors. At the start, EIB 
was not willing to take higher risk, but this has been improved. 

For  the 
implementation  of  EFSI,  cooperation  with  National  Promotional  Banks/National 
Promotional  Institutions  is  important,  as  these  institutions  are  close  to  the  local  markets. 
Currently,  NPBs/NPIs  are  searching  for  the  best  cooperation  with  the  EIB  Group  in  their  local 
markets,  which  is  sometimes  constrained  by  capacity  issues.  Next  to  this,  the  set-up  of 
investment  platforms  in  which  different  sources  of  financing  can  be  blended  is  foreseen  to 
facilitate  the  implementation  of  EFSI.  However,  till  30  June  2016  no  investment  platform  had 
been  set  up  yet,  possibly  due  to  the  fact  that  it  takes  time  and  depends  on  the  regulatory 
environment.  The  first  platforms  were  established  in  the  third  quarter  of  2016,  hence  after  the 
period considered in this evaluation. Stakeholders mention that they would need more information 
on the specific role of the EIB in the platforms and that Technical Assistance would be needed to 
facilitate setting them up, especially in the EU13. 

Effectiveness 

When looking at the progress of the implementation of EFSI, it shows that approvals are on track 
after  its  first  year.  Especially  the  SMEW  showed  a  quick  take  up,  the  reason  being  that  the  EIF 
agreed  with  the  EC  and  the  EIB  to  use  EFSI  to  accelerate  the  roll-out  of  existing  mandates 
(COSME3 and InnovFin4), in line with EFSI Regulation. These EC mandates were constrained by their 
annual  budgets,  but  EFSI  enabled  them  to  be  ‘frontloaded’  so  that  they  could  i)  enter  more 
guarantee exposures and ii) reach out to more SMEs in a shorter period of time avoiding therefore 
possible disruption due to EC annual budget allocation. Similarly, EFSI enabled the EIF to increase 
the  investment  limits  under  the  EIB’s  RCR  mandate.  In  parallel  to  this,  new  products  could  be 
developed under the SMEW in view of a roll out in the second half of 2016. For the IIW the take up 
is  slower,  also  due  to  the  nature  of  the  projects  and  the  time  it  takes  to  develop  new  products 
under  this  window.  Actual  signatures  are  lagging  behind  (at  21%  of  the  315  billion  target), 
especially for the IIW.  
Based  on  the  portfolio  at  30  June  2016,  the  expected  multiplier  is  14.1,  i.e.  just  below  the 
targeted  15.  The  IIW  multiplier  is  lower  than  the  SMEW,  but  is  expected  to  increase  due  to  an 
increased roll-out of new products that are higher leveraged than the more classic products which 

EU13: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, 
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. 
3  COSME  is  the  EU  programme  for  the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-sized 
Enterprises (SMEs). It runs from 2014 to 2020 with a planned budget of €2.3 billion. 
4 ‘InnovFin – EU Finance for Innovators’ is a joint initiative launched by the European Investment Bank 
Group (EIB and EIF) in cooperation with the European Commission under Horizon 2020. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
were mainly used during the first year of EFSI. In view of the quick take up of the SMEW and the 
fact  that  projects  are  under  preparation  for  IIW,  it  seems  likely  that  EFSI  will  reach  its  targets 
set on the total portfolio after 3 years. 
In terms of the objectives relating to growth and jobs, no targets have been set for EFSI. The EIB 
Group will work on modelling tools to estimate the impact, but no figures are available yet (it is 
also too early for these effects to materialize).  

Efficiency 

Governance structures are in place and are working well. There are only a few issues identified in 
the EIB evaluation for improvement. Beneficiaries and intermediaries have indicated the need to 
speed-up the approval/due diligence process.  

In terms of awareness and clarity over what EFSI has to offer, still further efforts are needed to 
explain the specific products and the role of the Investment Platforms. Stakeholders indicate that 
it was insufficiently clear what EFSI can offer and how to benefit from it.  

Additionality, Coherence and Added Value 

Firstly, in terms of added value, the new products developed by the EIB for taking higher risks, are 
additional to the products the EIB already provided. These new products are valued by the market, 
although sometimes perceived as still not risky enough. 

Additionality  is  a  key  issue  and  linked  in  the  Regulation  to  ‘Special  Activity’  as  per  the  EIB's 
governing documents. However, in some cases Special Activities are not perceived by the market 
as  having  a  higher  risk  compared  to  what  the  commercial  market  can  offer,  albeit  possibly  at 
different  conditions.  Respondents  to  surveys  and  interviews,  especially  those  from  NPBs, 
indicated  that  some  of  the  financed  projects  could  have  been  financed  without  EFSI  support, 
meaning  that  these  investments  could  be  interpreted  as  not  being  fully  additional.  For  other 
projects  the  investment  could  not  have  been  made  to  the  same  extent  as  with  EFSI  support. 
Overall, the fact that the promoters decided on EFSI financing suggests that the alternatives did 
not  provide  the  financing  to  the  same  extent,  conditions  or  in  the  same  time  frame.  Some 
beneficiaries  indicated  that  EFSI  is  attractive  as  it  is  cheaper  compared  to  other  investors,  and 
support has a longer tenor than alternative support instruments.  

The project applications submitted to the EFSI Investment Committee  for support under   the IIW 
revealed a growing substantiating description of the additionality aspect. However the market (in 
particular  NPBs  and  beneficiaries)  is  still  in  doubt  whether  additionality  is  always  met.  Overall, 
there  is  a  need  to  better  clarify/define  the  concept  of  additionality,  which  is  understood 
differently by the various internal and external stakeholders. 

Concerning the Special Activities of the EIB, there is a risk that Special Activities identified by the 
EIB are channelled to EFSI rather than other existing instruments. In particular, this holds true for 
the complementarity with the debt instrument under the Connecting Europe Facility, targeting the 
same  type  of  projects  that  could  be  financed  by  EFSI  under  the  IIW,  as  well  as  for  certain 
instruments managed by the EIB under Horizon2020. There is a high complementarity with COSME 
and InnovFin  under the SMEW, as EFSI enables  to  finance  these funds  upfront  to  respond  to  the 
market  needs.  There  is  a  wish  to  better  combine  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
and EFSI. Besides the regulatory constraints to do so, the main constraint for this seems to be the 
competition between the two financing initiatives, especially in the Cohesion countries.  

In terms of added value, the projects are scored by EIB on different criteria, such as contribution 
to  the  EFSI  objectives,  additionality,  economic  and  technical  viability  of  the  projects  and 
maximisation of private investment. However, there seems to be no clear definition on a minimum 
threshold per criterion, nor a weighting.  

The EU Guarantee 

The  EU  Guarantee  was  used  for  the  upfront  financing  of  SMEs  and  Midcaps  under  COSME  and 
InnovFin  and  was  relevant  as  there  was  a  high  demand  for  the  products  offered  under  those 

7 

 
 
 
 
initiatives. For the IIW, the Guarantee is used as a first loss piece for the supported operations, 
allowing the EIB to take on higher risk. In this sense, the guarantee proved to be relevant.  

Despite  the  recent  start  and  objectives  set  at  the  end  of  the  3-year  period,  the  EU  Guarantee 
proved adequate to cover investments done by the EIB and EIF under EFSI. However, there was an 
unequal  take  up  under  the  two  windows,  and  recently  this  is  addressed  by  a  shift  of  Guarantee 
resources from the IIW to the SMEW.  

As mentioned before, the market conditions have not changed and stakeholders indicate that the 
demand  for  risk  financing  is  likely  to  remain  the  same  or  increase.  Hence,  the  EU  Guarantee 
supporting investments under EFSI still responds to the identified needs. 

The European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) 

Relevance and Effectiveness  

The  EIAH  was  set  up  in  September  2015.  Its  governance  structure  is  in  place  and  it  started 
working on developing the activities relating to its mission as indicated in the Regulation. There is 
a high need for technical assistance support and it is expected by stakeholders that this need will 
grow in the coming years. In terms of its mandate to provide a single point of entry for technical 
assistance  for  authorities  and  project  promoters,  the  EIAH  website  acts  as  a  good  access  point, 
but the EIAH is also reached through existing contacts within the EIB and the EC.  

In terms of effectiveness and the  type of support  provided to  the users of the EIAH services  so 
far,  it  is  clear  that  due  to  the  short  time  the  EIAH  exists,  not  all  expected  services  are  fully 
developed and promoted yet. The services  include the provision of basic information, signposting 
of  requests  to  other  services,  assistance  in  the  structuring  of  projects  to  improve  access  to 
financing, project preparation and implementation and management of Financial Instruments. 

To  date,  the  capacity  of  the  EIAH  itself  is  not  yet  sufficient  to  provide  for  the  full  support 
mentioned in its mandate, but the EIAH directs the promoters to the right services provided by the 
EIB or other service providers.  It is becoming clear that there is a need for tailor made  services 
also  within  the  Member  States  and  this  will  add  to  the  workload  and  complexity  of  the  EIAH.  A 
complicating factor for this is that NPBs do not always have the capacity to provide such services 
and, in case they have this capacity, there might be administrative issues in terms of contracting 
for delivering these services under the EIAH umbrella.  

The  requests  for  EIAH  support  are  most  frequent  in  Energy,  Transport  and  Urban  regeneration, 
which  is  in  line  with  the  mandate  given  by  the  EFSI  Regulation.  The  geographical  spread  of  the 
services covers 27 Member States. However, it is becoming evident that there is a need for more 
local  support  in  countries  with  less  capacity,  for  which  the  EIAH  may  need  to  develop  local 
capacity  and/or  to  develop  partnerships  with  NPBs/local  service  providers.  Some  NPBs  are 
uncertain  on  the  scope  and  nature  of  the  future  cooperation  between  the  NPBs  and  the  EIAH  (a 
perception  that  is  in  common  with  EFSI  investment  platforms),  meaning  that  there  is  still  room 
for clarifying and improving the cooperation between the NPBs and the EIAH.  

Efficiency 

The  EAIH  is  in  a  ramp  up  phase  and  therefore  the  budget  has  not  been  fully  allocated  so  far, 
although higher absorption is expected in the forthcoming years. No issues have been identified as 
concerns the governance model, but as noted, there is a need to  accommodate evolving demands 
on the model for provision of services (notably availability of advisory support at local level). The 
awareness on the services provided by the EIAH is still relatively limited.  

Added value and complementarity 

There  is  a  growing  awareness  of  the  high  need  for  tailor  made  support,  in  which  the  EIAH  could 
improve.  There  is  a  clear  need  for  the  advisory  services  offered  by  the  EIAH.  In  terms  of 
complementarity, there are services provided by others, such as private sector consultants, trade 
and  commercial  associations,  NPBs,  EC  funded  technical  assistance  services,  etc.  It  is  therefore 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
important that the EIAH continues to exercise care in avoiding crowding out of the private sector 
and to ensure complementarity of its services. 

Conclusions 

EFSI 
  EFSI  allows  the  EIB  to  increase  its  risk  bearing  capacity,  which  is  relevant  in  the  current 
market  and  prevailing  investment  gaps  in  Europe,  where  risk  averseness  is  the  main  issue, 
while there is ample liquidity.   

  While  the  design  of  EFSI  was  and  remains  relevant,  concerns  are  expressed  regarding 
additionality,  possible  crowding  out  and  suitability  of  the  EFSI  support  for  the  different 
countries in Europe.  

  While sector coverage is generally not seen as an issue by the stakeholders consulted, there is 
a serious concern on the geographical spread. The EU13 receive significantly less support than 
the EU15. There are indications that this is due to the limited capacity for project development 
in these countries, their lack of experience with PPP, the competition with ESIF, the size of the 
markets and projects. 

  There are indications that there is a need for financing of projects of a smaller size as opposed 

to large projects under the IIW. 

  In  terms  of  uptake,  COSME  and  InnovFin  gave  a  boost  to  the  SMEW,  while  the  uptake  of  IIW 
showed  a  relatively  slower  start.  In  terms  of  approvals,  EFSI  reached  its  target  in  its  first 
year, however signatures and disbursements lag behind.  

  Stakeholders indicated that there is competition with other EU funds such as certain financial 

instruments under CEF and H2020 or financial instruments and grants under ESIF.  

  Based  on  the  expected  multiplier,  the  target  multiplier  is  almost  reached  on  the  current 
portfolio.  There  is  no  target  set  for  the  maximization  of  private  capital  under  the  EFSI 
Regulation.  

  Contribution  to  growth  and  jobs  is  currently  insufficiently  measured  and  monitored,  while 

these are key ultimate objectives for the longer term. 

  In  general,  further  communication  on  EFSI  among  stakeholders  seems  to  be  needed  to  raise 
further awareness. More information is needed e.g. on the cooperation with NPBs/NPIs and the 
set-up of investment platforms and the role of the EIB in this respect. 

EU Guarantee 
  The  guarantee  proved  to  be  relevant  in  terms  of  enabling  EIB  to  provide  targeted  high  risk 

financing, both under the IIW and the SMEW. 

  Procedures on the decision of application  of the EU guarantee  and minimum  thresholds  could 

be made clearer. 

  The  EU  guarantee  allowed  for  upfront  financing  under  COSME  and  InnovFin,  guaranteeing 

continuation in financing. 

  The  targeted  provisioning  of  50%  at  the  outset  seems  to  be  cautious  and  prudent  to  cover 
potential  losses  on  the  existing  portfolio.  It  is  important  to  closely  monitor  the  investment 
strategy of the resources held in the Guarantee Fund going forward.  

EIAH 

  EIAH’s mandate is relevant as there is a clear need for technical assistance, knowledge sharing 

and information. 

  As EIAH is on its ramp-up phase, it is too early to draw conclusions on the effectiveness. 
  EIAH  currently  has  limited  capacity  and  works  in  a  centralised  manner.  There  is  an 
acknowledged need for larger cooperation with national services (authorities, NPBs). However 
there  are  issues  relating  to  the  capacity  of  providing  advisory  services    at  national  level  by 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
local  entities  and  to  the  administrative  arrangements  to  be  agreed  for  the  provision  of  such 
services under the EIAH umbrella. 

  The  services  are  not  yet  widespread  known  and  beneficiaries  expressed  mixed  views  on  the 

services provided in the ramp-up period. 

Recommendations 

EFSI 

It is recommended to: 
  Further investigate the specific needs and market gaps in countries that make less use of EFSI 
support and their ability for absorption of EFSI, in order to better address the needs of those 
countries  

  Establish  clear  selection  criteria  that  guarantee  the  additionality  of  the  EFSI  operations 

financed to complement the Special Activity selection criteria.  

  In view of the need to better address financing of smaller projects, attention should be paid to 

offering better solutions for smaller projects under the IIW.  

  Continue the development of new tailor made products for higher risk financing. 
  Closely  review  the  procedures  and  to  investigate  where  these  can  be  optimised.  Close 

monitoring is recommended.  

  Identify further relevant indicators and establish monitoring procedures to reveal information 

on the contribution of EFSI to these objectives.  

  Further  develop  and  facilitate    complementarity  and  synergy,  and  avoid  overlaps,  with  other 

financing sources.  

  Further raise awareness on EFSI.  

EU Guarantee 

It is recommended to: 
  Better  weigh  the  different  assessment  criteria  in  the  scoreboard  and  to  set  minimum 

thresholds for each of the four criteria according to their importance.  

  Clearly  monitor  the  division  of  the  EU  Guarantee  budget  between  the  IIW  and  the  SMEW.  A 
further shift of budget to SMEW, in addition to the recent budget allocation which was decided 
by the EFSI Steering Board, may be needed if the SMEW continues to evolve at its current pace. 

  Further increase the support to high risk project financing. 
  Closely follow up on the future evolution of risk on the EFSI portfolio.  

EIAH 

It is recommended to: 
  Increase communication and raise awareness on potential services. 
  Increase the capacity of the EIAH and strengthen links with other, local, service providers. 
  Establish a formal feedback procedure. 

CONTENTS 

1 

Introduction and methodology .............................................................................................................12 

1.1  Purpose ...............................................................................................................................................12 

1.2  Scope of the evaluation .................................................................................................................13 

1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

1.6 

Evaluation questions ......................................................................................................................13 

The Methodology ..............................................................................................................................15 

Limitations of the evaluation ......................................................................................................18 

Intervention logic: the Investment Plan for Europe, the EFSI and the EIAH ...................18 

2  Answers to the evaluation questions ................................................................................................25 

10 

 
 
 
 
2.1 

The European Fund for Strategic Investments ........................................................................25 

2.1.1 

Relevance ...................................................................................................................................25 

2.1.2 

Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................38 

2.1.3 

Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................41 

2.1.4 

Coherence, added value and additionality ........................................................................46 

2.2 

2.3 

EU Guarantee ....................................................................................................................................52 

The European Investment Advisory Hub ....................................................................................54 

2.3.1 

Relevance and Effectiveness ................................................................................................55 

2.3.2 

Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................59 

2.3.3 

Added value and complementarity......................................................................................61 

3  Conclusions and recommendations .....................................................................................................63 

3.1  Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................63 

EFSI ..............................................................................................................................................................63 

EU Guarantee ............................................................................................................................................66 

EIAH ..............................................................................................................................................................66 

3.2  Recommendations ............................................................................................................................69 

EFSI ..............................................................................................................................................................69 

EU Guarantee ............................................................................................................................................70 

EIAH ..............................................................................................................................................................70 

Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. 71 

Annex 1 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ 71 

Annex 2 Glossary .................................................................................................................................................. 72 

Annex 3 Interview topic lists ............................................................................................................................. 74 

Annex 4 Outcomes Survey .................................................................................................................................. 83 

Annex 5 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................... 170 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1  Introduction and methodology 

In this report we present the findings of the ad hoc audit ('evaluation') of the application of 
the  Regulation  2015/2017  ('EFSI  Regulation')5  covering  the  time  period  until  30  June  2016. 
This evaluation has been conducted in the time frame from 23 September 2016 (signature of 
the contract) until 14 November 2016. Data collection took place in the period 3 October – 3 
November 2016. In this Chapter we present the purpose, the methodology, the limitations of 
this study and the Investment Plan for Europe, the European Fund for Strategic Investments 
(hereafter 'EFSI') and European Investment Advisory Hub (hereafter ‘EIAH’).  

1.1 

Purpose 

An independent evaluation of the application of the EFSI Regulation is required by the Article 
18(6) of the Regulation. A stocktake of the Investment Plan for Europe was published by the 
Commission on 1 June 2016 (COM(2016) 359 final). The stocktake found that the Investment 
Plan  has  already  started  to  deliver  tangible  results.  As  a  consequence,  the  Commission 
indicated  its  intention  to  extend  the  duration  of  the  EFSI.  An  extension  of  EFSI  and  the 
associated legislative process will be informed by the completion of this evaluation. 

The overall goal of the current evaluation is to assess the application of the EFSI Regulation 
by assessing the functioning of the EFSI, the use of the EU guarantee and the functioning of 
the EIAH. 

The main goals of the evaluation are to: 

1.  Assess the relevance of the EFSI and EIAH in achieving the objectives of the initiative; 

2.  Assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  EFSI  and  EIAH  in  achieving  the  objectives  of  the 

initiative; 

3.  Assess the efficiency of the EFSI and EIAH in achieving the objectives of the initiative; 

4.  Assess  the  coherence,  additionality,  and  added  value  of  the  EFSI  intervention  and  the 

added value and complementarity of EIAH;  

5.  Assess the use of the EU Guarantee in terms of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency; 

6.  Draw lessons from the implementation of the EFSI and EIAH since its establishment until 

the time of the evaluation. 

The  conclusions  of  the  evaluation  will  serve  to  inform  about  the  relevance,  value  added, 
additionality,  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  functioning  of  the  EFSI,  the  use  of  the  EU 
Guarantee and the EIAH, which will enable the Commission to assess if the EFSI and the EIAH 
are  achieving  their  objectives  and  whether  the  maintenance  of  the  investment  scheme  is 
appropriate and will help to inform the legislative proposal presented by the Commission in 
September on the extension of EFSI.6 

5 REGULATION (EU) 2015/1017 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 June 2015 on 
the European Fund for Strategic Investments, the European Investment Advisory Hub and the European 
Investment Project Portal and amending Regulations (EU) No 1291/2013 and (EU) No 1316/2013  — the 
European Fund for Strategic Investments. 
6 Proposal for a Regulation  of The European  Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 
No 1316/2013 and (EU) 2015/1017 as regards the extension of the duration of the European Fund for 
Strategic  Investments  as  well  as  the  introduction  of  technical  enhancements  for  that  Fund  and  the 
European Investment Advisory Hub.  

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
1.2  Scope of the evaluation 

The scope of the evaluation covers the following: 

  Evaluated programme:  

-  Application of the Regulation 2015/2017 (EFSI Regulation).  

  The scope of the evaluation does not cover the European Investment Project Portal (EIPP) 
which was launched by the Commission on 1 June 2016 and it was not deemed appropriate 
by the Commission to evaluate its performance given  the extremely limited ‘live time’ as 
of the cut-off date for this evaluation, i.e. 30 June 2016. As of this date, 88 projects were 
published on the Portal. 

  Cut-off  date:  30  June  2016.  However,  where  relevant  we  present  some  trends  after  30 

June 2016, although this is out of scope of the evaluation. 

  Eligible area: The 28 Member States of the European Union (EU-28) and projects extending 
to specific non Member States as per Article 8 of the EFSI Regulation (the latter have not 
yet been addressed by EFSI). 

  Steering  Group:  Directorate-General  ECFIN,  Secretariat  General,  Directorate  General 

BUDG. EIB and EIF as observers.  

1.3  Evaluation questions 

The  Tender  Specifications  indicate  the  evaluation  questions  to  be  answered  in  order  to 
formulate appropriate recommendations and  draw conclusions. In particular, an assessment 
will need to be made on the following aspects: 

1.  Assess the functioning of the EFSI by analysing: 

-  Relevance,  defined  as  the  extent  to  which  the  EFSI  has  addressed  the  investment 
gaps  and  the  market  needs  initially  identified  (in  terms  of  size  and  sectorial 
coverage),  as  well  as  the  extent  to  which  the  design  of  EFSI  has  responded  to  the 
needs  of  the  stakeholders  and  the  extent  to  which  the  NPBs  and  the  Investment 
Platforms have supported the achievement of the EFSI objectives. 

-  Effectiveness, defined as the extent to which the EFSI has been on track to mobilising 
€315 billion of  total investments by  4 July 2018 and  increasing access to financing, 
as  well  as  the  extent  to  which  EFSI  has  increased  access  to  financing  and  mobilised 
private  capital  and  how  likely  the  expected  results  of  the  EFSI  are  to  be  achieved 
within the set timeframe. 

-  Efficiency,  defined  as  the  extent  to  which  the  funds  provided  to  EFSI  (EU  Guarantee 
and the EIB Group resources) are sufficient to achieve EFSI objectives and the extent 
to which the EFSI Governance structure is contributing to the EFSI implementation in 
an efficient and effective way; furthermore, the extent to which EFSI communication 
methods are being efficiently used to engage promoters. 

-  Additionality,  defined  as  the  extent  to  which  the  support  by  EFSI  addresses  market 
failures  or  sub-optimal  investment  situations  through  supporting  investments  which 
could  otherwise  not  have  been  carried  out  to  the  same  extent  by  the  EIB  or  EIF  or 
under existing financial instruments of the Union without EFSI support.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Coherence,  defined  as  the  extent  to  which  the  EFSI  is  complementary  and  coherent 

with other related activities.  

-  Added  value,  defined  as  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  adds  value  and  by  which  means 

this can be maximised.  

2.  Assess the use of the EU Guarantee by analysing: 

-  Relevance, defined as the extent to which the EU Guarantee has been used to support 

EFSI operations and to achieve the EFSI policy objectives.  

-  Effectiveness,  defined  as  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  Guarantee  has  fulfilled  the 

identified needs. 

-  Efficiency,  defined as the extent to which  the EU budget  resources available  for  the 

EU Guarantee will be sufficient to meet future exposures to be covered. 

3.  Assess the use of the EIAH by analysing: 

-  Relevance,  defined as  the extent to which  the  EIAH has fulfilled its mission  listed in 
Art 14 of the EFSI Regulation within the time-scale of the evaluated period, the relevance 
of its activities corresponding to its mandate and the compliance of the level of peer-
to-peer & knowledge exchange and sharing with its mandate. 

-  Effectiveness, defined as the extent to which the EIAH has been using the expertise of 
its  related  parties  (EIB,  EC,  national  promotional  banks  or  institutions,  and  the 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds)  to  achieve  its  objective,  as  well  as  the 
extent to which the cooperation between EIAH and other providers of similar services 
has been effective. 

-  Added  value,  defined  as  the  extent  to  which  the  EIAH  support  has  provided  added 

value. 

-  Complementarity,  defined  as  the  extent  to  which  the  EIAH  support  has  proven  to  be 

complementary to other existing services. 

-  Efficiency,  defined  as  the  extent  to  which  the  funds  provided  to  the  EIAH  have  been 
sufficient  and  optimally  used,  the  extent  to  which  the  EIAH  governance  model  is 
efficient  in  meeting  the  EIAH  objectives  and  the  extent  to  which  the  EIAH 
communication  methods  have  been  efficiently  used  to  promote  the  EIAH  services  to 
public and private project promoters. Furthermore, the EIAH support is also analysed 
on  which  sectors  it  is  supporting  most  efficiently  and  which  challenges  are  in  place 
for making EIAH effective across all eligible sectors and areas. 

Furthermore,  the  evaluation  should  identify  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  EFSI 
Regulation in its current form, as well as the extent to which the level of market uptake of 
the initiative is satisfactory versus the predicted levels. Based on the above comparison and 
analysis, recommendations should be formulated on the appropriate changes to improve the 
overall EFSI implementation, and to optimize EIAH's technical assistance support. 

The evaluation of the European Investment Project Portal (EIPP) is not included in the scope of 
this evaluation for the reasons  mentioned above. The  third pillar  of  the  Investment Plan  for 
Europe  (IPE)  is  not  addressed  by  the  EFSI  Regulation  and  is  therefore  outside  the  scope  of 
this evaluation. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.4  The Methodology 

The  evaluation  is  based  on  a  criteria  judgement  grid,  specifying  the  indicators  and  sources 
per evaluation question. This grid has been discussed and agreed upon with the  members of 
the steering group and formed the basis for the formulation of the topic lists for interviews, 
the questionnaires for the  different surveys (see Annex  1 and 2) and the structuring of the 
data from the desk research. The topic lists for the interviews and the questionnaires for the 
surveys were discussed and approved by the steering group before launching them.  

During  the  inception  meeting  the  main  focus  of  the  evaluation  has  been  discussed.  As  the 
EIB's  evaluation7  and  an  evaluation  performed  by  the  EC8  were  already  available,  this 
evaluation concentrated on those questions which were  addressed to a lesser extent  by the 
previous  evaluations,  while  critically  reviewing  the  findings  of  the  evaluations  already 
finalised. Hence, main attention in data collection has been paid to the relevance of EFSI, the 
geographical  and  sectoral  spread,  the  extent  to  which  EFSI  and  EIAH  serve  weaker 
geographical  areas  and  whether  certain  areas  and  sectors  are  more  difficult  to  reach. 
Furthermore, the satisfaction with the EIAH support is an important element to be addressed 
by the evaluation.  

Data collection was organised as follows:  

  Desk research: Analysis of relevant documentation and available monitoring - and project 

data; 

  Interviews with: 

-  EC: 3 (group) interviews;  

-  EIB: 1 group interview; 

-  EIF: 1 group interview;  

-  EIAH: 1 group interview;  

- 

Investment Committee: one group interview with the Investment Committee; 

-  NPBs:  1  group  interview  covering  different  countries,  3  group  interviews,  1  individual 

interview. 

  Online surveys:  

-  Survey among NPBs, directly approached by the evaluators through an e-survey; 

-  Survey among EIAH beneficiaries, a link to the survey was sent out by the EIAH ; 

-  Survey among beneficiaries of the Infrastructure and Innovation Window (IIW), a link to 

the survey was sent out by the EIB; 

-  Survey among financial intermediaries, a link to the survey was sent out by the EIB ; 

7  The  EIB’s  Operations  Evaluation  Division,  part  of  the  Inspectorate  General,  carried  the  EIB’s 
evaluation of EFSI. This Division has an independent line of reporting to the EIB directors. 
8 EC internal evaluation, SWD(2016) 297 final/2, Brussels 22/09/2016 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
-  Survey  among  financial  intermediaries  involved  in  the  SME  Window  (SMEW),  a  link  to 
the  survey  was  sent  out  by  the  EIF  to  a  pre-agreed  selection  of  16  financial 
intermediaries involved in the SMEW.  

The responses to the survey were as follows:  

16 

 
 
 
 
Responses to the surveys 

Survey 

Survey NPBs 

panel 
Size 
(number 
of 
people  to  whom  
the 
email 
invitation  was 
sent) 
45  (4  of  which 
bounced back) 

Complete responses 

9  

Survey EIAH beneficiaries 

35 

14  

Survey  final  beneficiaries  -  Infrastructure  and 
innovation window 

27  

18  

Survey financial intermediaries - IIW 

(1  bounced 

13 
back) 

10  

Survey financial intermediaries - SME window  

16 

14  

Geographical  coverage  of 
the 
the 
respondents 

projects 

of 

Croatia,  Lithuania,  Belgium, 
EU  as  a  whole,  Hungary, 
Czech 
Ireland, 
Italy, 
France, 
Republic,  Poland, 
Austria, Germany 
Czech  Republic,  Germany, 
Cyprus, 
Austria, 
Latvia, 
Slovakia,  Belgium,  Spain, 
Finland,  Romania,  Ukraine, 
Moldova,  Serbia,  Slovenia, 
Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Hungary, 
France 
Kingdom, 
Italy, 
Finland, 
Germany,  Spain, 
France,  Greece, 
Sweden, 
Slovakia, Netherlands, EU as 
a  whole,  Ireland,  Belgium, 
Austria 
Spain,  Germany, 
France, 
Belgium, Luxembourg, United 
Kingdom,  Portugal,  EU  as  a 
whole, Denmark, Sweden 
Italy,  Spain,  Czech  Republic, 
France, 
Sweden, 
Poland, 
Belgium, Hungary 

United 

17 

 
 
 
1.5  Limitations of the evaluation 

A  robust  evaluation  requires  thorough  data  collection  and  analysis.  The  relatively  short 
timeline  for  this  evaluation  did  not  allow  for  an  extensive  consultation  of  all  relevant 
stakeholders,  such  as  financial  institutions,  the  management  of  similar  instruments  and 
potential  beneficiaries.  Therefore,  our  analysis  of  the  market  and  context  developments, 
relevant  for  the  assessment  of  the  need  and  future  uptake  of  EFSI  and  the  answers  to  the 
evaluation questions, is not necessarily exhaustive. Therefore, some caution is needed in the 
interpretation  of  the  evaluation  outcomes.  However,  the  combination  of  desk  research, 
interviews and the responses to the survey provide relevant information on the evaluations 
questions, especially in those cases where the data could be triangulated.  

Additionally,  as  indicated  in  the  Tender  Specifications,  both  the  EFSI  and  the  EIAH  are 
relatively new initiatives that started only in 2015 (EIAH in September 2015). Therefore, the 
evaluation  is  performed  based  on  the  data  available  so  far  and  takes  into  account  the 
results to the extent they are realised so far.  

Due  to  the  recent  start  of  EFSI,  it  is  too  early  to  form  a  view  on  the  effectiveness  of  the 
initiative  in  reaching  the  ultimate  policy  objectives,  such  as  the  extent  to  which  EFSI 
provides  added  value  to  the  economy,  the  environment  and  the  society,  the  contribution  to 
reducing  unemployment  levels  and  boosting  economic  growth.  Effectiveness  in  terms  of 
commitments and disbursements, however, can be assessed. For the activities of EIAH, which 
was  only  set  up  late  2015,  it  is  rather  early  to  evaluate  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness. 
Assessment  of  effectiveness  of  the  investment  platforms  is  not  feasible,  as  there  were  no 
investment platforms set up before the cut-off date.  

1.6 

Intervention logic: the Investment Plan for Europe, the EFSI and the EIAH 

The policy context: the Investment Plan for Europe  

The  Investment  Plan  for  Europe  (IPE)  is  a  EU  wide  initiative  and  one  of  the  Commission's 
priorities  aimed  at  both  facilitating  and  stimulating  financing  of  strategic  projects  in  the 
European  Union  and  support  SME  and  small  mid-cap  companies  access  to  finance  and  was 
presented in November 2014. The Investment Plan for Europe focuses on removing obstacles 
to  investment,  providing  visibility  and  technical  assistance  to  investment  projects  and 
making smarter use of new and existing financial resources. The IPE’s ultimate objective is to 
restore  growth  and  confidence  and  decrease  unemployment  to  put  Europe  on  the  path  of 
economic recovery. 

The  IPE  is  a  response  to  the  global  economic  and  financial  crisis,  which  has  weakened 
Europe’s  global  competitiveness  and  decreased  confidence  and  growth.  Consequently, 
essential  investments  have  been  postponed  or  put  on  hold,  resulting  in  a  15%  decrease  in 
investments compared to the pre-crisis level in  2007. Although liquidity  has been available, 
many  economically  viable  projects  are  failing  to  secure  funding/financing  due  to  low 
confidence,  risk-averse  investors  and  other  financial  and  non-financial  barriers.  To  address 
this market failure and to put Europe on the path of economic recovery, [the Investment Plan 
for  ]Europe  is  expected  to  bridge  the  investment  gap  by  boosting  essential  investments  in 
infrastructure, innovation and  SMEs and mid-caps.  

18 

 
 
 
The IPE is addressing the economic issues in three ways: (i) mobilising finance for investment 
(ii) making finance reach the real economy and (iii) improving the investment environment. 

The first pillar, with the foundation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments, enables 
the  EC  –  in  partnership  with  the  European  Investment  Bank  Group  (EIB  Group)  –  to  address 
market failures in risk-taking, and in view of the current shortage of risk-financing which is 
holding  back  investments,  to  mobilise  finance  for  investments.  Member  States  have  also 
been  invited  to  contribute.  Cooperation  with  other  financial  institutions  such  as  National 
Promotional Banks (NPBs) or National Promotional Institutions (NPIs) would be important to 
reach EFSI's objectives.  

Through  the  second  pillar,  the  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  and  the  European 
Investment  Project  Portal  support  investments  to  make  money  reach  the  real  economy.  The 
EIAH  is  a  joint  initiative  by  the  Commission  and  the  EIB  to  provide  enhanced  support  for 
project  development  to  project  promoters  by  means  of  the  provision  of  technical  and 
advisory  assistance.  The  EIPP  has  been  established  to  offer  EU  based  private  and  public 
project promoters a convenient way to boost the visibility of their investment projects. 

Through  the  third  pillar,  the  Commission  aims  at  lowering  or  removing  investment  barriers 
and  to  create  an  investment-friendly  environment,  through  actions  at  both  the  EU  and 
Member State levels. The regulatory environment should thus become more stable, business-
friendly  and  predictable  at  a  European,  national  and  sub-national  level  and  focus  on 
completing  the  single  market  for  key  sectors.  This  pillar  is  outside  the  EFSI  Regulation  and 
thus out of the scope of this ad hoc audit.  

The European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) 

The  Investment  Plan  for  Europe  (IPE)  was  designed  to  address  uncertainty  surrounding 
private  and  public  investments  and  to  reduce  the  investment  gaps.  The  IPE  goal  is  to  boost 
competitiveness  and  support  economic  recovery.  The  EFSI,  as  the  first  pillar  of  the  IPE, 
contributes  to  this  goal  as  it  is  designed  to  unlock  and  mobilise  public  and  private 
investments in the real economy of at least € 315 billion over three years (i.e. by mid-2018). 

The  purpose  of  EFSI  is  to  help  resolve  difficulties  to  financing  and  to  implement  strategic, 
transformative  and  productive  investments  that  provide  a  high  level  of  added  value  to  the 
economy,  the  environment  and  the  society,  aiming  at  reducing  unemployment  levels  and 
boosting  economic  growth  (in  line  with  EU  policy).  Moreover,  EFSI  should  improve  access  to 

19 

 
 
 
 
financing  and  ameliorate  competitiveness  of  enterprises,  focused  at  (but  not  limited  to) 
Small  and  Medium  sized  Enterprises  (SMEs)  and  small  mid-cap  companies  which  employ  not 
more than 3000 people. 

For this purpose, the Commission and the EIB Group  have set aside € 21 billion (€16 billion 
guarantee from the EU budget and €5 billion contribution by EIB), to support investments and 
increase access to finance for SMEs and mid-cap companies. Hence, EFSI is not a Fund, but an 
initiative  based  on  a  EU  budget  guarantee  provided  to  the  EIB  Group,  and  on  a  capital 
contribution  from  the  EIB.  €16  billion  of  the  EFSI  support  was  dedicated  to  EIB  operations 
under  the  Infrastructure  and  Innovation  Window,  which  are  operations  aiming  at  financing 
investments  in  a  number  of  sectors  identified  in  the  EFSI  Regulation,  whereas  €5  billion  of 
the EFSI support was dedicated to operations under the SME Window, implemented by EIF and 
aimed at increasing and facilitating the access to finance for small and medium enterprises 
and mid-caps.  

The €21 billion committed to the EFSI is expected to internally leverage up to €61 billion in 
additional EIB and EIF  financing. Moreover, EFSI is expected to  ‘crowd in’ public and private 
sector  finance  worth  in  total  15  times  the  initial  EFSI  resources,  generating  total 
investments  in  the  Union  of  at  least  €315  billion  within  2015-2018.  A  schematic 
representation of the plan is presented below: 

EFSI support mechanism 

The  EFSI  (€21  billion)  is  -and  will-  be  provided  as  ‘additional’  financing,  meaning  market  failures  and  sub-optimal  investment 
situations are addressed to make investments more attractive to external investors by lowering the overall risk. EFSI is not a Fund, 
but an initiative based on a EU guarantee provided to the EIB Group and on a capital contribution from the EIB.  

The  EFSI  focuses  on  projects  within  specific  key  sectors  as  per  Article  9(2)  of  the  EFSI 
Regulation:  It  should  support  investment  in:  transport,  energy  and  digital  infrastructure; 
education  and  training,  health,  research  and  development,  information  and  communications 
technology  and  innovation;  expansion  of  renewable  energy  and  resource  efficiency; 
environmental,  urban  and  social  projects;  as  well  as  support  for  smaller  businesses  and 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
midcap  companies.  EFSI  is  a  market-driven  initiative  and  should  ensure  additionality. 
Moreover, EFSI targets  technically and economically viable projects without any  sectoral or 
regional  pre-allocation, 
in  particular  to  address  high  investment  needs  or  market 
failures/sub-optimal investment situations. 

Projects are eligible when they are economically and technically viable, provide additionality 
and are mature enough to be bankable. Additionality is defined in the Regulation as: 

‘The  support  by  the  EFSI  of  operations  which  address  market  failures  or  sub-optimal 
investment  situations and which could not have  been carried out in  the  period during which 
the EU guarantee can be used, or not to the same extent, by the EIB, the EIF or under existing 
Union  financial  instruments  without  EFSI  support.  Projects  supported  by  the  EFSI  shall 
typically have a higher risk profile than projects supported by EIB normal operations and the 
EFSI  portfolio  shall  have  overall  a  higher  risk  profile  than  the  portfolio  of  investments 
supported by the EIB under its normal investment policies before the entry into force of this 
Regulation.  

The  projects  supported  by  the  EFSI,  while  striving  to  create  employment  and  sustainable 
growth, shall be considered to provide additionality if they carry a risk corresponding to EIB 
special  activities,  as  defined  in  Article  16  of  the  EIB  Statute  and  by  the  credit  risk  policy 
guidelines of the EIB.'  (Article 5 of the Regulation) 
To  ensure  the  best  fit  with  the  specifics  of  individual  projects,  a  wide  range  of  financial 
products, including equity and quasi-equity participations, debt (standard loans, guarantees, 
counter-guarantees, de-linked financing etc.) are provided under EFSI, allowing it to adapt to 
market  circumstances  whilst  catalysing  private  investments  in  projects  to  the  maximum 
extent possible rather than being a substitute to the private investors. Via the EIF, the EFSI 
aims to address capital shortages, market failures and financial fragmentation experienced 
by  SMEs  and  mid-cap  companies,  by  providing  loan  guarantees  and  by  means  of  direct  and 
indirect equity injections.  
In  terms  of  governance,  the  potential  investments  are  examined  and  evaluated  by  the 
Investment Committee, which is composed of a managing director (MD) and eight independent 
experts  with  experience  in  one  or  more  key  EFSI-related  sectors.  The  normal  EIB/EIF 
appraisal  processes  remain  in  place,  but  the  Investment  Committee  decides  on  the 
application  of  the  EU  Guarantee  on  the  basis  of  a  four  pillar  examination  (as  presented  in 
the Scoreboard, assessed per project): 

1.  Contribution to EFSI and EU policy objectives. 

2.  Quality and soundness of the project (including growth and employment). 

3.  Technical and financial contribution to the project. 

4.  Complementary indicators. 

The European Investment Advisory Hub 

The  objective  of  the  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  (EIAH),  part  of  the  second  pillar,  is 
indicated  in  the  EFSI  Regulation  (article  14):  to  build  upon  existing  EIB  and  Commission 
advisory services in order to provide advisory support for the identification, preparation and 
development of investment projects and to act as a single technical advisory hub for project 
financing within the Union. Such support should include providing targeted support on the use 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of  technical  assistance  for  project  structuring,  on  the  use  of  innovative  financial 
instruments  and  on  the  use  of  public-private  partnerships  and  advice,  as  appropriate,  on 
relevant  issues  relating  to  Union  law,  taking  into  account  the  specificities  and  needs  of 
Member States with less-developed financial markets.  

The EIAH should be able to provide technical assistance in the areas listed in Article 9(2) 9, in 
particular  energy  efficiency,  TEN-T  and  urban  mobility.  The  EIAH  should  provide  services  in 
addition to those already available under other Union programmes, including:  

  Providing  a  single  point  of  entry  for  technical  assistance  for  authorities  and  project 

promoters;  

  Assisting project promoters, where appropriate, in  developing their projects  so that  they 

fulfil the eligibility criteria set out in Article 6;  

  Leveraging local knowledge to facilitate EFSI support across the Union;  

  Providing  a  platform  for  peer-to-peer  exchange  and  sharing  of  know-how  regarding 

project development;  

  Providing advice on the establishment of investment platforms.  

EIAH services should be available for public and private project promoters, including national 
promotional banks or institutions and investment platforms or funds and regional and local 
public entities. In order to achieve the objective, the EIAH should seek to use the expertise of 
the  EIB,  the  Commission,  national  promotional  banks  or  institutions,  and  the  managing 
authorities  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds.  In  order  to  ensure  broad 
coverage of services provided by the EIAH across the whole Union, the EIAH should cooperate 
where possible with providers of similar services at Union, regional, national or sub-national 
level.  

Cooperation  between,  on  the  one  hand,  the  EIAH  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  national 
promotional  bank  or  institution  or  an  institution  or  a  managing  authority,  including  those 
acting  as  a  national  advisor,  having  expertise  relevant  for  the  purposes  of  the  EIAH,  may 
take the form of a contractual partnership. 

The Guarantee Fund and the EU Guarantee 

The  Guarantee  Fund  was  established  in  order  to  cover  the  potential  losses  incurred  by  the 
EFSI  guaranteed  operations.  The  Guarantee  Fund  is  constituted  by  a  gradual  payment  from 
the general budget of the Union and must be maintained at a certain percentage of the total 
amount of EU guaranteed obligations. The EFSI Regulation foresees that, based on experience 
on  the  nature  of  investments  to  be  supported  by  the  EFSI,  the  level  of  resources  in  the 
Guarantee Fund should represent a ratio of 50 % of the total EU guaranteed obligations. The 
Guarantee  Fund  subsequently  receives  revenues  from  projects  that  benefit  from  the  EU 
Guarantee  under  EFSI,  returns  on  the  Guarantee  Fund  resources  invested  in  the  financial 
markets, and also amounts recovered from defaulting debtors for which the Guarantee Fund 
has already honoured a guarantee call from the EIB. 

The EU Guarantee is an irrevocable and unconditional guarantee to the EIB for financing and 
investment  operations  covered  by  this  Regulation  and  by  the  EFSI  Agreement.  The  EU 
Guarantee  is  to  support,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  financing  of  new  operations.  In  the 
investments  (asset  creation)  should  be  encouraged. 
infrastructure  field,  greenfield 

9  This  includes  R&D,  energy,  transport  infrastructure,  SME  and  small  mid-cap  companies,  information 
and  communication  technologies,  environment  and  resource  efficiency,  human  capital,  culture  and 
health.  

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
Brownfield  investments  (extension  and  modernisation  of  existing  assets)  may  also  be 
supported.  As  a  rule,  the  EU  guarantee  shall  not  be  granted  for  supporting  refinancing 
operations  (such  as  replacing  existing  loan  agreements  or  other  forms  of  financial  support 
for  projects  which  have  already  partially  or  fully  materialised),  except  in  exceptional  and 
well-justified circumstances where it is  demonstrated  that  such a  transaction will enable a 
new investment of an amount at least equivalent to the amount of the transaction and that 
would fulfil the eligibility criteria and general objectives laid down in the Regulation.  

The  EU  Guarantee  shall  support  a  wide  range  of  products  to  allow  the  EFSI  to  adapt  to 
market needs while encouraging private investment in projects, without crowding out private 
market finance. In this context, it is expected that the EIB will provide finance under the EFSI 
with  a  view  to  reach  an  overall  initial  target  of  at  least  €  315  billion  of  public  or  private 
investment. 

The  eligible  products 
include  loans,  guarantees  /counter-guarantees,  mezzanine  and 
subordinated  finance,  capital  market  instruments  including  credit  enhancement,  and  equity 
or  quasi-equity  participations,  including  through  national  promotional  banks  or  institutions, 
investment platforms or funds. In this context, in order to allow a broad range of investors 
to  invest  in  EFSI  supported  projects,  the  EIB  shall  be  allowed  to  structure  appropriate 
portfolios.  National  promotional  banks  or  institutions  and  investment  platforms  or  funds 
shall be eligible for coverage by an EIB guarantee provided as a counter-guarantee of the EU 
guarantee. 

The governance structure of EFSI is composed of:  

(a) a steering board, which, for the purpose of the use of the EU guarantee, is to determine, 
in  conformity  with  the  general  objectives  of  EFSI,  the  strategic  orientation  of  the  EFSI,  its 
operating  policies  and  procedures,  the  rules  applicable  to  operations  with  Investment 
Platforms and NPBs/NPIs, and the risk profile of EFSI; 

(b) a managing director, who is responsible for the day- to-day management of the EFSI and 
the preparation and chairing of meetings of the Investment Committee;  

C  )  an    Investment  Committee  which  is  responsible  for  examining  potential  projects  in  line 
with the EFSI investment policies and for approving the support of the EU guarantee for EIB 
NPBs/NPIs. 
operations 

investment 

operations 

platforms 

with 

and 

and 

23 

 
 
 
The Commission proposal for amending Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 or EFSI 2.0  

Although  outside  the  scope  of  the  evaluation,  we  present  the  proposal  for  amendment  of  the 
Regulation  as  a  context  factor.  In  September  2016,  the  Commission  proposed  the  extension  of  the 
European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  (EFSI)  until  31  December  2020  with  a  view  to  reach  a 
target of at least €500 billion  in private and public investment, the scaling-up of the SMEW within 
the  existing  framework  and  the  enhancement  of  the  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  (EIAH),  in 
order to maintain the efforts to bring investment back to its long term sustainable trend.  

This  proposal  states  that  the  extended  EFSI  should  address  remaining  market  failures  and  sub-
optimal investment situations and continue to mobilise private sector financing crucial for Europe’s 
future  growth.  It  also  places  importance  on  additionality  which  should  be  strengthened  in  the 
selection of projects. 
The Commission proposes a number of amendments concerning the EU Guarantee, such as to increase 
it from €16 billion up to € 26 billion. It is expected that when the EU guarantee is combined with the 
€ 7,5 billion provided by the EIB, the EFSI support will generate at least half a trillion euros of new 
investment by 2020. Besides, it is proposed that the provisioning of the Guarantee Fund is brought to 
35% of the total EU guarantee obligations by 2020, ensuring an adequate level of protection. 

The  proposal  highlights  that  SME  financing  under  the  EFSI  should  be  enhanced,  in  particular  for 
social enterprises, including through the development and deployment of new instruments.  

Additionally, the transparency should be  improved. Consequently, the Investment Committee should 
explain the reasons why an operation should be supported by the EU guarantee, with particular focus 
on  compliance  with  additionality  criterion.  Moreover,  the  scoreboard  of  indicators  is  proposed  to 
become public after the signature of an operation supported by the EU guarantee. 

Finally,  the  EC  proposed  that  the  EIAH  be  enhanced,  in  particular  in  supporting  further  objectives, 
such  as  the  preparation  of  projects  involving  two  or  more  Member  States  and  projects  that 
contribute  to  reaching  the  objectives  of  COP2110.  The  EIAH  should  also  contribute  actively  to  the 
objective of sectorial and geographical diversification of the EFSI, support the EIB where needed in 
originating projects and should be enhanced to bring its services closer to the final beneficiaries and 
provide advisory support at local level. It should also contribute to the establishment of investment 
platforms. 

10 Paris Climate Conference 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2  Answers to the evaluation 

questions 

2.1  The European Fund for Strategic Investments 

2.1.1  Relevance 

To what extent has the EFSI addressed the investment gaps and the market needs 
identified initially (in terms of size and sector and geographical coverage)? 

This  question  approaches  the  relevance  of  the  EFSI  initiative  on  broad  aspects.  In  order  to 
address  the  question  in  a  structured  way,  we  sub-divide  it  in  3  sections.  The  first  section 
covers the investments gaps and market needs, followed by a section on the size and a last 
section on the geographical and sectorial coverage. 

Investment gaps and market needs. 

In  December  2014,  a  study  was  conducted  by  the  Special  Task  Force  (Member  States, 
Commission  and  EIB)  on  Investment  in  the  EU  with  the  aim  of  highlighting  if  there  were 
sufficient  relevant  projects  to  finance  in  Europe.  This  study  brought  attention  on  a  Europe 
affected by the global financial crisis of 2008 in terms of global competitiveness, confidence 
and growth. The pace of economic recovery remained low and mostly due to the insufficiency 
of investment.  As a matter  of  fact, the tightness in human and physical capital investment 
jeopardised  future  competitiveness,  growth  and  employment  and  placed  EU  behind  other 
leading economies worldwide. 

In spite of that, the study pointed out that potential for investment subsisted and ranged up 
to  €1,3  trillion,  out  of  which  €  500  billion  was  reachable  over  the  coming  three  years  (i.e. 
from  2015  to  2017).  However,  the  main  blocking  challenge  stood  in  the  investment  climate 
which  was  impeded  by  macroeconomic  uncertainty,  structural  reforms’  insufficiencies, 
regulatory constraints and unavailability of adequate funding. 

In  January  2016,  the  EIB  team  conducted  a  study  on  EU  competitiveness.11  The  report 
accentuated  the  high  importance  of  mobilising  efforts  to  create  an  environment  more 
conducive to private investment. 

Furthermore,  the  [EIB  ]study  stated  that  the  EU’s  recovery  remains  slow  due  to  an  EU’s 
productivity  growth  weaker  than  the  US’s  one,  the  misallocation  of  investment  and  many 
structural  weaknesses.  Indeed,  Investment  gaps  and  market  needs  still  persist  in  Europe. 
Gaps  to  invest  in  R&D,  energy,  ICT,  education,  industry,  transport  &  logistics  and  water  & 
waste are estimated at an annual € 655 billion12. 

Besides,  investment  in  R&D  and  new  technologies  in  advanced  European  countries  remains 
depressed  and  behind  the  US  and  Japan.  This  is  critical  because  the  EU  has  to  defend  a 
competitive position in salient sectors like life sciences, semiconductors and software.  

Moreover, young innovative firms and SMEs lack access to finance for innovation. In the Euro 
area, 28% of SMEs faces challenges to get access to finance. The explanation is twofold. On 
one  side, as  EU SMEs are strongly dependent on bank financing  the ability of  banks to take 
on risk is reduced in a post -crisis environment, due to rising non-performing loan ratios and 

11 EIB: Restoring EU competitiveness, 2016 
12 EIB: Restoring EU competitiveness, 2016 

25 

 
 
 
                                                 
the  trying-up  of  the  securitisation  market.    On  the  other  side,  SMEs  have  difficulties  in 
accessing capital markets due to underdeveloped market structures. 

Another  critical  point  underlined  in  the  study  is  the  underinvestment.  It  persists  for  many 
years and has led to obsolete infrastructure assets on one side and on the other side a lack 
of  state-of-the-art  facilities  required  to  meet  the  high  demands  of  the  future  in  terms  of 
energy, mobility, logistics, digital services and environmental concern. 

To  conclude,  the  study  states  most  of  the  highlighted  investments  needs  have  to  be 
translated  into  concrete  investment  projects  and  most  of  those  projects  will  have  to  come 
from  the  private  sector.  To  catalyse  private  investment  and  make  optimal  use  of  it,  it  is 
fundamental  to  ensure  efficiency,  competition  and  further  integration  of  Europe’s  internal 
market  via  structural  reforms,  public  investment  policy  focused  on  market  inefficiencies, 
advice  on  project  preparation  and  technical  expertise  and  public  support  for  higher-risk 
investment. 

In  this  economical  context  of  2014,  the  Investment  Plan  for  Europe  has  been  created  to 
address  the  identified  challenges  with  the  ultimate  objective  of  removing  obstacles  to 
investment,  providing  visibility  and  technical  assistance  to  investment  projects  and  making 
smarter  use  of  new  and  existing  financial  resources13.  The  EFSI  has  been  established  to  be 
part  of  the  IPE  and  contributes  to  this  objective  as  it  is  designed  to  unlock  and  mobilise 
public and private investments in the real economy of at least € 315 billion over three years. 
Based on the study conducted in 2016, the investment gaps and needs still remain.  

The  EFSI  Regulation  presents  the  EFSI  initiative  as  ‘a  comprehensive  action  required  to 
reverse  the  vicious  circle  created  by  a  lack  of  investment  and  by  increasing  disparities 
between  regions,  and  to  reinforce  confidence  in  the  Union  economy,  while  incentives  for 
creating  an  investment-inducing  environment  in  Member  States  could  boost  economic 
recovery. (…) A European fund for strategic investments (EFSI), strengthened by Member State 
contributions, must be a complement to an overall strategy to improve Union competitiveness 
and attract investment.’14 

The  EFSI‘s  financial  structure  combines  a  EU  Guarantee  provided  by  the  European 
Commission of maximum € 16 billion split between two ‘windows’: up to €13,5 billion for the 
Infrastructure  and  Innovation  Window  and  up  to  €2,5  billion  for  the  SME  Window,  and  a 
contribution  of  €5  billion  provided  by  the  EIB  split  equally  between  the  two  windows. 
Regarding  this  split,  after  one  year’s  implementation  (30  June  2016),  we  observe  a  strong 
uptake  of  EFSI  support  under  the  SMEW  portfolio  confirmed  also  by  the  decision  of  the 
Steering Board in July 2016 to transfer €500 million from the IIW to the SMEW (as already 
foreseen by the EFSI Regulation). 

Our  interviews  with  representatives  of  the  EIB  and  the  Investment  Committee  confirmed 
that  Europe  has  been  facing  an  underdeveloped  capital  market  in  which  investment  levels 
are  too  low,  amounting  to  a  shortage  of  circa  €600  billion  of  investments  per  year15.  The 
interviewees confirmed the analysis that liquidity is not so much the constraint, whereas the 
absence  of  risk  taking  with  banks,  the  public  sector  and  the  private  sector  is  the 
fundamental issue. This is the issue the Union wants to address. The transmission mechanism 
to the real economy is distorted due to a too low risk taking capacity.  Policy makers wanted 
the  EIB  to  take  more  risk  while  maintaining  its  AAA  credit  rating.  Therefore  EFSI  has  been 

13 https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-and-investment/investment-plan_en 
14 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 
15 Investment and Investment Finance in Europe, Economics Department of EIB, 2015 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
designed  to  allow  the  EIB  to  increase  the  availability  of  high  risk  financing  to  eligible 
projects without endangering its AAA credit rating. 

As  of  30  June  2016,  interviewees  (EIB  and  EIF)  confirm,  backed  by  a  new  study16  on  the 
existence of market gaps in the Union, that the market gaps are still significantly influencing 
risk  taking  behaviour  amongst  investors.  NPBs  also  indicate  that  there  is  a  need  for  risk 
financing  for  the  SME  sector.  Both  NPBs  and  intermediaries,  do  not  identify  changes  in  the 
market needs since the inception of the EFSI in 2015. Concerning future needs, beneficiaries 
expect  that  the  future  funding  needs  for  risky  projects  (that  will  not  be  fully  financed  by 
commercial  banks)  will  increase  (9  respondents)  or  remain  the  same  (6  respondents).  Only 
one  respondent  expects  decrease  in  those  needs.  The  expectations  of  the  financial 
intermediaries  (both  windows)  and  NPBs  are  very  similar,  i.e.  overall  the  funding  needs  for 
risky projects are expected to increase, or remain the same. 

The study of the Centre for European Policy Studies (2016)  17 confirms the gaps. It is stated 
that:  ‘Limited  cross-sectional  risk  sharing  in  Europe  is  a  potential  source  of  financial 
instability and a primary cause of the growing funding gap for companies at an early stage 
of  development,  when  they  need  prompt  liquidity  injections  that  are  rarely  offered  by 
traditional banking tools, and for mid-sized companies that are looking for market (equity or 
debt)  funding  opportunities  to  expand  their  business  activity.’  (p.  171)  It  furthermore 
indicates that there is currently a big funding gap between the US and the European industry. 
In the period 2010-14, US private equity and venture capital funds invested on average €119 
billion  per  year,  compared  to  €37  billion  in  Europe.  After  the  financial  crisis,  volumes  have 
picked  up,  but  they  are  not  at  pre-crisis  level.  Most  notably,  35%  of  funds  come  from  non-
European investors , which shows how the market is still in the phase of creating stable pan-
European funding for private equity and venture capital. This is also true if we consider that 
private equity and venture capital is only developed in a few European countries, with a lot 
of cross-country differences.’ (p.123)18 

A study performed in 2015 by several Universities19 also confirms the existence of financing 
gaps in the EU and compared those gaps to those of the USA for the SME sector specifically. 
In the following table the main findings of this study are presented. 

 Table Spread of the Financing Gap (as % of GDP) in 2013 

Loan gap 

Equity gap 

France 

Germany  Netherlands  Poland 

Romania  US 

3,37%-
5,16% 
2,23%-
3,06% 

2,7%– 
6,04% 
2,07% - 
3,95% 

6,01% 
10,34% 
0,7%- 
3,49% 

-

5,01%  - 
14,73% 
0,44%- 
3,49% 

1,35%  - 
4,02% 
4,83%-
13,05% 

1,12%  - 
2,25% 
0,96%-
1,52% 

16 Presentation Does Higher Public Investment lead to more growth, Debora Revoltella, October 2016 
17  Centre  for  European  Policy  Studies,  2016,  Europe’s  Untapped  Capital  Market  Rethinking  financial 
integration  after  the  crisis,  Final  Report  of  the  European  Capital  Markets  Expert  Group  Chaired  by 
Francesco Papadia 
18  Centre  for  European  Policy  Studies,  2016,  Europe’s  Untapped  Capital  Market  Rethinking  financial 
integration  after  the  crisis,  Final  Report  of  the  European  Capital  Markets  Expert  Group  Chaired  by 
Francesco Papadia 
19  Prof.  Florencio  Lopez  de  Silanes  Molina  et  al,  The  European  Capital  Markets  Study,  Estimating  the 
Financing Gaps of SMEs, 2015, p. 9 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Financing gap 

5,6%-
8,22% 

4,77%-
9,22% 

6,71% 
20,33% 

- 

5,45%-
18,22% 

6,18%- 
17,07% 

2,3%-
3,78% 

Source:  Prof.  Florencio  Lopez  de  Silanes  Molina  et  al,  The  European  Capital  Markets  Study, 
Estimating the Financing Gaps of SMEs, 2015, p. 9 

Before  the  launch  of  EFSI,  the  EIB  was  signing  circa  €4  billion20  of  Special  Activities21  per 
annum. Since EFSI,  the EIB is  expecting  to sign circa €15 to €20  billion of Special Activities 
under EFSI, so in this respect EFSI is relevant in addressing the market gaps and supporting 
riskier projects. However, interviews revealed that the EIB has tended in this ramp-up period 
to  channel  eligible  Special  Activities  to  EFSI  rather  than  first  exhausting  its  capacity  to 
undertake Special Activities at its own risk as from the moment that these projects prove to 
be  eligible  for  EFSI  funding.  This  could  imply  that  ‘Special  Activities’  that  could  have  been 
funded by the EIB, were pushed to EFSI rather than being funded at the EIB own risk. Given 
that  a  project  is  considered  additional  if  it  could  not  have  been  carried  out  by  the  EIB,  or 
carried  out  within  the  same  timeframe  and  size,  without  the  use  of  the  EU  Guarantee,  this 
could  raise  the  question  of  the  additionality  of  that  specific  project  under  EFSI.  The  EIB 
explained that they need to maintain a buffer for Special Activities under own-resources for 
which  the  capacity  is  limited  to  max  €4-5bn  p.a.  given  the  high  capital  requirements.  The 
rationale  is  that  if  the  Investment  Committee  decides  that  projects  submitted  for  EU 
guarantee  should  not  benefit  from  it,  these  projects,  if  approved  by  the  EIB  Board,  would 
need  to  be  financed  as  EIB  own  activities  (Special  Activities  under  own-resources).  Against 
this  backdrop,  after  this  initial  ramp-up  period,  an  even  more  thorough  project  case  is 
probably required to ensure that every specific project addresses a market failure or a sub-
optimal investment situation, and that it could not have been carried out in the period during 
which the EU guarantee can be used, or to a lesser extent.  

Interviewees confirmed that the demand for financial products in the SME Window has been 
quite important since its inception and that they expect a further increase. To respond to the 
large  demand  under  the  SMEW,  a  €500  million  transfer  of  funds  from  the  IIW  to  the  SMEW 
has been made in summer 2016. The high take up in the SMEW is due to the approach used by 
EIF  under  the  SMEW,  which  allowed  the  deployment  of  existing  mandates  (InnovFin,  COSME 
and RCR) for EFSI purposes. This approach facilitated a much faster ramp-up than in the IIW, 
where  new  products,  internal  systems  and  procedures  had  to  be  developed.  Moreover,  the 
nature  of  EIF  projects  enhances  a  quick  take-up  whereas  in  the  IIW,  due  to  their  nature, 
project development takes a longer time.   

Size 
The  target  of  EFSI  is  to  mobilise  €315  billion  in  new  investments  between  2015  and  2018. 
One  year  after  EFSI’s  introduction,  the  EIB’s  evaluation  has  analysed  the  total  operations 
portfolio.  As  of  30  June  2016,  the  number  of  approved  operations  have  amounted  to  262, 
accounting for an amount of €17.45 billion. That represents an expected total investment of 
€104.75  billion  based  on  the  EFSI’s  multiplier  calculation.  This  means  that  one  third  of  the 
total  €  315  billion  target  investment  has  been  reached  in  terms  of  approval.  Out  of  those 
262  operations,  204  have  been  signed  for  an  amount  of  €10.57  billion,  representing  a 
multiplied total investment of €66.6 billion (i.e. a lower 21% of the investment target).22,23 

20  Operations  Evaluation  –  Evaluation  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments (EFSI), September 2016 
21 ‘Special Activities’ is an internal EIB risk classification for riskier projects 
22  Operations  Evaluation  –  Evaluation  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments (EFSI), September 2016 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  EIB’s  evaluation  accentuated  that  the  EFSI-supported  financing  will  actually  reach  the 
real economy once it is disbursed. In that view, the amount disbursed under the IIW is € 1.81 
billion, meaning 38% of the signed EFSI-supported financing under the IIW at the end of June 
2016. Under the SMEW, disbursements linked to COSME24 amount to €494 million (i.e. 93.7% 
of  the  actual  portfolio  volume)  whereas  in  link  to  InnovFin25  €442  million  has  reached  the 
financial intermediaries (i.e. 89.6% of the actual portfolio). Data on disbursements linked to 
risk capital resource mandates (RCR) are not available.26 

Geographical and sectoral coverage 

EFSI’s  objective  is  to  boost  investments  in  the  EU  in  order  to  restore  EU  competitiveness. 
Besides the political rationale of ensuring broad geographical and sectoral coverage, there is 
a financial rationale of avoiding risk concentration. Indeed, by means of diversification, the 
risk of a portfolio decreases. 

In  terms  of  geographical  spread,  the  EFSI  Investment  Guidelines  specifies  that  ‘EFSI-
supported  operations  shall  not  be  concentrated  in  any  specific  territory  at  the  end  of  the 
initial  investment  period.  To  this  end  the  Steering  Board  shall  adopt  indicative  geographical 
diversification  and  concentration  guidelines.  (…)  The  EFSI  should  aim  to  cover  all  Member 
States.27  More  precisely,  the  EFSI  Strategic  Orientation  states  for  the  IIW  that  ‘In  order  to 
avoid EFSI-supported operations from being concentrated in any specific territory: (1) At the 
end of the investment period, the EFSI should aim to cover all 28 EU Member States; (2) At the 
end  of  the  investment  period,  the  share  of  investment  in  any  three  Member  States  together 
(measured  by  signed  loan/investment  amounts)  should  not  exceed  45%  of  the  total  EFSI 
portfolio.  For  the  SMEW,  the  EIF  will  aim  at  reaching  all  the  EU  Member  States  and  also  at 
achieving a satisfactory geographical diversification among them.28 

Geographical spread of signed operations with EFSI 
support 

Currency: € million 
Italy 
United Kingdom 
France 
Top 3 
Germany 
Spain 
Top 5 
Top 10 
Other 
Multi-country 
Total Member States 
KPIs 
Countries not covered 
Countries covered 

Mobilised 
10,839  
12,878  
5,454  
29,171  
6,354  
6,081  
41,606  
46,211  
6,042  
14,331  
66,584  

EFSI % 
 19.4  
 17.6  
 9.8  
 46.8  
 7.8  
 6.5  
 61.1  
 73.8  
 8.8  
 17.4  
 100.0  

EFSI 
2,055  
1,858  
1,032  
4,945  
825  
687  
6,457  
7,808  
929  
1.837  
10,574  

2  
26  

Geographical spread 

As  at  30  June  2016,  signed  operations 
under  EFSI  to  the  top  3  countries 
amounted  to  €4.9  billion  or  46,8%  of 
total  funding  which  has  resulted  in 
€41.6  billion  mobilised  investments.  26 
Member 
EFSI 
operations.  Only  2  Member  States 
(Cyprus  and  Malta)  did  not  record 
signed  operations  by  the  30st  of  June 
(currently only Cyprus is not covered by 
EFSI  financing).  Under  the 
IIW,  16 
countries  recorded  EFSI  operations, 

recorded 

States 

23  Figures  from  the  EIB  evaluation  are  based  on  preliminary  data,  the  data  presented  later  in  this 
report differ and are based on the consolidated data 
24  COSME  is  the  EU  programme  for  the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-sized 
Enterprises (SMEs). It runs from 2014 to 2020 with a planned budget of €2.3 billion. 
25 ‘InnovFin – EU Finance for Innovators’ is a joint initiative launched by the European Investment Bank 
Group (EIB and EIF) in cooperation with the European Commission under Horizon 2020. 
26  Operations  Evaluation  –  Evaluation  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments (EFSI), September 2016 
27 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 – Annex II 
28 EFSI Strategic Orientation, August 2015 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
whereas under the SMEW, 25 countries recorded operations. 15 countries recorded operations 
under both the IIW and the SMEW. 

Geographical spread – EFSI 
support under IIW 
Currency: € million 
United Kingdom 
Italy 
Spain 
Top 3 
Slovakia 
France 
Top 5 
Other 
Total Member States 
KPIs 
Countries not covered 
Countries covered 

IIW 
1,369  
1,153  
470  
2,992  
427  
409  
3,827  
895  
4,722  

12  
16  

Under the IIW, three countries, i.e. the UK, Italy and Spain, 
recorded  €3  billion  EFSI  portfolio  signed  operations  or 
63,4%  of  total  funding  (€4.7  billion).  These  top  3  exceed 
the  45%  concentration  limit  target  set  by  the  Steering 
Board to be achieved at the end of the investment period. 
The  top  5  countries  recording  EFSI  operations  under  the 
IIW  represented  €3.8  billion  or  81,0%  of  total  funding. 
Slovakia, which recorded €427 million EFSI support or 9% 
of  total  EFSI-supported  financing  under  IIW,  is  the  only 
EU13 country represented in the top 5 under the IIW. EU13 
countries recorded 9.2% of funding under the IIW. 

IIW % 
 29.0  
 24.4  
 9.9  
 63.4  
 9.0  
 8.7  
 81.0  
 19.0  
 100.0  

16  Union  Member  States  recorded  projects  that  received 
support  under  the  IIW,  of  which  14  EU15  Member  States 

Geographical spread – EFSI 
support under SMEW 
Currency: € million 
Italy 
France 
Germany 
Top 3 
United Kingdom 
Spain 
Top 5 
Other 
Multi-country (SMEW) 
Total member states 
KPIs 
Countries not covered 
Countries covered 

SMEW 
903  
623  
586  
2,112  
488  
217  
2,817  
1,197  
1,837  
5,852  

SMEW % 
 15.4  
 10.7  
 10.0  
 36.1  
 8.3  
 3.7  
 48.1  
 20.5  
 31.4  
 100.0  

(amounting  to  €4.3  billion)  and  two  EU13  Member  States 
(Slovakia  and  Poland,  amounting  to  €427  million  and  €9 
million resp.).  

Under  the  SMEW,  three  countries,  i.e.  Italy,  France  and 
Germany,  recorded  €2.1  billion  or  36,1%  of  total  EFSI 
support under the SMEW (€5.9 billion). The top 5 countries 
recorded EFSI operations for €2.8 billion or 48,1% of total 
support. No EU13 countries  was present within the top 5, 
and  total  EFSI  support  to  operations  in  EU13  countries 
amounted to €315 million or 5,4% of total funding.  

Under  the  SMEW,  three  countries,  i.e.  Finland,  Cyprus  and 
Malta, did not record any EFSI supported operations as  of 
30 June 2016. Multi country operations amounted to €1.8 
billion  and  represented  31,4%  of  total  operations 
supported. Multi country operations comprised  of support 
for  projects  that  are  reached  through  financial  intermediaries  which  are  allowed  to 
distribute to more than one country. 

3  
25  

If  we  compare  the  ranking  of  EFSI  support  recorded  by  the  Member  States  relative  to  their 
GDP, the top 5 Member States receive on average €1.360 of EFSI support per million of GDP, 
whereas  other  countries  receive  only  €470  per  million  of  GDP.  Slovakia,  which  is  included 
under the EU13 Member States, did receive the most EFSI support per GDP, and thus performs 
much better than the other EU13 countries in terms of EFSI investment per  million GDP.  

Support provided: EU15 vs. EU13 
Member States 

Currency: € million 
IIW 
EU15 
4,286  
Geographical spread per million 
EU13 
436  
GDP 
Multi country 
 -   
Currency: € 
4.722  
EFSI support 
million 
EFSI 
KPIs 
433  
Slovakia 
 90.8  
EU15 % 
57  
Luxembourg 
EU13 % 
 9.2  
Italy 
Multi country (%) 
 -   
Top 3 
Finland 
Lithuania 
Top 5 
Other 
Multi-country 
EU 28 

SMEW 
3,700  
315  
1,837  
5.852  
GDP 
120,307  
 63.2  
43,490  
 5.4  
2,055   1,669,486  
 31.4  
2,545   1,833,283  
171,201  
61,732  
2,811   2,066,216  
5,926   12,599,814  
1,837  
na  
10,574   14,696,945  

EFSI 
7,986  
751  
1,837  
EFSI per 
10.574  
mil GDP 
3,598  
 75.5  
1,306  
 7.1  
1,231  
 17.4  
1,388  
1,197  
988  
1,360  
470  
na  
719  

205  
61  

If we compare the support of funds recorded in  EU15 and 
EU13 Member States, our analysis of 30 June 2016 figures 
show  an  imbalance.  The  table  ‘support  provided’  shows 
that  on  an  aggregate  basis,  EU15  countries  received  €8 
billion  or  75,5%  of  total  EFSI  support  (€10.6  billion, 
EIB/EIF  own  contributions 
included),  whereas  EU13 
countries  received  €0.8  billion  (or  7.1%).  This  balance  is 
even  more  distorted  when  we  exclude  multi-country 
projects as EU15 and EU13 countries recorded 91,4% and 
8,6% respectively. 

30 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
Under  the  IIW,  90,8%  of  EFSI  support  went  to  EU15  countries,  which  implies  that  EU13 
countries  recorded  only  9,2%  of  total  support  provided  under  EFSI.  Under  the  SMEW,  €1.8 
billion  or  31,4%  of  support  went  to  multi  country  projects.  When  the  latter  are  excluded, 
EU13 countries received 7,8% of support, whereas the EU15 countries received 92,2%. 

The  table  below  shows  GDP  and  EFSI  support  per  capita.  If  we  exclude  multi  country 
operations,  EU15  Member  States’  GDP  amounts  to  86,2%  of  EU28  GDP,  whereas  their  EFSI 
support  amounts  to  91,4%.  EU13  Member  States’  GDP  amounts  to  13,8%  of  EU28  GDP, 
whereas EU13 EFSI support amounts to 8,6%. In other words, EU15 Member States received 
€631  EFSI  support  per  million  GDP,  whereas  EU13  Member  States  received  €370  per  million 
GDP.  In  EU15  Member  States,  EFSI  supported  on  average  €20  per  capita,  whereas  in  EU13 
Member States, the support per capita amounts to €7. One could question if countries with a 
lower GDP per capita would benefit more from EFSI support than countries with a higher GDP 
per capita. Therefore, policy makers should have to assess if the market gap in EU13 Member 
States  is  more  dominant  than  in  EU15  Member  States.  If  the  latter  proves  to  be  true,  one 
could argue that EFSI support could be better allocated than it is right now. 

GDP and EFSI support per capita: EU15 vs. EU13 Member States 

Currency: € million 

EU15 

EU13 

Multi country 

EU28 

Habitants 
(mil) 

406  

104  

na  

510  

GDP 

EFSI 

12,664,729  

7,986  

2,032,215  

751  

GPD 
capita 

31,221  

19,465  

na  

1,837  

na  

14,696,945  

10,574  

28,814  

per 

EFSI  per  mil. 
GDP 

EFSI 
capita 

per 

631  

370  

na  

719  

20  

7  

na  

21  

* 
GDP figures are 2015 figures from EUROSTAT. The number of habitants represent January 2016 figures from EUROSTAT. 

includes 

capita 

EU28 

Multi 

EFSI 

per 

for 

country 

support. 

In  terms  of  geographical  coverage,  interviewees  touched  on  the  difference  in  EFSI  delivery 
between EU15 and EU13 Member States. EFSI has been better in delivering to EU15, whereas 
the development needs in the EU 13  may be bigger and the financing gap analysis shows at 
least in Poland and Romania a high need (see table on financing gaps page 21. In this respect, 
there  is  still  room  for  improvement.  In  order  to  address  this  issue,  follow  up  research  is 
needed  on  the  reasons  for  a  lower  take  up  of  EFSI  in  these  countries,  in  order  to  take 
measures  to  address  the  needs  of  these  countries.  Interviewees,  mainly  from  some  of  the 
eastern  Member  States,  find  that  the  differences  amongst  Member  States  in  the  EU13  are 
too big to be addressed as if they were a single homogenous group of countries. Moreover, as 
mentioned  by  interviewees  from  different  countries  across  Europe,  the  limited  size  of  the 
projects in certain countries or sectors would require an intermediary or platform to be able 
to  receive  EFSI  support,  but  the  creation  of  a  platform  on  an  international  level  is  rather 
complex. 

Sector spread 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of sector spread, the EFSI Investment Guidelines indicate: ‘In order to manage sector 
diversification and concentration of the EFSI portfolio, the Steering Board shall set indicative 
concentration limits in respect of the volume of operations supported by the EU guarantee at 
the  end  of  the  initial  investment  period.  The  indicative  concentration  limits  shall  be  made 
public.’29 The Steering Board Regulation set up a concentration limit target of 30% in any one 
sector for the IIW portfolio of signed operations. With regard to the SMEW portfolio, no limit 
has been set up because it solely engages in intermediated operations and, therefore, the EIF 
cannot exert the same degree of control over sector distribution as the EIB for the IIW.’ 

More specifically, the EFSI Strategic Orientation states that the eligible sectors/areas are as 
par Article 9(2) of the EFSI Regulation:  ‘Research, development and innovation; Development 
of the energy sector in accordance with the Energy Union priorities; Development of transport 
infrastructures,  and  equipment  and  innovative  technologies  for  transport;  Financial  support 
through  the  EIF  and  the  EIB  to  entities  having  up  to  3  000  employees;  Development  and 
deployment  of  information  and  communication  technologies;  Environment  and  resource 
efficiency; and human capital, culture and health.  

Mob.  EFSI % 
 44.6  
 20.7  
 16.6  
 8.7  
 5.1  

921  
537  

Sector spread - EFSI 
Currency: € billion 
EFSI 
4,711   23,281  
RD&I 
2,191   13,011  
Energy 
1,757   11,074  
ICT 
2,305  
Transport 
Human capital, culture 
3,046  
and health 
Entities < 3.000 
employees 
Environment and 
resource efficiency 
Total sectors 
KPIs 
Sectors not covered 
Sectors covered 

10,574   66,584  

366   13,338  

 -   
7  

530  

92  

 -   
7  

Sector spread - IIW 

Currency: € million 
Energy 
Transport 
RD&I 
ICT 
Human capital, culture 
and health 
Environment and 
resource efficiency 
Entities < 3.000 
employees 
Total sectors 
KPIs 
Sectors not covered 
Sectors covered 

IIW 

Mob. 
2,191   13,011  
2,305  
2,959  
1,709  
1,134  

921  
643  
563  
225  

92  

530  

 2.0  

89  

737  

 1.9  

4,722   22,385  

 100,0  

 -   
7  

 -   
7  

 3.5  

 0.9  

 100.0  

IIW % 
 46.4  
 19.5  
 13.6  
 11.9  
 4.8  

As at 30 June 2016, all sectors or domains defined in the 
EFSI  Regulation  have  been  addressed.  Sector  or  domain 
coverage  in  RD&I  amounts  to  €4.7  billion  or  44,6%  of 
total  EFSI  support  and  mobilised  €23.3  billion  of 
investments.  Operations  within  the  energy  sector  and 
energy  union  priorities  received  €2.2  billion  of  support 
(20,7%),  whereas  operations  within  the 
ICT  sector 
received  €1.8  billion  (16,6%).  The  domain  ’financial 
support through the EIF  and the EIB to entities having up 
to  3  000  employees’  did  record  €366  million  (or  3,5%), 
which  resulted  in  a  mobilisation  of  €13,3  billion  of 
investments.  

Under the IIW, €4.7 billion of support has been distributed 
amongst operations  of  which €2.2  billion  (46,4% of  total 
support  under  IIW)  within  the  energy  sector  and  energy 
union  priorities.  This  is  above  the  concentration  limit  of 
30%  set  by  the  EFSI  Regulation  for  the  IIW  portfolio  at 
the  end  of  the 
investment  period.  The  domain  of 
development  of  transport infrastructures, equipment and 
innovative technologies record €921 million (or  19,5% of 
IIW support) under the IIW.  

29 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 – Annex II 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
Sector spread - SMEW 

SMEW 
% 
 69.5  
 20.4  
 5.3  

SMEW 
Mob. 
4,069   20,321  
9,365  
1,194  
1,912  
312  

Currency: € million 
RD&I 
ICT 
Human capital, culture 
and health 
Entities < 3.000 
employees 
Total sectors 
KPIs 
Sectors not covered 
Sectors covered 

Under  the  SMEW,  operations  in  RD&I  secured  €4.1 
billion or 69,5% of total support under the SMEW (€5.9 
billion).  €1.2  billion  went  to  operations  in  the  ICT 
sector. The domain of ‘financial support through the EIF 
and  the  EIB  to  entities  having  up  to  3  000  employees’ 
did  record  €277  million  (or  4,7%),  which  resulted  in  a 
investments. 
mobilisation 
Interviewees  shared 
that  sectorial 
rebalancing  is  not  a  major  issue.  Moreover,  EFSI  is 
designed  to  be  demand  driven  so  in  that  respect  a 
balanced sectorial distribution is rather an observation 
than  a  target.  The  interviewees,  especially  from  the 
east  and  south  of  Europe,  mention  that  they  mainly  see  opportunities  for  addressing  the 
financing needs of smaller projects.   

billion 
the  opinion 

of  €12.6 

5,852   44,199  

277   12,601  

 100.0  

3  
4  

3  
4  

of 

 4.7  

In  terms  of  sector  coverage,  the  majority  of  the  final  beneficiaries  of  the  IIW  (13 
respondents)  claim  that  EFSI  support  is  highly/moderately  needed  in  their  sectors  of 
operations,  while  3  declared  low  need  for  such  support.  In  the  case  of  financial 
intermediaries (from both windows), all respondents see high/moderate need for EFSI type of 
support.  None  of  the  NPBs  and  intermediaries  identified  a  sector  eligible  for  financing  for 
which  there  is  a  potential  high  need,  but  which  is  not  covered  by  EFSI.  All  of  these  results 
suggest that currently the EFSI sectorial coverage is considered as adequate. 

The  purpose  of  the  EFSI  is  to  help  resolve  the  difficulties  in  financing  and  implementing 
strategic,  transformative  and  productive  investments  with  high  economic,  environmental 
and  societal added  value. EFSI should assist enterprises and  other entities, with a  special 
focus on SME’s and mid-cap companies.  

To what extent has the design of EFSI responded to the needs of stakeholders? 

In order to address the market failures, as well as the market and the stakeholders’ needs, 
EFSI should support a wide range of financial products, including equity, debt and guarantees 
whilst  mobilising private investment  to projects.  Consequently, adapted products have  been 
developed under the two windows. 

Under  the  SMEW,  the  existing  products  InnovFin,  COSME  and  RCR  mandates  have  been 
deemed  appropriate  for  EFSI  purposes  and  thus  approved  as  eligible  for  the  use  of  the  EU 
Guarantee.  Accordingly,  through  EFSI  support,  transactions  were  frontloaded  with  existing 
products at a greater extent than would have been possible without EFSI. Additionally, it has 
been decided to develop new products in the second half of EFSI’s investment period. 

Under  the  IIW,  according  to  the  EIB,  the  level  of  Special  Activities  is  expected  to  increase 
quite  significantly.  In  this  context,  new  equity-type  products  (e.g.  ABS  and  Layered 
Mezzanine,  (de-)linked  risk  sharing  with  a  guarantee  rate  of  over  50%)  are  needed  to 
address  these  higher-risk  investments.  Those  equity-type  products  are  expected  to  make  a 
high  contribution  to  the  EFSI  target  investment  due  to  their  high  expected  external 
multiplier.  When  deployed  to  the  market,  these  equity-type  products  are  expected  to 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
contribute approximately 30% of the EFSI target under the IIW (i.e. € 75 billion out of € 240 
billion).30 
With  regard  to  the  EFSI  design,  several  aspects  can  be  developed.  One  of  those  is  the 
development  of  new  products.  The  EIB  evaluation  has  analysed  these  under  the  2  windows 
portfolio as of 30 June 2016. 

Under  the  IIW,  not  many  new  products  have  been  used  in  operations  signed  up  to  30  June 
2016. Although 8 operations rank in equity/quasi-equity products, these products have been 
used by the EIB already for several years and are quite common to the market. One project is 
financed  by  a  relatively  new  product,  namely  a  project  finance  guarantee.  Of  the  37 
operations  approved  but  not  yet  signed,  the  different  products  used  are  relatively  new. 
Among  them,  equity/quasi-equity  products  (some  with  a  risk  sharing  mechanism),  classified 
guarantees (also with a risk sharing mechanism for some of them), and combination of loan 
and  guarantee  within  the  same  operation.  Under  the  SMEW,  the  165  signed  operations  are 
based  on  products  offered  under  mandates  (InnovFin  SMEG,  COSME  LGF  and  the  RCR 
mandate) that existed prior to EFSI. 
The  aspects  concerning  the  way  EFSI  addresses  market  failures  and  provides  support  to 
attract  investments  have  been  addressed  during  the  interviews  and  surveys.  Final 
beneficiaries  and  financial 
intermediaries  expressed  positive  opinion  regarding  the 
suitability  of  the  EFSI  support  to  projects/business  financing  to  address  market  failures  / 
sub-optimal  investment  situations  and  to  enhance  access  to  finance.  This  was  particularly 
the  case  with  the  SME  window  intermediaries  –  13  of  the  respondents  considered  EFSI 
support  through  InnovFin  and/or  COSME  as  suitable  to  enhance  access  to  finance  for  SMEs, 
while only one respondent characterised it as partly suitable. Yet, it needs to be considered 
that overall 11 respondents under both windows think that the design of the EFSI support is 
partly suitable, which is a signal for needs of improvement. 

The  most  frequent  problem  in  the  design  of  the  EFSI,  identified  by  the  respondents,  is 
complexity:  complexity  of  process  (5  of  the  financial  intermediaries  and  4  of  the  NPB 
respondents)  and  complexity  of  rules  for  co-financing  with  the  Structural  Funds  (6  of  the 
NPBs). For NPBs the financial conditions (pricing, maturity, collateral requirements, and other 
covenants) were a particular problem in the design, while for the SME window intermediaries 
eligibility criteria were a challenge. The financial intermediaries receiving support under the 
SME  window  flag  reporting  as  a  particular  problem.  This  is  why  they  recommend 
simplification of reporting and the provision of further guidance. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  the  majority  of  final  beneficiaries  and  financial  intermediaries  claim 
that  they  did  not  experience  problems  in  receiving  EFSI  support.  Yet,  about  half  (13  out  of 
the 29) beneficiaries/intermediaries who participated in the survey declared minor problems. 

EFSI  has  the  potential  to  reach  a  wide  public  through  the  NPBs,  as  these  are  close  to  the 
local  market. However, in order  to  structure an  efficient collaboration,  the form of support 
provided  by EFSI  needs to  be adapted in  order to  overcome  some hurdles the NPBs are  still 
facing.  

First, NPBs (especially in the eastern part of Europe) share the opinion that the definition of 
EFSI is hard to capture and it is unclear how it could benefit them and what are the eligibility 
criteria from their perspective. EFSI support could be better communicated to emphasise its 
functionalities, benefits and steps to take when applying for financing. 

30  Operations  Evaluation  –  Evaluation  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments (EFSI), September 2016, p.9. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Second,  out  of  some  NPB  interviews  another  problem  has  been  revealed.  Thanks  to  the  EU 
guarantee, the EIB can take more risk than it could take before. As the EIB takes more risk, 
NPBs  are  experiencing  the  EIB  presence  in  their  market  as  competition  to  their  own 
activities. Moreover, during the first months since the inception of EFSI, EIB was reluctant to 
take  subordinated  positions  to  NPBs.  EIB  went  for  the  projects  itself  and  by  consequence, 
some  NPBs  experienced  EFSI  as  competition  to  their  own  activities.  Nowadays,  the 
relationship between NPBs and EFSI has improved due to the fact that EIB is willing to take 
more subordinated positions with NPBs.  

In relation to bigger projects, it is mentioned that NPBs and other banks are generally more 
willing to fund larger projects to get exposure, by which they possibly have to compete with 
EFSI. At the same time, this exposure is less present for smaller projects, in which cases EFSI 
supported financing is very relevant as NPBs (and probably also commercial banks) are less 
willing  to  finance  them.  NPBs  see  an  opportunity  for  EFSI  and  a  need  for  financing  for 
smaller projects, but those projects are too small on their own to be financed directly by the 
EIB. Hence, these funds need to be channelled through local financial intermediaries. Another 
option  would  be  the  creation  of  a  platform  in  order  to  mobilise  EFSI  supported  financing 
towards  smaller  projects.  However,  it  is  still  not  clear  for  NPBs  how  to  shape  the  platform 
and what the specific role of the EIB would be in the platform.  

To what extent have the NPBs and the Investment Platforms supported the 
achievement of the EFSI objectives? 

The EFSI Regulation specifies ‘(…), national promotional banks or institutions and investment 
platforms  and  funds,  with  the  support  of  the  EU  guarantee,  should  play  a  prominent  role  in 
identifying  viable  projects,  developing  and,  where  appropriate,  bundling  projects,  and 
attracting potential investors.(…).’ 

The  EFSI  Regulation  foresees  the  possible  contribution  of  third  parties  including  NPBs  at 
three levels:  

1)  Participation  at  EFSI  level,  by  contributing  directly  to  EFSI  in  cash  or  with  guarantees 
(the  latter  for  Member  States  only),  subject  to  the  agreement  of  the  Steering  Board, 
without taking part in EFSI governance.  

2)  Participation in Investment Platforms as sponsors/investors or implementing entities. 

3)  Participation in individual EFSI financed projects as co-financiers.’ 31 

First, we analyse the NPBs and then the investment platforms: 

31 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1)  National Promotional Banks or Institutions – NPBs/NPIs 

The EFSI Regulation defines NPBs or NPIs as ‘legal entities carrying out financial activities on 
a professional basis which are given a mandate by a Member State or a Member State’s entity 
at central, regional or local level, to carry out development or promotional activities.’ 32 

The principal economic rationale for a promotional bank is that a public institution is better 
placed than private operators to address the market failures leading to less investment than 
necessary.’  

In  addition,  they  are  considered  as  strategic  partners  in  the  sense  that  the  NPBs  can  bring 
knowledge  of  the  local  context,  business  and  investor  communities  as  well  as  national 
policies and strategies. 

Shortly  after  the  launch  of  EFSI,  the  EC  released  a  communication  to  consider  the  best 
practices NPBs should adopt:  

1)  The  NPBs  should  operate  on  sectors  where  the  market  failures  are  pervasive  and  then 

underserved by commercial banks or other private finance providers. 

2)  To avoid market distortions, the need for the intervention of the NPB in new investment 
platforms  is  recommended  to  be  justified  based  on  a  market  study,  which  becomes 
necessary  if  EU  financial  instruments  are  to  be  used,  as  part  of  their  ex-ante 
assessment. 

3)  The  NPBs  should  focus  on  economically  viable  projects  with  sufficient  profitability  to 
maintain  financial  soundness  without  continued  capital  injections  by  the  government. 
High standards of transparency and accountability, as well as professional management 
and independence are requested. 

4)  Strong  governance,  such  as  competency,  adequate  power  separation  and  approval, 

integrity and objectivity are also required. 

5)  Sound risk management and internal control procedures should be put in place. 

The  EIB’s  evaluation  analyses  the  cooperation  of  the  EFSI  with  the  national  promotional 
banks. It indicates that initially, a cumulative contribution to the EFSI/Juncker plan of up to € 
42 billion was announced by various Member States, NPBs or NPIs. The support from the NPBs 
is  not aimed at contributing  to the EFSI guarantee  but is centred  on  the cooperation at the 
level of investment platforms or individual projects. 

The EIB evaluation also reports that out of the 204 operations signed under EFSI support, 69 
operations  (more  than  a  third)  involve  NPB  co-financing,  accounting  for  €3.36  billion  and 
expecting to mobilise €23.43 billion. In addition, interviews conducted by the EIB evaluators 
point out that the development of new products and investment platforms is increasing the 
pipeline of projects that NPBs/NPIs may co-finance. 

In general, interviewed NPBs by EY share the opinion that operations are only  supported by 
the EIB under EFSI when they are properly sized. However, especially under the IIW, there is 
high  demand  for  risky  financing  with  smaller  projects  as  banks  are  less  willing  to  finance 
smaller projects. NPBs emphasises  that platforms could help addressing  those projects, but 
the role of EFSI (EIB and EIF) within those platforms will be a crucial factor to their success.  

Moreover,  NPBs  experience  some  competition  with  EFSI  on  bigger  projects,  particularly  for 
debt products. There are not that many big projects and banks are keen to finance them. EFSI 
does not solely address projects that would not have been financed by NPBs because the high 

32 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 

36 

 
 
 
                                                 
risk  targeted  by  EFSI  seems  not  that  risky  in  the  eyes  of  NPBs.  Some  NPBs  are  confirming 
that  they could have financed certain  EFSI eligible projects  themselves  to the  same  extent. 
Therefore EFSI is perceived in some cases rather competing with NPBs for the same projects 
than  complementing  NPB  activities.  To  truly  add  value,  the  EIB  should  take  more  risk  than 
they  currently  do  (for  example  with  equity  products  or  counter  guarantees)  to  complement 
NPBs  in  their  activities  on  selected  operations.  Under  the  SMEW,  EIF  is  succeeding  in 
addressing smaller projects through intermediaries due to the nature of its instruments and 
its operational flexibility. 

Interview  opinions  of  NPBs  have  proven  to  be  dependent  on  geography  as  we  noticed 
differences  between  EU15  and  EU13  opinions  about  EFSI.  They  state  market  characteristics 
are  different  in  both  regions.  First,  the  EU13  do  not  have  a  well-developed  public–private 
partnership (PPP)  market. Public and private  sectors are  operating next  to each other,  they 
rarely  collaborate  or  co-finance  projects,  which  happens  more  often  in  the  Western  part  of 
Europe. In the Eastern Member States, the public sector has a more material role compared 
to  the  private  sector.  Due  to  the  fact  that  public  and  private  sectors  rarely  cooperate,  the 
objective  of  maximising  private  investment  through  EFSI  is  difficult  to  be  achieved  in  the 
EU13.   

In  order  to  increase  the  cooperation with  the  NPBs  [in those cases where  it is needed], it is 
important that the products provided are tailored to individual country needs.  

Concerning the NPBs' cooperation with the EIB, the NPBs often see the cooperation with the 
EIAH  mixed  with  the  cooperation  on  EFSI  support.  The  cooperation  with  the  EIAH  is  further 
addressed in the section on the EIAH, but generally there is a need for support for NPBs that 
are  less  developed  or  are  relatively  new,  while  more  mature  NPBs  could  play  a  role  in  the 
further  promotion  and  provision  of  technical  assistance  to  project  promoters.  This  latter 
aspect is, however, currently only at its start.  

2)  Investment platforms 

The  EFSI  Regulation  defines  investment  platforms  as  ‘special  purpose  vehicles,  managed 
accounts,  contract-based  co-financing  or  risk-sharing  arrangements  or  arrangements 
established by any other means by which entities channel a financial contribution in order to 
finance a number of investment projects, and which may include:  

1)  National  or  sub-national  platforms  that  group  together  several  investment  projects  on 

the territory of a given Member State;  

2)  Multi-country  or  regional  platforms  that  group  together  partners  from  several  Member 

States or third countries interested in projects in a given geographic area;  

3)  Thematic platforms that group together investment projects in a given sector.’ 

Investment platforms are therefore co-investment arrangements taking different forms and 
aiming to catalyse investments in a portfolio of projects. They are also a means to aggregate 
investment projects, reduce transaction and information costs and provide for more efficient 
risk allocation between various investors with a wide variety of products. 33 

33 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
According to the interviewees, up until now, not many Investment Platforms been established 
yet, as it takes time to establish them and there are also potential issues with the capacity 
within Member States to establish such a platform (the first platform was established after 
30 June 2016). Furthermore, it is not clear to all stakeholders what the role of the EIB would 
be  in  those  platforms.  However,  there  is  a  need  and  potential  for  these  platforms,  as 
different  forms  of  financing  can  be  combined,  providing  the  possibility  to  address  the 
different needs, and as it allows for the financing of smaller projects. Interviewees indicate 
that  there  is  a  high  demand  for  innovation  projects  that  are  below  the  threshold  for  EFSI 
projects under the IIW. Currently, it seems that the need for financing smaller projects is not 
sufficiently  addressed  through  establishing  platforms  or  by  distributing  the  resources 
through financial intermediaries.  

2.1.2  Effectiveness  

To what extent has the EFSI been on track in achieving its objectives, in particular 
the target of mobilising €315 billion of total investment by 4 July 2018?  

The figures concerning the signed and approved operations are exposed in the  first question 
related  to  how  EFSI  addresses  the  investments  gaps  and  market  needs.  The  internal 
evaluation  conducted  by  the  European  Commission34  provides  more  details  concerning  the  2 
windows  portfolio.  As  of  30  June  2016,  76  operations  have  been  approved  under  the  IIW, 
accounting for an amount of €11 billion. Out of these 76 operations, 39 have been signed for 
an  investment  amount  of  €4.7  billion  and  are  expected  to  represent  a  total  investment  of 
€58 billion. On  the  side of the SMEW, 186 operations  have  been approved for an amount of 
€3.4  billion,  of  which  €3.3  billion  have  been  signed.  This  represents  a  total  investment  of 
€48.4 billion. 

The EIB concludes in its evaluation that at the ending period 30 June 2016, in terms of EFSI 
financing  approved,  the  total  investment  mobilised  equals  approximately  one-third  of  the 
target  amount  of  €315  billion.  In  terms  of  signatures,  this  accounts  for  21%  of  total 
investment to be mobilised. In brief, EFSI is on track regarding the approved operations but is 
lagging behind regarding the amount of signed operations. 

The  difference  between  the  IIW  and  the  SMEW  with  regards  to  their  distance  to  target  is 
explained  by  the  EIB  evaluation.  First,  under  the  SMEW,  the  fast  start  is  explained  by  the 
fact  that  the  EIF  agreed  with  the  EC  and  the  EIB  to  use  EFSI  to  accelerate  the  roll-out  of 
existing  mandates.  The  EC  mandates  were  constrained  by  their  annual  budgets,  but  EFSI 
enabled them to be ‘frontloaded’ so that they could i) enter more guarantee exposures and ii) 
reach out to more SMEs in a shorter period of time avoiding therefore possible disruption due 
to  EC  annual  budget  allocation.  Similarly,  EFSI  enabled  the  EIF  to  increase  the  investment 
limits  under  the  EIB’s  RCR  mandate.  In  parallel  to  this,  new  products  could  be  developed 
under the SMEW in view of a roll out starting in the second half of 2016. In contrast, under 
the IIW, several new products had to be developed and internal procedures and systems had 
to  be  changed,  which  required  more  time  to  become  operational  compared  to  the  SMEW. 
Hence, the number and volume of operations under the IIW, especially with new products, are 
expected to increase in the second half of the EFSI period. 

Second, under the SMEW’s debt-type operations generate higher multipliers than those of the 
IIW.  In  the  case  of  the  latter,  the  majority  of  signed  operations  were  projects  that  were 
already in preparation  before EFSI was established and are mainly investment loans with a 
multiplier  that  is  expected  to  be  lower  than  those  of  operations  benefitting  from  new 

34 EC internal evaluation, SWD(2016) 297 final/2, Brussels 22/09/2016 

38 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
products.  Thus,  with  the  development  and  roll-out  of  new  products,  the  IIW  will  be  better 
equipped to reach its investment target.35 

Reported multiplier 

Multiplier 
IIW 
SMEW 
Debt 
IIW 
SMEW 
Equity 
IIW 
SMEW 
Aggr. multiplier 

Internal  External 
 3.5  
 7.2  
 4.9  
 17.0  
 7.9  
 8.7  
 4.2  
 7.6  
 6.0  

 4.0  
 3.6  
 3.9  
 1.0  
 1.2  
 1.2  
 3.5  
 1.8  
 2.4  

Multip. 
 14.1  
 26.1  
 18.8  
 17.0  
 9.7  
 10.5  
 14.6  
 13.9  
 14.1  

The  reported  multiplier  table  shows  the  EFSI  reported 
multipliers  per  window  and  per  product  as  at  30  June 
2016  by  the  EIB.  The  reported  multiplier  as  presented  by 
the  EIB  is  the  expected  (notional)  multiplier  the  EIB 
expects  to  achieve  at  the  end  of  the  investment  period 
with the current portfolio (€7.3 billion of the €21.0 billion 
made  available  under  EFSI  has  been  used).  The  reported 
aggregate  multiplier  amounts  to  14.136,  which  is  close  to 
the  target  multiplier  of  15.  The  SMEW  multiplier  in  debt 
transactions  is  much  higher  than  the  IIW  multiplier,  and 
the opposite is true for the equity transactions. One could 

conclude that in general EFSI seems on track in mobilising investments across Europe. 

EFSI performance 

Currency: € billion 
EIB/EIF signed 
operations 
Supported by EU 
guarantee 
Supported by EIB risk 
bearing capacity 
Supported by EFSI 
Other EIB / EIF funding 
External financing 
Investment mobilised 
KPIs 
Actual multiplier (%) 
Expected (notional) 
multiplier 
Target investment to be 
mobilised 
Actual investment 
mobilised (%) 
EFSI support committed 
Actual EFSI support (%) 

IIW  SMEW 
 5.9  
 4.7  

EFSI 
 10.6  

 4.6  

 0.4  

 5.0  

 0.1  

 2.2  

 2.3  

 4.7  
 0.0  
 17.7  
 22.4  

 2.6  
 3.3  
 38.3  
 44.2  

 7.3  
 3.3  
 56.0  
 66.6  

The  EFSI  performance  table  shows  the  utilization  of  the 
€21.0  billion  EFSI  fund  made  available  by  the  EC 
Guarantee  (€16  billion)  and  the  EIB  own  investment  (€5 
billion).  As  at  30  June  2016,  €7.3  billion  has  been  used, 
amounting  to  34,8%  of  the  EFSI  fund.  Nevertheless,  EIB 
states  that  during  the  first  year  of  EFSI,  more  low-
leverage  (debt)  products  have  been  used,  whereas  high 
levered  (equity-like)  products  were  in  development.  The 
latter are expected to be effective in the upcoming years, 
which would imply that an increase in the multiplier could 
be expected.  

 4.8  
 14.6  

 17.0  
 13.9  

 9.1  
 14.1  

 9.3  

 21.1  

 58.9  

 75.0  

 315.0  

 240.0  

With the €7.3 billion virtual use, EFSI managed to mobilise 
€66.6  billion  of  investment,  which  implies  an  actual 
multiplier  of  9.1.  The  actual  multiplier  is  lower  than  the 
expected notional multiplier as reported by the EIB due to 
the  fact  that  the  EIB  will  -by  definition-  contribute  own 
funding  in  addition  to  the  EFSI  support  (it  was  estimated 
that  the  first  loss  piece  covered  by  the  EU  guarantee 
under the IIW debt window would represent at the end of the investment period around 25% 
of  the  volume  of  operations  signed  under  such  window,  with  the  EIB  bearing  the  residual 
risk).  This  implies  that  the  leverage  of  the  €4.7  billion  EFSI  support  is  expected  to  increase 
significantly at the end of the investment period. 

 5.0  
 52.0  

 16.0  
 29.4  

 21.0  
 34.8  

In  terms  of  the  pipeline,  the  EIB  stated  that  they  have  an  internal  pipeline  for  the  next  9 
months, which however was not disclosed, hence we were not able to quantify the volume of 
the  pipeline.  Nevertheless,  additional  data  as  of  12  October  201637  shows  that  361 

35  Operations  Evaluation  –  Evaluation  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments (EFSI), September 2016, p 5 
36 The multiplier figure is as per the Operational report provided by the EIB and calculated according to 
the EFSI Multiplier Methodology Calculation 
(http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/efsi_steering_board_efsi_multiplier_methodology_calculati
on_en.pdf)  .  The  multiplier  for  the  IIW  is  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  notional  guarantee  allocated, 
meaning  the  EU  guarantee  expected  to  be  allocated  to  the  EIB  under  the  IIW  at  the  end  of  the 
investment period. 
37 Based on data file ‘EFSI IIW signatures to EC – October 2016’, which is unaudited. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
operations in 27 Member States (only Cyprus did not record EFSI operations) did receive EFSI 
approval,  amounting  to  €24.8  billion  of  approvals,  of  which  €13.8  billion  has  been  signed. 
Total  investment  mobilised  related  to  EFSI  approvals  amounts  to  €138.3  billion.  This 
progress  indicates  that  after  the  cut-off  date  of  this  evaluation  99  operations  have  been 
approved, amounting to a €3.2 billion increase in signatures compared to 30 June 2016.  

Based  on  the  data  as  of  October  2016,  under  the  IIW,  134  operations  in  23  Member  States 
did  receive  EFSI  approval,  amounting  to  €17.4  billion  approvals,  of  which  €6.9  billion  has 
been signed.  
Under the SMEW,  227 operations in 27 Member States did receive EFSI approval, amounting 
to €7.5 billion EFSI approvals, of which €6.9 billion has been signed.  

The data as of October 2016 confirm the conclusions of the two evaluations: the number and 
volume  of  operations  under  the  IIW  are  indeed  starting  to  increase  faster;  and  the  EFSI  is 
still lagging behind regarding the amount of signatures.  

To what extent has the EFSI increased access to financing and mobilised private 
capital? 

The EFSI Regulation indicates  ‘The EFSI should be part of a comprehensive strategy designed 
to  address  uncertainty  surrounding  public  and  private  investments  and  to  reduce  the 
investment  gaps  in  the  Union.  (…)  Such  a  wide  range  of  products  should  allow  the  EFSI  to 
adapt  to  market  needs  whilst  encouraging  private  investment  in  projects.  (…)38Besides,  the 
Regulation establishes one KPI for the mobilisation of private capital. 

The  table  on  the  right  presents  the  (a  priori  expected) 
mobilised  capital  by  projects  signed  under  EFSI  as  at  30 
June  2016.  On  an  aggregate  basis,  EFSI  mobilised  (an 
expected) €66.6 billion or 21,1% of the €315billion target 
stated in the EFSI Regulation. As at 30 June 2016, EFSI is 
in one third of its lifetime. Under the IIW, projects signed 
mobilised  €22.4  billion  of  investments  or  9,3%  of  the  240  million  targeted.  The  SMEW  has 
mobilised €44.2 billion, representing 58,9% of the €75 billion target under its window.  

Currency: € billion 
Expected to be mobilised 
To be mobilised 
3 year target mobilization 
Mobilized capital % 

IIW  SMEW  Aggr. 
 66.6  
 44.2  
 248.4  
 30.8  
 315.0  
 75.0  
 21.1  
 58.9  

EFSI mobilised capital 

 22.4  
 217.6  
 240.0  
 9.3  

EFSI performance (1 year target) 

Regarding  the  mobilisation  of  capital,  one  could  argue 
that  EFSI  should  have  performed  up  to  one  third  of  its 
€315  billion  objective.  The  opposite  graph  shows  the 
performance  of  EFSI  signatures  after  one  year  compared 
to one third of its three year objective per window. On an 
aggregate  basis,  EFSI  has  mobilised  63,4%  of  the  annual 
target  (€105  billion),  which  shows  that  EFSI  is  lagging 
behind in terms of signatures.  

Under  the  SMEW,  the  EIF  has  been  able  to  use  existing 
instruments  under  existing  programmes  together  with 
high  demand,  which  facilitated  a  quick  ramp-up  of 
activities resulting in a mobilisation of 176,8% compared 
to  its’  €25  billion  target.  The  over  performance  of  EFSI 
under the SMEW supports the €500 million guarantee transfer from the IIW to the SMEW as 
discussed above.  

38 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 

40 

28,0%176,8%63,4%0,0%50,0%100,0%150,0%200,0%IIWSMEWAggr.% of target investment mobilised1 year target performance 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Under  the  IIW,  EFSI  has  mobilised  28%  of  its  €80  billion  annual  target.  Solely  looking  at 
figures, one could say the IIW is underperforming, but this would be a simplistic conclusion as 
projects  under  the  IIW  require  a  longer  development  time.  Moreover,  the  EIB  could  not  use 
existing programmes to ramp-up EFSI activities but had to develop new products to address 
market needs, which required time to be designed and to be approved. 

The interviews revealed that private investors follow risk-return preferences. Under current 
market conditions, liquidity is present but there is a distortion within risk-return preferences 
from  private  investors  resulting  in  a  decreased  willingness  to  take  risk  and  therefore 
investments  levels  are  too  low.  This  risk-return  preference  is  exactly  what  EFSI  aims  to 
address. EFSI comes in with financing for high-risk tranches, takes a longer maturity, doesn’t 
require  collateral  by  using  unsecured  positions,  and  uses  equity  type  of  funding.  All  those 
elements contribute to lower the risk levels for private investors, making projects fit within 
their  risk-return  preferences.  Thanks  to  EFSI  efforts,  private  investments  are  being 
mobilised. 

To  conclude,  one  should  take  into  account  that  measuring  the  progress  towards  the  3-year 
target on a yearly basis can be reductive because EFSI has just been launched. Under the IIW, 
new  products  need  to  be  developed  which  require    the  design,  approval  and  implementation 
of  new procedures and projects have a longer start-up and  development  time  than projects 
under  the  SMEW.  In  that  respect,  one  should  be  cautious  to  take  conclusions  about  the 
overall  underperformance  of  EFSI  as  the  IIW  window  (representing  €240  billion  of  the  EFSI 
target  of  €315  billion)  has  a  slower  start-up  by  the  nature  of  the  projects  and  financial 
instruments  required.  The  SMEW  has  mobilised  58,9%  of  the  €75  billion  target  under  its 
window.  Since  beneficiaries  expect  the  market  to  be  the  same  and  provided  that  the 
implementation  under  the  SMEW  will  keep  the  same  pace  in  the  coming  years  (as  currently 
expected), our anticipation is that the budget available for SMEW will be sufficient to cover 
the demand until mid-2018.  

How likely are the expected results of the EFSI to be achieved within the set 
timeframe? 

After one year of EFSI implementation, we can conclude that it has reached one third of the 
target  regarding  the  operations’  approvals.  Therefore  it  seems  on  track  to  reach  the 
targeted  €315  billion.  Nevertheless,  regarding  the  operations’  signatures  and  in  terms  of 
financial disbursement, EFSI lags behind. Only 21% of the total investment has been signed. 
This is especially true for the IIW, partly due to the nature of projects financed under the IIW, 
which take a long preparation time. Also, it takes time to develop new (more risky) products 
under this window. Hence, a ramp up is expected in the coming years. 

2.1.3  Efficiency 

To what extent are the financial resources provided to EFSI, namely the EU 
Guarantee and the EIB Group resources, appropriately sized to achieve its expected 
effects? 

This question has been addressed by the European Commission in its internal evaluation and 
indicates that regarding the concern of supporting the EIB to finance higher-risk operations, 
this objective has been reached. Indeed, under IIW, the EU Guarantee enabled to increase the 
volume of special activities. During the 1st year of EFSI, the volume of approved operations, 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
including  the  operations  approved  under  the  ‘warehousing’  system,  amounted  up  to  €  11 
billion. And it is expected that operations will be signed for around € 17-18 billion by the end 
of  2016.  In  comparison  with  an  annual  amount  of  special  activities  of  around  €  4  billion  in 
2014, the Commission concludes that the EU Guarantee reached one of the main objectives of 
EFSI, being to finance more higher-risk operations. 

However,  regarding  the  cooperation  with  NPBs  or  NPIs,  as  well  as  the  deployment  of  new 
financing products for corporates, some adjustments had to be done. Firstly the EC indicates 
that some changes have been performed in the way of co-financing with NPBs and NPIs. More 
precisely, it was needed to introduce the possibility to segment the first-loss piece coverage 
in  several  portfolios.  Secondly  some  adaptations  to  the  EFSI  Agreement  have  been  done  in 
order  to  provide  subordinated  financing  to  corporates  (including  hybrid  debt-equity 
products). 

In  addition,  the  Commission  points  out  that  the  EU  Guarantee  is  not  designed  to  cover  EIB 
operations covering excessive risks as their pricing39 would not be acceptable from a market 
perspective.  The  EIB  and  the  Commission  have  addressed  this  limitation  by  developing 
initiatives  combining  resources  from  the  European  Structural  and  Investments  Funds  (ESIF) 
or InnovFin, taking the riskier tranches, with the EFSI support provided by the EIB bearing the 
risk on the mezzanine tranches. 

On  the  side  of  the  SMEW,  the  Commission  evaluation  finds  that  this  window  has  reached  a 
very strong uptake. After one year, the consolidated figures show that EFSI has been able to 
mobilise a total investment of € 44.1 billion which represent 59% 40of the € 75 billion target 
for the SMEW over the three years. The evaluation adds that given this optimistic progress, 
it  has  been  decided  to  adjust  the  limit  of  the  SMEW  up  to  the  maximum  of  €3  billion  by 
reassigning €500  million from the IIW portfolio to the  SMEW as foreseen in the Regulation. 
Finally,  the  EC  accentuates  that  the  main  effect  of  EFSI  on  COSME  and  InnovFin  is  the 
rapidity of their deployment while the volumes of support are the same as would have been 
reached  with  the  Union  budget,  only  on  a  longer  horizon.41  This  is  due  to  the  so  called 
‘frontloading’.  EIF  was  able  to  use  the  full  amount  of  the  COSME  and  InnovFin  programmes 
and  invest  it  right  away  by  means  of  EFSI.  Otherwise,  COSME  and  InnovFin  budgets  would 
have lasted longer and would have been invested under a longer time span. This implies that, 
despite  the  huge  demand  from  the  market,  COSME  and  InnovFin  budgets  are  almost 
consumed. Therefore, a further extension of the programmes would require a budget increase 
or shift.  

Regarding the Guarantee calls, the Commission stated that so far no calls due to defaults or 
value adjustments have been triggered.  

39  The  EFSI  Regulation  foresees  that  the  EIB  applies  its  pricing  methodology  for  debt  operations  and 
market based pricing for equity-type ones. This limitation does not apply to the SME Window. 
40 The Commission concluded this on the unconsolidated figures of € 48.4 billion which represents about 
65% of the target 
41 EC internal evaluation, SWD(2016) 297 final/2, Brussels 22/09/2016 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
According  to  the  interviews,  one  of  the  common  criteria  for  efficiency  is  speed  of  the 
application  process.  This  is  why  in  the  online  questionnaire  questions  aiming  to  gather  the 
opinion of stakeholders on the duration of the application process were included. 

For  most  of  the  final  beneficiaries  (11  out  of  17  who  answered  the  question)  the  EIB/EIF 
application  procedure  was  moderately  easy,  while  4  respondents  found  the  procedure 
difficult.  In  terms  of  time  lag  between  application  and  signature  of  the  contract,  most 
respondents (12) considered the lag as short, while for 6 respondents it was too long, but it 
did  not  affect  negatively  the  investment.  Interestingly,  the  perception  of  the  time  lag  was 
not directly affected by  the actual  duration of  the period between application and contract 
signature.  For  some  beneficiaries  the  procedure  took  between  7-12  months,  but  they  still 
considered it as  reasonably short, while for  others  the procedure was 4-6 months,  but  they 
still considered it as too long.  

For  the  majority  of  the  financial  intermediaries  (both  EFSI  windows)  the  application 
procedure was considered as moderately easy. In general they do not consider the length as a 
significant issue since only 1 (out of 24 respondents) claims that the procedure was too long 
and affected negatively the investment. Overall, the opinion of the intermediaries of the SME 
window  is  more  favourable  since  the  specified  time  lag  between  application  and  contract 
signature was shorter as compared to the Infrastructure window. 

Regarding  the  time  between  approval  and  signature  under  the  SMEW,  41  InnovFin  projects 
have  been  signed  within  1-3  months  since  approval,  8  projects  within  4-6  months  and  9 
projects within 7-12 months. Under COSME, 33 projects have been signed within 1-3 months 
since approval, 3 projects within 4-6 months and 2 projects within 7-12 months. No data has 
been available regarding RCR. 
Moreover,  it  is  not  clear  how  to  assess  this  analysis  for  the  IIW  as  the  provided  data  files 
record  an  EIB  board  approval  date,  Investment  Committee  approval  date,  a  Commission 
opinion  date  and  a  signature  date.  The  latter  is  not  always  dated  later  than  the  approval 
date(s) for operations for which the Commission approved the use of the EU Guarantee in the 
transitional phase. 

Although  no  major  problems  were  identified  regarding  the  length  of  the  procedures,  it  is 
noteworthy that the need for speeding up of the approval process / due diligence was among 
the few overall recommendations provided by the beneficiaries and intermediaries.  

The EIB mentioned that  the project pipeline for the IIW is filling up and taking into account 
that the preparation for viable projects takes time under this window, it is expected that the 
uptake of the IIW operations will increase in the coming time. For the SMEW, it is clear that 
the quick uptake was facilitated by providing the guarantee on COSME and InnovFin.  

To  what  extent  are  the  governance  structures  of  the  EFSI  in  place,  namely  the 
Investment  Committee,  the  Managing  Director,  the  Deputy  Managing  Director  and 
the Steering Board efficient in helping the implementation of EFSI? 

The  EFSI  Regulation  stipulates  that  ‘the  EFSI  should  be  provided  with  an  appropriate 
governance  structure  with  its  sole  purpose  of  ensuring  the  appropriate  use  of  the  EU 
guarantee.  That  governance  structure  should  be  composed  of  a  steering  board,  a  managing 
director  and  an  investment  committee.  It  should  not  encroach  upon  or  interfere  with  the 
decision-making  of  the  EIB,  or  be  a  substitute  for  the  governing  bodies  of  the  latter.  The 
Steering  Board  should  in  particular  set  the  strategic  orientations  of  the  EFSI  and  the  rules 
necessary  for  its  functioning.  The  Managing  Director  should  be  responsible  for  the  daily 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
management  of  the  EFSI  and  should  carry  out  the  preparatory  work  of  the  meetings  of  the 
Investment Committee.  

The Investment Committee should take decisions on the use of the EU guarantee for potential 
projects and for the operations with national promotional banks or institutions or investment 
platforms  in  a  transparent  and  independent  manner.  The  Investment  Committee  should  be 
composed of eight independent experts, representing a broad range of expertise as outlined in 
this Regulation, and the Managing Director. The Investment Committee should be accountable 
to  the  Steering  Board,  which  should  supervise  the  fulfilment  of  the  EFSI's  objectives  and 
monitor  on  a  continuous  basis  the  respect  by  the  members  of  the  Investment  Committee  of 
their obligations under this Regulation.’42 

The EIB evaluation addresses the governance’s topic and finds the following: ‘The governing 
bodies of EFSI have been set up and are functioning as envisaged in the Regulation: they are 
added  to  existing  EIB  Group  structures  without  encroaching  upon  or  interfering  with  the 
decision-making process of the EIB or the EIF. Furthermore, they are supporting the swift and 
efficient  implementation  of  EFSI.  Three  aspects,  however,  have  been  identified  that  merit 
further  reflection.  First,  the  EIB  evaluation  indicates  that  the  procedures  to  manage 
potential conflicts of interest should be extended to the Steering Board, as it is already done 
for  other  EFSI  governing  bodies.  Second,  the  roles  and  responsibilities  of  the  Managing 
Director office, the EFSI Secretariat, and EIB Services working on EFSI, could be made clearer 
in order to avoid potential overlaps. Third, to sustain the swift implementation of EFSI, lines 
of  communication  should  be  made  more  explicit,  particularly  amongst  EFSI’s  different 
governing bodies, and between EFSI’s governing bodies at the EIB.’43 

To reach those conclusions, the EIB first evaluates the governance’s bodies and their mission. 
Second,  the  evaluation  makes  an  assessment  of  the  EFSI  and  EIB  operations  and  highlights 
the following concerns: 

1)  Due to additional procedures for EFSI projects,  time constraints are accentuated on the 

EIB. 

2)  Although  documentation  can  differ  in  terms  of  content  and  purpose  depending  on  the 

addressee, it is required that common content is enhanced where possible.  

3)  To  approve  EFSI  eligibility,  the  Investment  Committee  has  to  present  questions  to  the 
EIB  which  has  to  provide  written  answers  2  days  before  a  scheduled  meeting.  It  is 
challenging for the EIB Services. In response to that, the EIB evaluators suggest that the 
appraisal team attends the IC meetings to answer the questions immediately. 

4)  The  operations  validation’s  process  constitutes  a  delaying  bottleneck  due  to  the 

important Vice President validations required and should be reduced. 

5)  EFSI has limited impact on the EIF’s operation lifecycle, as the roles and responsibilities 
for EFSI governing bodies are more limited for the SMEW than for the IIW due to the will 
of  the  legislator  to  avoid  a  double  governance  structure  for  the  COSME  and  InnovFin 
products. 

42 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 
43  Operations  Evaluation  –  Evaluation  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments (EFSI), September 2016. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The EIB evaluation finally underlines three issues: 

1)  Roles and responsibilities: Firstly, there is a risk that the roles of the Managing Director 
and  the  Secretariat  are  overlapping,  hence  further  clarification  of  their  roles  is 
suggested.  Secondly,  the  reporting,  accountability  and  general  interaction  between  the 
Managing  Director  and  the  Steering  Board  are  light.  And  finally,  the  roles  and 
responsibilities  of  the  Managing  Director’s  office,  the  EFSI  Secretariat,  and  the  EIB 
Services working on EFSI could be more explicit to avoid potential overlaps. 
Independence,  conflict  of  interest  and  insider  knowledge:  The  Commission  and  the  EIB 
are represented by the Steering Board, with three of its four members sitting on the EIB 
or the EIF’s Board of Directors. (However, the Commission indicates in a reaction on this 
issue, the Commission indicates that in its opinion there is no conflict interest, since the 
Steering  Board  does  not  decide  on  individual  projects  and  only  gives  strategic 
directions).  

2) 

3)  Lines  of  communication:  EIB  operational  staff  do  not  receive  feedback  from  IC 
discussions. This information could improve future project preparation. In addition, the IC 
doesn’t  know  afterwards  if  the  EIB  Board  has  approved  the  project.  This  also  could  be 
productive  information.  Moreover,  interviews  conducted  by  the  EIB  point  out  that  the 
Commission    and  the  Steering  Board  should  communicate  directly  with  EIB  services. 
Discussions  on  the  day-to-day  implementation  of  EFSI  should  involve  the  Managing 
Director and the EFSI Secretariat. 

In  the  current  ad  hoc  audit,  the  evaluation  question  on  governance  was  less  important  and 
the  evaluators  have  not  deeply  investigated  on  this.  However,  we  conclude  that  the 
governance structure is in place and that there are no major issues in relation to its efficient 
functioning.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To  what  extent  have  EFSI  communication  methods  been  efficiently  used  to  engage 
promoters? 

The  EFSI  Regulation  indicates  that  ‘the  EFSI  is  established  as  a  distinct,  clearly  identifiable 
and transparent facility …’44 

In  terms  of  overall  awareness  of  the  EFSI,  the  majority  of  the  NPB  respondents  claim  that 
the Fund is known by the potential users. Most NPBs (7 respondents) share the opinion that 
wider  promotion  would  lead  to  a  higher  demand/use  of  the  EFSI.  As  regards  financial 
intermediaries, most respondents  consider the EFSI as partly known by potential users and 
also claim that wider promotion would lead to higher demand/use of the EFSI. Particularly for 
the  SME  window,  most  financial  intermediaries  (8  respondents)  claim  to  have  known  at  the 
time  of  application  that  InnovFin  and/or  COSME  guarantees  would  benefit  from  the  EFSI 
guarantee support. 

According  to  final  beneficiaries  and  intermediaries  (both  windows),  the  most  frequent 
channel  for  getting  to  know  the  EFSI  initiative  is  the  EIB/EIF.  Promotional  events  and  the 
EFSI/European  Commission’s  Investment  Plan  for  Europe  webpages  are  identified  by  final 
beneficiaries as the main sources in far less occasions.  

2.1.4  Coherence, added value and additionality 

To what extent have the projects supported by EFSI provided additionality? 

The  EFSI  Regulation  defines  additionality  as  ‘the  support  by  the  EFSI  of  operations  which 
address market failures or sub-optimal investment situations and which could not have been 
carried  out  in  the  period  during  which  the  EU  guarantee  can  be  used,  or  not  to  the  same 
extent, by the EIB, the EIF or under existing Union financial instruments without EFSI support. 
Projects  supported  by  the  EFSI  shall  typically  have  a  higher  risk  profile  than  projects 
supported  by  EIB  normal  operations  and  the  EFSI  portfolio  shall  have  overall  a  higher  risk 
profile  than  the  portfolio  of  investments  supported  by  the  EIB  under  its  normal  investment 
policies before the entry into force of this Regulation. 

The  projects  supported  by  the  EFSI,  while  striving  to  create  employment  and  sustainable 
growth, shall be considered to provide additionality if they carry a risk corresponding to EIB 
special  activities,  as  defined  in  Article  16  of  the  EIB  Statute  and  by  the  credit  risk  policy 
guidelines of the EIB.  

EIB projects carrying a risk lower than the minimum risk under EIB special activities may also 
be supported by the EFSI if the use of the EU guarantee is required to ensure additionality as 
defined in the first subparagraph of this paragraph. 45 

The  Commission  and  the  EIB  evaluations  state  that  all  the  operations  which  have  been 
approved  so  far  are  classified  as  Special  Activities  and  thus  comply  with  the  Additionality 
criterion.  The  EIB  has  increased  the  volume  of  its  higher-risk  portfolio  from  around  €  4 
billion to more than € 20 billion per year.46 

In  its  evaluation,  the  EIB  discusses  the  criterion  of  additionality  and  states  that  in  higher 
risk operations, the EIB will take a higher risk tranche and crowd in other investors that will 

44 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017  
45 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 
46  Communication  from  the  Commission  –  Europe  investing  again  taking  stock  of  the  Investment  Plan 
for Europe and next steps, 01/06/2016. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
take lower risk tranches to enable EFSI to provide additionality. The EIB accentuates the fact 
that  there  might  be  situations  in  which  the  risk  profile  does  not  reflect  additionality,  i.e. 
alternative structures (including less risky structures) could have been considered. 

The  evaluators  of  this  evaluation  underline  the  suggestion  to  further  clarify  the  definition 
and  use  of  additionality  and  also  to  better  communicate  on  this  definition  towards  the 
market. One of the questions to be addressed is related to the risk criterion, which is now to 
be  understood  as  a  risk  profile  that  is  higher  than  the  projects  supported  by  EIB  normal 
operations. However, from the  survey and interviews (notably NPBs),  there are  signals  that 
financing projects with this risk profile may be an additional activity for the EIB, but is not 
per se considered additional by the market, as other banks could have financed the project in 
some cases to the same extent or on the same time frame without EFSI support. During the 
interview,  the  EIB  underlined  that  if  other  banks  could  have  financed  those  projects  to  the 
same  extent  and  in  the  same  time  frame,  it  would  be  reasonable  to  expect  that  borrowers 
would prefer to use these national banks  given the extensive due  diligence requirements  of 
the EIB. 

The project applications  submitted to the EFSI Investment  Committee for support under the 
IIW  revealed  a  more  detailed  description  on  the  Additionality  aspect.  However  the  market 
(NPBs, beneficiaries) is still in doubt whether additionality is always met. For the future, this 
remains  a  crucial  parameter  for  an  optimal  usage  of  the  EU  budget  and  a  maximal 
contribution of private funds alongside to cover risky projects in line with EFSI policy.  

Overall,  there  is  a  need  to  better  clarify/define  and  communicate  the  concept  of 
additionality,  which  is  understood  differently  by  the  various  stakeholders.  This  is  also 
suggested by the EIB evaluation, which suggests that the definition and use of additionality 
regarding the Special Activities may need further clarification to allow higher consistency in 
the way projects supported are documented and to mitigate reputational risk posed to EFSI. 
Indeed,  IC  members  and  the  EIB’s  Board  of  Directors  scrutinise  the  additionality  for  all 
operations including Special Activities. 

Answering the additionality question is currently not straightforward and covers a range of 
criteria.  As  regards  the  39  signed  project  applications  under  the  IIW,  the  additionality 
criterion  was  described  as  a  separate  topic.  Explanations  given  on  the  additionality  nature 
were: 
  Equity type instruments; 
  Long term & illiquid nature of financing; 
  Difficult valuation and thus exit out of a fund; 
  Higher country risk e.g. Greece. 
  Solution of suboptimal investment situation: 

-  Venture Capital/Private Equity; 
-  SMEs & Mid-caps’ lack of financing; 
-  Offering of alternative financing; 
-  Challenging macro-economic conditions. 

  Other risk factors: 

-  Existing leverage – high risk balance sheet; 
-  Cash flow generation depending on success future strategies; 
-  Dependency on export market acceptance; 
-  Raw material price fluctuations. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Limited interest from banks for financing (small loan amounts, high market risks); 
  EIB  (and  partner  investor)  to  step  in  as  anchor  investor  which  is  a  signalling  effect  to 

crowd in other investors; 

  Project  financing  thus  higher  risk  (non-recourse  financing,  debt  repayment  from  cash 

flows, no or low security package, technical risks etc.); 

  Structural subordination; 
  No track record of a specific fund; 
  Higher EIB support possible due to the EU guarantee; 
  Longer construction period thus higher risk; 
  Larger total project costs & long availability period => exceeding usual market standards 

for financing. 

One  of  the  questions  that  was  raised  through  the  online  surveys  was  if  the  projects  could 
have been carried out without EIB/EIF funding with support from EFSI to the same extent or 
within  the  same  timeframe.  Of  the  29  responses  in  respect  of  financing  received  under  the 
Infrastructure  and  Innovation  Window,  eight  answered  that  their  projects  could  have  been 
financed  to  the  same extent (i.e. on the same  scale and in  the  same  timeframe) from  other 
sources,  which  raises  concerns  about  the  additionality  of  EFSI  financing  for  these  projects. 
Eight  responded  that  the  EFSI  support  made  it  possible  to  realise  the  projects  in  the 
envisaged time frame, indicating that there is additionality in terms of timing of the project, 
while for other ten of the respondents the projects could not have been  carried out without 
the support to the same extent, or within the same timeframe. These latter projects prove to 
be clearly additional in this respect. One of the beneficiaries claims that their project could 
have  been  financed  with  other  sources,  but  at  a  higher  cost.  In  this  regard,  the  opinion  of 
over 50% of the respondents (16 respondents out of 29) is that the EFSI support is cheaper 
than  alternative  financing.  One  third  also  share  the  view  that  EFSI  support  has  a  longer 
tenor  than  other  alternatives  (10  respondents)  and  that  EFSI  support  lowered  the  risk  to 
other investors by taking a higher risk tranche of the project (6 respondents).  

As  regards  the  SME  Window,  all  of  the  financial  intermediaries  indicated  that  the  projects 
could  not  have  been  carried  to  the  same  extent  or  within  the  same  timeframe  without  the 
EFSI support. The difference in opinion between the windows may be caused by the fact that 
the SME Window only governs smaller projects, for which there are indications that there is a 
higher need in the market. The NPBs are a bit less optimistic about the additionality. For the 
SME  window  3  of    the  9  respondents  consider  that  projects  could  have  been  financed  from 
other sources (same size and timeframe), at the same time 4 out of 9 respondents state that 
the projects would not have been financed or only partly without EFSI under this window. For 
the  IIW  three  out  of  the  nine  respondents  claimed  that  the  projects  could  have  been  fully 
financed without EFSI, while one indicates that the project could  not have been financed on 
the same scale. The other 5 NPBs did not have own projects yet or did not know whether the 
project could have been financed through other sources.  

In  terms  of  considering  EFSI  support  as  critical/essential  for  future  projects/business 
financing,  only  two  out  of 27 respondents (2 respondents could not answer the  question)  in 
relation  to  the  Infrastructure  and  Innovation  window  and  none  out  of  14  respondents  in 
relation  to  the  SME  window  responded  that  they  would  not  consider  EFSI  support  in  the 
future. The  remaining responded positively  (22 respondents) or  that it would  depend  on the 
prevailing conditions at the time (17 respondents). 
To what extent is EFSI complementary and coherent with other related initiatives? 
The  EFSI  Regulation  indicates  that  ‘the  EFSI  should  be  part  of  a  comprehensive  strategy 
designed to address uncertainty surrounding public and private investments and to reduce the 
48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
investment  gaps  in  the  Union.  (…).  The  EFSI  should  be  seen  as  a  complement  to  all  other 
actions  needed  to  reduce  the  investment  gaps  in  the  Union  and  –  by  acting  as  a  guarantee 
fund – as a stimulus for new investments.’47 

The  EIB  addresses  the  co-ordination,  complementarity  and  coherence  of  the  EFSI  and 
analyses  the  synergies  with  EFSI  and  pillars  2  and  3,  the  new  forms  of  cooperation  around 
the EU funds and the cooperation with the NPBs and NPIs. 

With regard to IPE pillar 2, the EIAH and the EIPP, and IPE pillar 3, improving the investment 
environment,  EIB  finds  that  more  complementarity  is  necessary  to  support  EFSI  and 
therefore IPE to reach its objectives.  

With regard to new forms of cooperation with EU funds, the EIB evaluation mentions first the 
‘Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)’  and  Horizon  2020  (H2020)’  and  finds  that  there  are  both 
risks and opportunities in the relationship between the EIB and those programmes. In terms 
of  risk,  the  EIB  evaluation  points  out  EIB  privileges  EFSI  operations  over  CEF  or  H2020 
operations. In terms of opportunities, synergies could reside in the fact that EC could use CEF 
and  H2020  funds  to  finance  the  First  Loss  Piece  (FLP)48  of  operations,  while  the  EIB  would 
finance mezzanine tranches under EFSI.  
The  evaluators  of  the  present  evaluation  underline  this  risk  identified  on  privileging  EFSI 
over CEF. The EFSI objectives of the IIW window cover also the objectives of CEF (promotion 
of growth and jobs and competitiveness through infrastructure investments), and could be a 
competitor  to  the  CEF  debt  instrument  as  EFSI  covers  the  same  type  of  investments.  The 
arrangements on risk and risk sharing under CEF, are different than those under EFSI, where 
the  risk  under  the  first  loss  piece  is  fully  covered  by  the  EU  guarantee.  Information  from 
interviews  revealed  that  there  might  have  been  projects  that  are  eligible  for  CEF  that  are 
financed by EFSI.  

The Connecting Europe Facility 

The  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)  is  a  EU  funding  instrument  to  promote  growth,  jobs  and 
competitiveness  through  targeted  infrastructure  investment  at  European  level.  It  supports  the 
development  of  high  performing,  sustainable  and  efficiently  interconnected  trans-European 
networks in the fields of transport, energy and digital services. CEF offers project support through  
grants,  programme  support  actions  as  well  as  through  financial  instruments.  Financial  instruments 
that may be used according to the regulation are  
equity  instruments,  such  as  investment  funds  with  a  focus  on  providing  risk  capital  for  actions 
contributing to projects of common interest as well as loans and/or guarantees facilitated by risk-
sharing  instruments,  including  the  credit  enhancement  mechanism  for  project  bonds,  backing 
individual  projects  or  portfolios  of  projects  issued  by  a  financial  institution  on  its  own  resources 
with a Union contribution to the provisioning and/or capital allocation. The CEF Debt Instrument was 
launched in July 2015 and is currently implemented  by the EIB and provides senior or subordinated 
loans, guarantees (risk-sharing and credit enhancement mechanisms in the form deployed under the 
Pilot  Phase  of  the  Project  Bond  Initiative  and  the  Loan  Guarantee  Instrument  for  Trans-European 
Transport).  As  at  the  cut-off  date  of  this  evaluation,  the  CEF  Equity  instrument  has  not  yet  been 

47 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 
48 'Portfolio First Loss Piece’ means, in relation to the IIW Debt Portfolio, the first loss tranche provided 
by  the  EU  Guarantee  which  covers  initial  reductions  in  value  of  the  IIW  Debt  Portfolio  following  an 
effective loss. Under the EFSI Agreement, the EU provides 100% of the PFLP for the IIW Debt Portfolio, 
while  the  EIB  retains  the  full  risk  in  relation  to  the  remaining  tranche.  The  PFLP  is  expected  to 
represent  around  25  %  of  the  overall  portfolio  of  operations  financed  by  the  EIB  at  the  end  of  the 
investment period, and must remain available in full until the total outstanding exposure under the IIW 
Debt Portfolio becomes lower than the available FLP. From that point onwards, the FLP is foreseen to 
decrease in line with the decrease of the total nominal exposure under the IIW Debt Portfolio. 

49 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
launched.  

Horizon 2020 
Horizon 2020 is the EU financial instrument directed to innovation and also aims to drive economic 
growth  and  create  jobs.  Horizon2020  is  aiming  at  a  large  participation  of  the  SME  sector.  It  is 
implemented  primarily  through  transnational  collaborative  projects,  delivered  through  calls  for 
proposals.  Horizon  2020  is  also  implemented  through  public-private  and  public-public  partnerships. 
Support  under  the  instrument  is  provided  through  grants,  prizes,  procurement  and  financial 
instruments with the latter being the main form of funding for activities close to market.   
As  mentioned  in  the  2016-2017  Horizon  2020  Work  Programme1,  synergies  with  the  EFSI  will  be 
promoted.  This  is  particularly  relevant  to  the  financial  instruments,  targeted  in  particular  to  SMEs 
as they aim to contribute to the availability of a wider range of debt and equity financing products 
and facilities to support research and innovation. 
It  is  worth  mentioning  the  SME  Instrument,  which  targets  primarily  highly  innovative  SMEs  with  a 
clear commercial ambition and a potential for growth and internationalization. In addition to grants 
and coaching, the instrument offers also access to a wide range of innovation support services and 
facilitated access to risk finance.  

Then  the  EIB  evaluation  mentions  the  ’EU  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)’  which  is 
the common designation for five European funds. These funds have sectoral policy objectives 
which map to those of EFSI. There are, therefore, opportunities for complementarity between 
the interventions. 

The  EFSI  Regulation  highlights  the  importance  of  complementarity  with  the  ESIF.  EFSI  and 
ESIF  can  in  theory  be  combined  at  different  levels.  By  combining  ESIF  and  EFSI,  the  ESIF 
funds could for example finance the FLP, while the mezzanine tranche would be  financed by 
the  EIB  (backed  by  EFSI  support),  and  the  senior  tranche  would  be  financed  by  other 
investors.  

In  reality,  by  the  time  of  the  EIB’s  evaluation,  few  EFSI  operations  had  received 
complementary  finance  from ESIF  funds, and the  different eligibility criteria  or  Regulations 
do  not  ease  a  combined  usage.  In  some  interviews  conducted  by  the  EIB,  it  was  mentioned 
that  there  may  even  be  perceived  a  strong  competition  between  EFSI  and  grants  from  ESIF 
particularly in the cohesion countries.   

This  competition  between  EFSI  and  ESIF  is  confirmed  by  the  interviews  conducted  for  the 
current evaluation, especially for the Cohesion countries that receive large amounts of ESIF 
funding. This funding is allocated to specific countries and themes and the allocated budget 
has  to  be  committed  within  the  programming  period  (2014-2020).  ESIF  covers  a  wide  range 
of themes, which can be chosen by the Member States. Especially in the Cohesion countries, 
ESIF  covers  infrastructural  investments,  often  through  grants.  In  all  Member  States 
innovation  and  SME  development  covered  by  the  funds,  either  through  grants  or  financial 
instruments  that  are  established  under  the  different  programmes  in  the  Member  States.  In 
many  countries  the  absorption  of  these  funds  is  of  the  highest  priority,  as  there  is  a  high 
political will to use all the funds allocated.  
Concerning the blending of EFSI and ESIF, there are indeed regulatory issues that hinder the 
blending. For this purpose, a proposal for revision of the ESIF Common Provisions Regulation 
has been made. However, this  revised regulation  will not address for instance the state aid 
issue (ESIF is governed by the state aid regulation while EFSI supported EIB interventions do 
not  constitute  State  Aid),  which  may  remain  a  potential  hindrance.  Also,  ESIF  already 
provides  for  the  establishment  of  local  financial  instruments  and  the  question  is  whether 
50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Managing Authorities are willing to add another instrument during the current programming 
period. 

The collaboration with NPBs and NPIS is addressed in earlier sections of this report. 

The opinion of the survey respondents on the availability of other financial solutions, which 
are  similar  to  the  EFSI  is  diverse.  Starting  from  the  final  beneficiaries,  8  of  them  consider 
the  EFSI  support  as  unique,  while  8  believe  that  there  are  other  institutions/resources 
available, e.g. NPBs, regional/national  resources,  EU budget sources,  Export Credit Agencies, 
and  commercial  banks.  The  opinion  of  the  financial  intermediaries  is  also  almost  equally 
split. The opinion of the NPBs that participated in the survey is more categorical: 8 out of 9 
think  that  there  are  also  other  supporting  instruments,  which  can  be  used  instead  of  the 
EFSI. Eight of the respondents think that NPBs offer similar financial solutions.   

The results from the questionnaires on the comparison between the financial solutions are as 
follows: 

  Administrative  burden  -  Final  beneficiaries  in  general  do  not  consider  other  solutions  as 
having  lower  administrative  burden.  The  majority  of  financial  intermediaries  also  claim 
that  other  solutions  do  not  have  lower  administrative  burden.  In  contrast,  most  NPBs 
claim that other solutions are less burdensome, or at least partly less burdensome. 

  Ease  of  application  –  Similarly  to  the  above,  final  beneficiaries  do  not  consider  other 
solutions easier to apply (only 2 respondents claim that other solutions are  partly easier 
to apply). The overall majority of financial intermediaries do not consider other solutions 
easier to apply for, although half of the SME Window financial intermediaries claim that 
other  national  instruments  are  partly  easier  to  apply  for.  Most  of  the  NPBs  consider 
alternative national solutions as easier, or partly easier to apply for. 

  Addressing  regional/local  needs  –  the  majority  of  final  beneficiaries  and  financial 
intermediaries respondents do not consider other solutions as being in a better position to 
address  regional/local  needs.  The  opinion  of  the  NPBs  is  split  –  4  of  the  respondents 
consider other solutions as more suitable to address regional/local needs, while 5 consider 
them as partly more suitable.  

  Compliance with regional/local legislation – the general consensus among all respondents 

is that other solutions do not offer better compliance with regional/local legislation. 

In  general,  interviews  confirm  there  is  a  need  for  financing  more  risky  and  earlier  stage 
investment gaps. The offering of the perfect blending  of capital, grants, subordinated debt, 
debt  and  guarantees  from  multiple  sources  to  jointly  solve  projects'  financing  seems  the 
solution suggested by the majority of stakeholders. 

What is the added value of the EFSI supported projects so far? To what extent and 
by which means can the EU added value of the initiative be maximised? 

The ‘Investment Guidelines’ explain the ‘added value’ in the sense of ‘contribution to the EFSI 
objectives’  (‘Projects  benefitting  from  the  EU  guarantee  shall  respect  the  eligibility  criteria  and 
general objectives set out in Article 6 and Article 9(2) respectively.’)’ 

In article 7 of the EFSI Regulation, it is indicated that ‘The Commission shall be empowered to 
adopt  delegated  acts  in  accordance  with  Article  23(1)  to  (3)  and  (5)  to  supplement  this 
Regulation by establishing a scoreboard of indicators to be used by the Investment Committee 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to ensure an independent and transparent assessment of the potential and actual use of the 
EU guarantee. Such delegated acts shall be prepared in close dialogue with the EIB.’49 

Additionally,  it  is  specified  in  the  Commission  Delegated  Regulation,  recital  3,  that  ‘the 
scoreboard of indicators should be used to ensure that the EU guarantee is directed towards 
projects with higher added value.’50 

The EIB’s evaluation explains the scoreboard as a tool used by the Investment Committee to 
assess the added value through the eligibility and quality of projects in the EU as well as the 
EIB’s contribution to the projects. 

The EIB’s evaluation states that, as of 30 June 2016, operations under the IIW were ‘deemed 
to be strongly aligned with EFSI policy objectives and are of high quality’. Additionally, ‘all of 
the eligible sectors listed in Article 9(2) of the EFSI Regulation were covered by at least one 
EFSI  operation.  The  aggregation  of  Scoreboard  data  also  confirms  that  IIW  operations  are, 
thus  far,  largely  focused  on  the  development  of  the  energy  sector.51‘  In  the  data  room 
organised by EIB we found evidence of the scoreboard developed per IIW project, explaining 
in detail the various parameters and their ‘scores’. However the scoreboards showed a very 
diverse  answer  pattern,  with  some  very  strong  scores,  some  very  moderate  scores.  The 
Investment  Committee  approved  every  IIW  project  analysing  the  scoreboard.  It  was  not 
possible to assess purely quantitatively whether the highest added value was achieved for a 
specific  project.  Indeed,  it  is  not  possible  to  have  an  overall  score  due  to  the  presence  of 
qualitative parameters and non-rankable indicators in the scoreboard.  

Under  the  SMEW,  the  added  value  of  an  operation  focuses  on  the  EIF’s  contribution  to  the 
operation.  Based  on  that  definition,  the  EIF  assesses  (1)  the  degree  of  difficulty  for  an 
operation  to  secure  alternative  funding,  (2)  the  EIF’s  role  in  structuring  and  advising  on  a 
deal, and (3) the catalytic effect of the EIF using EFSI support. The added value of operations 
under  the  SMEW  are  discussed  at  EIF  board-level,  not  decided  upon  in  the  IC  as  for  the  IIW 
operations52. 

2.2  EU Guarantee 

To what extent has the EU Guarantee been used to support the EFSI operations and 
to achieve the EFSI policy objectives? 

We refer to the question above ‘To what extent are the financial resources provided to EFSI, 
namely  the  EU  Guarantee  and  the  EIB  Group  resources  appropriately  sized  to  achieve  the 
expected effects?’  

The  European  Commission  concluded  in  its  evaluation  that  despite  the  recent  start  of  EFSI, 
the EU Guarantee enabled EIB to undertake riskier activities in line with the objectives set.  

49 EFSI Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 
50  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1558  of  22  July  2015  supplementing  Regulation  (EU) 
2015/1017  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  by  the  establishment  of  a  Scoreboard  of 
indicators for the application of the EU Guarantee. 
51  Operations  Evaluation  –  Evaluation  of  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments (EFSI), September 2016. 
52 The EFSI Regulation and the EFSI Agreement establish that the EFSI Steering Board approve new 
SMEW products on the basis of their added value following consultation of the Investment Committee, 
but individual operations are not to be discussed by the Steering Board or the Investment Committee. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
However,  regarding  the  cooperation  with  NPBs  or  NPIs,  as  well  as  the  deployment  of  new 
financing products for corporates (subordinated), or the amount of the guarantee dedicated 
to the SMEW due to a strong uptake, some adjustments had to be undertaken.  

In  addition,  the  Commission  pointed  out  that  the  EU  Guarantee  is  not  designed  to  cover 
excessive  risks  for  EIB  operations  as  their  pricing  would  not  be  acceptable  from  a  market 
perspective.  The  EIB  and  the  Commission  have  addressed  this  limitation  by  aiming  to 
complement  with  instruments  such  as  European  Structural  and  Investments  Funds  (ESIF)  or 
InnovFin  to  take  the  riskier  tranches,  with  the  EIB  bearing  the  risk  on  the  mezzanine 
tranches.  The  EU  Guarantee  has  not  been  designed  to  cover  potential  currency  fluctuations 
either.  

Has the EU Guarantee been used to respond to the identified needs? To what extent 
do the identified needs still exist?  

The  European  Commission  concluded  in  its  evaluation  that  despite  the  recent  start  of  EFSI, 
the  EU  Guarantee  has  been  efficient  and  effective  to  increase  the  special  activities  (higher 
risk  financing)  of  EIB  and  EIF  guarantees  in  favour  of  SMEs  and  mid-caps,  in  line  with  EFSI 
policy objectives. 

The Commission evaluation analyses this point at sub-window level: 

1)  The IIW Debt sub-window: the EU Guarantee supported operations typically with a higher 
risk  profile  than  EIB  normal  operations.  As  of  30  June  2016,  59  debt-type  operations 
have  been  approved,  all  considered  as  special  activities.  The  signed  operations  amount 
to € 4.5 billion. 

2)  The IIW Equity sub-window: the EU Guarantee supported direct investments in individual 
companies or projects or financing for funds or analogous portfolio risks, as long as the 
EIB  invests  on  a  pari  passu  basis.  As  of  30  June  2016,  18  equity-type  operations  have 
been approved. The signed operations amount to € 267 million. 

3)  The SME window: the EU Guarantee supported the COSME Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF), 
guaranteeing  loans  to  SMEs  with  a  higher-risk  profile,  and  InnovFin  financial 
instruments,  guaranteeing  loans  to  innovative  and  research-intensive  SMEs  and  small 
mid-caps. The frontloading of COSME LGF and InnovFin budgets in the period 2016-2020 
amounts  to  €  500  million  and  €  750  million  respectively.  As  of  30  June  2016,  186 
operations have been approved accounting for € 3.4 billion in EFSI financing. Of the 186 
operations,  71  are  equity  projects,  financed  from  the  EIB’s  €  2.5  billion  contribution  to 
the SMEW, 43 are COSME and 72 are InnovFin guarantee operations. The investment for 
the  signed  operations  reach  €  3.3  billion  expecting  to  support  an  amount  of  around  € 
48.4 billion53. Around 180,000 SMEs and mid-caps would benefit from those operations. 

The evaluator  of this evaluation agrees with the conclusion of the  Commission   that if the 
need  to  reinforce  investment  in  viable  projects  presenting  a  higher  risk  still  exists,  the  EU 
Guarantee allows support of riskier activities as expected.  

To  what  extent  will  the  level  of  the  EU  budget  resources  available  for  the  EU 
Guarantee  be  appropriate  in  the  light  of  the  evolution  of  the  exposures  to  be 
covered in the future?  

The Commission internal evaluation finds that at the end of the 1st year of the EFSI’s launch, 
the use of the EU Guarantee has been efficient and effective regarding the aim of supporting 
special  activities.  However,  the    Commission    and  the  EIB  Group  have  been  able  to  perform 

5353 According to the consolidated figures provided to the evaluator, this amount is € 44.2 billion 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
some adjustments to adapt EFSI to the new needs, e.g. the reinforcement of the SMEW by € 
500  million  or  the  possibility  to  have  different  portfolios  and  the  clarification  of  the 
guarantee treatment of subordinated debt under the IIW. 

In  addition,  research  and  interviews  confirm  that  further  changes  are  expected  before  the 
end  of  2016.  The  most  important  one  concerns  the  restructuring  of  the  debt  part  of  the 
SMEW.  This  will  imply  that  the  first-loss  piece  will  be  taken  by  financial  instruments  under 
EU programmes, such as COSME, InnovFin or EASI, whereas the EU guarantee under EFSI will 
take a mezzanine  tranche,  and, in  the case  of the InnovFIn guarantee,  the  residual risk will 
be  covered  by  the  EIB  Group’s  own  resources.  Those  changes  will  lead  to  an  increase  in  the 
overall  size  of  the  budgetary  allocations  for  those  instruments  allowing  the  EIF  to  finance 
more operations.  

Currently,  the  combined  Union  budgetary  allocation  for  COSME  and  InnovFin  SMEG  would 
reach around € 1.7 billion by 2020 expecting to support an investment of around €34 billion. 
With  the  new  set-up,  the  combined  budget  would  increase  to  €  2.95  billion,  expecting  an 
investment of around € 60 billion. 

Under  the  IIW,  the  EFSI  should  focus  on  investments  and  market  needs  at  local  levels  to 
strengthen  the  impact  of  the  use  of  the  EU  Guarantee.  Consequently,  the  cooperation  with 
the NPBs and replicable patterns should be reinforced to set up investment platforms and  to 
combine EFSI with Union budgetary instruments. 

The  legislative  proposal  for  the  extension  of  EFSI  issued  by  the  Commission  provides  some 
adaptations such as an adjustment of the target provisioning rate, a stronger focus on risk-
sharing  instruments  and  subordinated  financing,  the  possibility  for  the  EU  Guarantee  to 
cover  the  potential  impact  of  currency  fluctuations,  taking  into  consideration  both  losses 
and gains arising from such fluctuations.54  

Regarding  the  provisioning  mechanism  of  the  Guarantee  and  potential  calls,  so  far  no  calls 
due to defaults or value adjustments have been triggered. The targeted provisioning of 50% 
at  the  outset  has  been  seems  cautious  and  prudent  to  cover  potential  losses  under  the 
portfolio  supported  by  the  EU  guarantee.  Moreover,  it  is  important  that  the  Commission 
closely monitors the investment  strategy  of  the resources held in the EFSI  Guarantee  Fund, 
bearing in mind the future exposures and risk profile of the EFSI portfolio, in order to ensure 
an appropriate size of the EU budget resources adapted to the EFSI portfolio future exposure. 

2.3  The European Investment Advisory Hub 

The  objectives  of  EIAH  are  defined  in  Article  14  of  the  EFSI  Regulation.  Its  task  is  to 
strengthen the support to investment in the real economy, by advising and supporting project 
development and project preparation based on the expertise of the Commission, EIB, national 
promotional banks and institutions and managing authorities. Projects which may be eligible 
for  financing  by  the  EIB  should  be  supported,  but  EIAH  is  not  solely  limited  to  EFSI  or  EIB-
financed projects.  

The EIAH consists of three complementary advisory components. First, it is meant to act as a 
single  point  of  entry  to  a  wide  range  of  advisory  services  and  technical  assistance  for 

54 EC internal evaluation, SWD(2016) 297 final/2, Brussels 22/09/2016, p 20 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
project  promoters,  public  authorities,  and  the  private  sector,  provided  by  internal  EIB  staff 
or  external  consultancy  experts.  Second,  the  EIAH  is  a  cooperation  platform,  designed  to 
exchange,  leverage  and  disseminate  expertise  among  the  EIAH’s  partner  institutions  and 
other stakeholders. Third, the EIAH is designed as an instrument to both assess and address 
unmet market needs in terms of advisory support55.  

2.3.1  Relevance and Effectiveness 

In order to avoid repetitions, this section combines overlapping Relevance and Effectiveness 
questions. 

To what extent has the EIAH deployment fulfilled its mission as listed in Art 14 of 
the EFSI Regulation, especially for paragraph 1, 2 and 3? 

Which  sectors  is  EIAH  supporting  most  effectively?  What  are  the  challenges  for 
making  EIAH  effective  across  all  eligible  sectors  and  areas  and  how  can  they  be 
overcome? 

The  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  is  considered  one  of  the  main  elements  of  the 
Investment  Plan  for  Europe.  The  EFSI  is  the  financial  element  of  the  IPE,  whereas  the  EIAH 
addresses advisory support related to project preparation.56 

In  regard  to  the  requests  addressed  to  the  EIAH  as  of  30  June  2016,  the  EIB  states  in  its 
report57 that the Hub has received a total of 214 requests. The number of incoming requests 
has  doubled  over  the  last  semester  (i.e.  first  semester  2016)  compared  to  the  activity 
recorded in 2015. Out of those 214 requests, 160 are project-specific requests, 56 come from 
the public sector, 100 from private sector and 4 from the ‘other’ category (e.g. NGOs). 

Since the launch of the EIAH, 19 requests have been allocated to EIB services for specialised 
advisory  support  and  79  requests  were  provided  with  advisory  support  directly  from  EIAH 
team and closed until June 2016. 

The following table comes from the report, presenting the situation as at 30 June 2016. 

55  With  the  support  of  an  external  contractor,  the  Hub  is  currently  carrying  out  an  extensive  needs 
assessment  exercise  covering  all  sectors  and  Member  States  in  an  effort  to  map  existing  advisory 
support (EU or national funds) and  identify  gaps and needs.  This  study would support the EIB and the 
Commission  in  setting  out  the  strategy  for  the  EIAH  by  helping  to  define  the  Member  States  and 
investment sectors where improving the uptake of advisory services could have the greatest impact on 
investment outcomes. 
56 EIAH bi-annual technical report, January-June 2016 
57 Idem. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table EIAH service requests 

The table shows that out of the 214 requests, 78 relate to financing or funding advice, 78 for 
technical  assistance  and  funding,  13  for  proposed  cooperation  and  33  for  general 
information.  These  figures  show  that  the  request  for  technical  assistance  and  for 
financing/funding advice are the most frequent categories of request. 

All  the  requests  received  have  been  analysed.  The  EIAH  team  contacted  the  projects 
promoters  to  understand  the  needs  and  identify  the  kind  of  support  to  be  provided. 
Appropriate  expertise,  where  necessary,  was  then  mobilised  either  from  EIB  operational 
services or from relevant advisory services and programmes. 

Additionally, the technical report indicates that the activity in the 1st half of 2016 shows a 
similar  trend  to  the  one  observed  during  2015.  The  majority  of  project-specific  requests 
emanated  from  the  private  sector  and  were  related  to  financing  support  (e.g.  project 
promoters  looking  for  investors  at  early  development  stage).  In  many  cases  project 
promoters  have  been  asked  for  additional  information  before  any  further  support  can  be 
given or have been signposted directly to support from other sources. 

Although it is rather early to draw solid conclusions, also in view of the Hub’s ramp up phase, 
there is a trend towards a balance between the  public and private promoters. However, the 
private sector remains the sector where the  majority  of the requests  have been  signposted 
to  other  services  for  different  reasons,  such  as  the  early  stage  nature  of  most  of  the 
requests. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that fees may be charged to the private sector 
to recover partially the costs for the services.  

In regards to the sector coverage, the report informs that the sectors with the most frequent 
requests  are energy and transport, which are eligible sectors under the EFSI Regulation. The 
interviewees  and  the  online  survey  results  confirmed  that  for  the  EIAH  the  key  areas  are 
Energy, Transport and  Urban/Rural  development. EIAH  has also  been  seen as most effective 
in  Transport  and  Urban/Rural  development  due  to  the  fact  that  there  has  been  a  lot  of 
demand  from  those  sectors  and  the  bank  has  strong  skills  to  address  those  needs.  It  is 
important  to  note  that  these  sectors  are  particularly  highlighted  by  Art.  14  of  the  EFSI  as 
priority  sectors  for  provision  of  technical  assistance.  The  Hub  indicates  that  the  website  is 
often not providing sufficiently enough mature projects in the priority sectors. Hence, if the 
Hub is to provide more support in other sectors, this would require a pro-active approach in 
generating requests in these priority sectors.  

In  regards  to  the  geographical  spread,  the  requests  have  been  received  from  27  Member 
States  by 30  June 2016, only Estonia was  not  represented58. The three most active  Member 
States so far have been the UK, Bulgaria, and Belgium. There were 7 requests which were not 
country specific, including 2 requests outside of Europe and 5 requests which concerned more 
than one country.  

58 Since September, the Hub received requests also from Estonia 

56 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The Hub representatives confirmed that they face a dual requirement as they are asked to be 
demand  driven,  but  at  the  same  time  to  reach  all  regions.  To  reach  all  regions  with  the 
highest needs, will  require awareness raising and targeted  sourcing including at local  level. 
Due  to  the  capacity  constraints,  the  Hub  needs  to  be  as  efficient  as  possible.  Being  on  the 
ground is valuable in this respect, but should be balanced efficiently. In order to be a single 
access point, the Hub is by default currently Luxembourg centric. The EIB Advisory services, 
on  which  the  Hub  partly  relies,  are  more  decentralised  -  besides  the  Luxembourg 
headquarters,  the  EIB  Advisory  Services  have  regional  offices  (45%  of  its  employees  are 
staffed outside Luxembourg) located close to regional needs. 

The  Hub  sees  huge  potential  in  collaboration  with  NPBs  and  NPIs,  but  countries  with  the 
highest  needs  do  not  always  have  experienced  NPIs.  Moreover,  the  Hub  tries  to  send  people 
on the ground on a case by case basis for specific projects. 

In  relation  to  the  overall  relevance  of  the  EIAH,  most  of  the  participants  in  the  survey  for 
EIAH  services  users  (8  respondents)  shared  the  opinion  that  the  needs  for  technical 
assistance  services  have  increased  since  the  launch  of  the  Hub  and  that  these  needs  will 
further increase in the next 5 years (8 respondents).  

The  support  provided  to  the  users  of  the  EIAH  services,  which  participated  in  the  online 
questionnaire,  was  mostly  in  the  field  of  structuring  projects  to  improve  their  access  to 
finance  (9  respondents);  project  preparation  (8  respondents);  and  implementation  and 
management  of  Financial 
respondents).  Market  studies,  project 
(4 
implementation/delivery  services,  project  identification,  capacity  building,  and  procurement 
services were also used.  

Instruments 

The  services  that  were  provided  to  the  NPBs  that  participated  in  the  online  questionnaire 
were in  the  fields  of: implementation and management  of  Financial Instruments; support  to 
structuring  projects  to  improve  their  access  to  finance;  project  identification  and 
implementation.  The  sectors  in  which  the  support  was  sought  included:  telecommunications; 
human capital, culture, and health; energy infrastructure; and regional development. 

To  what  extent  does  EIAH  ensure  peer-to-peer  exchange  and  sharing  of  know-how 
regarding project development in a manner, which is compliant with its mandate? 

The  EFSI  Regulation  (Art.14  (6))  states  that  ‘In  order  to  ensure  broad  coverage  of  services 
provided  by  the  EIAH  across  the  whole  Union,  the  EIAH  shall  cooperate  where  possible  with 
providers  of  similar  services  at  Union,  regional,  national  or  sub-national  level.  Cooperation 
between,  on  the  one  hand,  the  EIAH  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  national  promotional  bank  or 
institution  or  an  institution  or  a  managing  authority,  including  those  acting  as  a  national 
advisor,  having  expertise  relevant  for  the  purposes  of  the  EIAH,  may  take  the  form  of  a 
contractual partnership.’ 

The  bi-annual  report  addresses  this  question  and  informs  that  during  2015,  a  Memorandum 
of  Understanding  was  set  up  to  organise  a  standardised  framework  for  cooperation.  As  of 
the  end  of  June,  19  MoUs  have  been  signed  by  the  Hub.  Three  non-exclusive  forms  of 
collaboration are envisaged: 

1)  NPIs  participating  in  knowledge/best  practice  sharing  and  dissemination  initiatives  in 

relevant areas of expertise within EIAH’s scope of activities; 

2)  NPIs  acting  as  EIAH  local  point  of  entry/local  screening  body  for  potential  clients  and 

stakeholders; 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3)  NPIs delivering services locally on behalf of EIAH. 

The MoU covers the first two forms of collaboration and the third one will be subject to the 
launch  of  specific  Calls  for  Expression  of  Interest  and  to  the  signature  of  bilateral 
agreements with the implementing institutions.59 

In  terms  of  enhancing  collaboration  and  exchange  of  know-how  between  the  different 
stakeholders, the EIAH organised different events, e.g. the EIAH Days ‘Defining Collaboration’ 
(October  2016)  and  a  workshop  on  Kick-starting  cooperation  between  EIB  and  NPIs  in  the 
context of the European Investment Advisory Hub (April 2016). 

In  line  with  the  above,  the  interviews  revealed  that  the  organisations  that  signed  the 
memorandum  of  understanding  (MoU)  did  not  yet  employ  activities  under  the  MoUs,  as  the 
kick  off  meeting  was  only  organised  recently.  Hence,  activities  are  yet  to  start.  In  this 
regard,  the  results  of  the  survey  showing  that  nobody  participated  in  peer-to-peer  and 
knowledge exchange and training is not surprising. For more information on the cooperation 
with the NPBs, see below.  

To what  extent  has  EIAH  cooperation with  other  providers  of  similar  services  been 
effective? 

See  the  answer  to  question  ‘To  what  extent  has  EIAH  proved  complementarity  to  other 
existing initiatives?’ further below. 

How  effectively  has  EIAH  been  using  the  expertise  of  the  EIB,  the  Commission, 
national and promotional banks or institutions, and the managing authorities of the 
European Structural and Investment Funds to achieve its objective? 

First of all, it needs to be said that the activities of the EIAH started relatively recently and 
that  the  EIAH  is  in  its  process  to  build  the  relationships  with  the  different  institutions. 
Representatives  from  the  Hub  indicate  that  partnerships  are  critical  for  the  functioning  of 
the Hub and that internal networks are set up, while they now need to build and strengthen 
the  external  networks.  Furthermore,  the  number  of  questions  and  requests  for  services  are 
still relatively limited. This also limits the possibility to address this question.  

The EIAH is within EIB Advisory services, and gives access to all of the EIB advisory services. 
The Hub functions as a dispatching centre to connect projects to the right services, both for 
public  and  private  promoters.  The  Hub  tries  to  understand  the  real  needs  and  issues,  and 
directs to counterparts which can direct to right advices. In this way it sources all expertise 
from other existing EIB advisory parts and also provides advisory support. 
Concerning  the  cooperation  with  the  NPBs,  all  the  NPB  respondents  who  took  part  in  the 
online  survey  shared  that  they  already  had  a  MoU  with  the  EIAH,  or  were  planning  to  sign 
one. Opinions were divided on the scope of the MoU – some NPBs only intend to cooperate on 
the first level (informing about the EIAH as a potential access to technical assistance), while 
others intend to expand the cooperation further. This  differentiated approach  on the future 
cooperation  between  the  NPBs  and  the  EIAH  is  noticed  also  in  the  answers  to  the  question 
‘Are you planning to deepen your relationship with EIAH’. Two respondents did not have plans 
for further deepening the cooperation, 5 were unsure, and 2 responded positively.  

Interviews  revealed  that  the  cooperation  between  the  EIAH  and  NPBs  and  other  national 
institutions  has  just  started  and  needs  to  be  shaped  further.  As  the  cooperation  is  just  to 
start,  it  also  not  always  clear  what  the  cooperation  should  cover  and  how  it  should  be 

59 Bi-annual technical report, January-June 2016 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
organised.  Interviews  also  revealed  that  there  is  a  clear  need  for  making  use  of  expertise 
that  is  tailored  to  the  needs  of  the  country  and  cooperation  with  local  players,  also  with 
other institutions then the NPBs, is needed. At the same time, it is indicated that not all NPBs 
are able to supply services, as they may not have the capacities to do so.  
These  results  point  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  still  room  for  improving  the  cooperation 
between the National Promotional banks and the ‘Hub’. It should be acknowledged, however, 
that  it  is  still  too  early  to  provide  a  general  conclusion  on  the  effective  use  of  existing 
expertise by NPBs. 

The managing authorities were not targeted by this evaluation.  

To  what  extent  has  EIAH  been  effective  as  a  single  point  of  entry  for  technical 
assistance for authorities and project promoters? 

The EIAH representatives pointed out that the EIAH website acts as a good access point for 
authorities  and  project  promoters.  Next  to  this,  project  promoters  are  directed  to  the  Hub 
through  other  EIB  contacts  (see  also  section  on  communication  methods).  In  relation  to 
requests  received  from  the  website,  in  order  to  improve  efficiency,  the  Hub  uses  a  pre-
screening to signpost requests.  

The  users  of  the  EIAH  services  that  participated  in  the  online  questionnaire  have  no  strong 
views about the visibility of the EIAH as a single point of entry for technical assistance for 
public entities and project promoters. All the responses (14) express an average assessment 
of  its  visibility.  The  predominant  answer  that  the  EIAH  is  not  very  visible  (8  respondents) 
suggests that the ‘Hub’ needs to increase the exposure of its services. Although the sample is 
very  small,  this  outcome  is  not  surprising  considering  the  fact  that  the  Hub  only  recently 
started  its  activities  and  also  only  recently  started  the  cooperation  with  the  NPBs/NFIs  to 
further disseminate information on EFSI and the Hub.  

To what extent are EIAH’s activities relevant to its mandate? 

To  a  large  extent  this  question  is  answered  in  all  other  questions  in  the  EIAH  section.  As 
described  above,  the  EIAH  is  clearly  assisting  project  promoters,  where  appropriate,  in 
developing  their  projects.  Furthermore,  the  EIAH  has  been  most  effective  in  providing 
services in the Transport, Energy, and Urban regeneration sectors. Also the EIAH services are 
available  for  public  and  private  project  promoters,  including  national  promotional  banks  or 
institutions and investment platforms or funds  and  regional and  local public entities. These 
are  all  sectors,  activities,  and  service  users,  which  are  directly  relevant  to  the  mandate  of 
the Hub. 

The Regulation also mandates the Hub to leverage local knowledge to facilitate EFSI support 
across  the  Union,  which  as  noted  above  is  an  area  in  which  work  is  in  progress  and 
improvement will be needed, paying particular attention to the specific local needs of EU MS.  

In  terms  of  its  mandate  to  provide  a  single  point  of  entry  for  technical  assistance  for 
authorities  and  project  promoters,  the  EIAH  representatives  pointed  out  that  the  EIAH 
website acts as a good access point as evidenced by the relatively high number of requests 
received  by  the  Hub.  However,  the  results  of  the  survey  with  users  of  the  EIAH  services 
showed that the ‘Hub’ needs to increase the awareness of its services. 

2.3.2  Efficiency  

To what extent have the financial resources provided to the Hub been appropriately 
sized to meet EIAH’s objectives and how can they be optimised? 

To  what  extent  is  the  EIAH  governance  model  efficient  in  meetings  the  EIAH 
objectives? 

59 

 
 
 
 
It  is  too  early  to  provide  a  valid  conclusion  on  the  efficiency  of  the  EIAH.  Concerning  the 
budget,  the  Hub  is  in  a  ramp  up  phase  and  therefore  not  all  the  available  budget  has  been 
used  to  date.  However  the  forecast  of  the  Hub  is  that  all  of  the  budget  will  be  spent.  Next 
year it is expected that there will be ‘overspending’ in annual terms. 

As concerns the governance model, the Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) between the 
Commission  and  the  EIB  foresees  the  set-up  of  a  4-member  Coordination  Committee  whose 
Chairperson  is  a  Commission  official  appointed  by  the  EC.  According  to  the  agreement,  the 
committee  should  meet  at  least  twice  a  year.  The  4-member  Coordination  Committee  has 
already  been  established  and  its  Rules  of  Procedure  have  been  adopted  as  expected.  The 
committee is chaired by the EC and acts in consensus. As of the end of June 2016, 3 meetings 
already took place. In January the Committee took the following decisions: (i) approval of the 
EIAH  Pricing  Policy;  (ii)  agreement  on  the  technical  and  financial  reporting  frequency  from 
EIB  to  Commission  .  At  the  third  meeting  in  June  2016,  the  Committee  approved  the  final 
draft 2016 work programme together with the budget proposal from the EIB.60 

No  issues  have  been  identified  as  concerns  the  governance  model,  but  the  opinion  of  the 
users  of  the  EIAH  services  and  the  EIAH  itself  is  that  the  model  for  provision  of  services 
should be less centralised. The Hub already has positive experience with provision of services 
at  local  level  (Greece),  which  could  be  replicated  in  countries  that  need  support,  based  on 
their specific needs.  

To what extent have EIAH communication methods been efficiently used to promote 
the  service  of  EIAH  to  public  and  private  project  promoters,  including  national 
promotional  banks  or  institutions  and  investment  platforms  or  funds  and  regional 
and local public entities? 

The  EIAH  established  a  communication  strategy  including  promotion  activities,  conferences, 
workshops, case studies, brochures, targeted awareness raising and website development. 
The  communication  strategy  has  to  be  agreed  by  the  Coordination  Committee  on  annual 
basis.  Before  issuance  and  publication,  reports,  publications,  press  releases,  etc.  should  be 
discussed by the Committee. 

With regards to communication, the bi-annual technical report states that during the 1st half 
of  2016,  the  EIAH  website  has  been  visited  7.745  times.  148  out  of  the  214  requests  have 
been  submitted  through  the  website.  The  website  is  usually  found  via  the  European 
Commission  Investment  Plan  page,  the  EIB  website  and  EFSI  dedicated  page,  and  social 
media.  The  EIAH  website  is  regularly  updated  and  the  EIB  started  developing  further  the 
website infrastructure, content and contact since beginning of 2016. 

According  to  the  results  of  the  online  survey,  the  majority  (9  of  the  respondents)  of  the 
beneficiaries  of  the  EIAH  services  became  acquainted  with  the  Hub  through  the  EIB  staff. 
Promotional  activities  (e.g.  conferences  and  social  media)  and  the  EIAH  website  were  also 
instrumental in this regard. Even though the website was helpful in understanding about the 
EIAH  services,  3  of  the  respondents  had  some  reservations  as  concerns  the  clarity  of  the 
information provided online. This is to suggest that the ‘Available services’ and ‘How can the 
Hub support you?’ sections of the website should be expanded and further description of the 
services would be helpful for the users of the EIAH.  

60 Bi-annual technical report, January-June 2016 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
All the NPB representatives that participated in the online survey expressed awareness with 
the  EIAH  services.  The  NPBs  clearly  see  their  role  as  partners  with  the  EIAH,  including  as 
concerns  joint  working  groups,  conferences,  and  events  in  general.  However,  not  all  NPBs 
declared that they promoted the services offered by the EIAH. This was also confirmed by the 
results of the EIAH  beneficiaries’  questionnaire – only one of the  respondents indicated the 
NPBs as a source of information for learning of the EIAH. In this sense, the responses of the 
questionnaire  suggest  that  NPBs  should  be  more  active  in  distributing  information  on  the 
EIAH services.  

Only  2  of  the  surveyed  final  beneficiaries  of  EFSI  expressed  awareness  with  the  EIAH 
services  (even  though  they  did  not  use  them),  while  15  responded  that  they  did  not  know 
about  the  Hub.  The  overall  consensus  among  the  surveyed  NPBs  also  confirms  that  project 
promoters are not sufficiently aware of the support that can be provided by the Hub. These 
results  clearly  show  the  need  for  a  far-reaching  communication  campaign  on  the  EIAH 
services. 

Interviewees also shared that the visibility of the Hub could be improved. Currently, the core 
team  of  the  Hub  consists  of  6  people  that  participate  in  network  events  and  next  to  that 
other EIB experts do promote the Hub. While the EIAH has been so far promoted in more than 
100  events,  when  the  capacity  of  the  Hub  is  increased,  more  attention  could  be  paid  to 
activities that contribute to visibility. 

2.3.3  Added value and complementarity 

To what extent has the EIAH support to projects provided added value? 

The results of the online survey with the EIAH service users show that the perception on the 
quality of the services provided in the early stage of the Hub development is mixed. Four of 
the respondents claim that the services were  not tailored to their needs and 4 respondents 
answered  that  the  services  were  tailored  to  some  extent.  At  the  same  time,  3  respondents 
answered that they received tailored support and two of them responded ‘to a large extent’. 
Similar  mixed  results  were  received  on  the  overall  satisfaction  with  the  EIAH  assistance. 
Three respondents were very satisfied, 3 satisfied to some extent, and 4 were not satisfied. 
It is also noteworthy that the 2 NPBs that participated in the online survey, which used the 
services  offered  by  the  EIAH,  considered  them  as  useful  in  terms  of  support  for  project 
identification,  preparation,  and  development.  Furthermore,  in  its  conclusions  for  the  period 
January-June 2016, the Hub states that with regard to the requests received, many involve 
projects,  which  were  not  sufficiently  well-defined  and  the  EIAH  advisors  often  sought  more 
information which would enable them to provide the necessary advice, but which was never 
eventually obtained. This  offers an alternative  explanation  on the  overall  mixed perception 
of the services. 

Nevertheless,  the  mixed  results  of  the  surveys  suggest  that  the  EIAH  services  should  be 
further tailored to the needs of the organisations requesting them. So far the EIAH has only 
once  received  feedback  from  its  users  through  a  structured  procedure.  It  is  clear  that  in 
order to make sure that the opinion of stakeholders is taken into account and that services 
are constantly improved, a more regular feedback procedure will need to be established and 
is being currently considered by the EIAH. 

Three  possible  areas  for  improvement  of  the  Hub  services  were  included  in  the  EIAH 
questionnaire: 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Speed of services provision – while a majority of the respondents were satisfied with the 
Hub's  responsiveness,  three  of  the  EIAH  service  users  expressed  negative  opinion  on  the 
length of the technical advice process and three expressed only partial satisfaction. Four 
of  the  recommendations  on  the  EIAH  that  were  received  through  the  questionnaire  were 
related to the need for shorter period of provision of feedback. 

  A  specific  recommendation  that  was  received  was  to  improve,  or  even  merge  the  EIAH 
with  the  fi-compass.  According  to  the  Commission,  the  merge  is  not  legally  possible,  but 
the  EIAH  could  help  extending  the  services  offered  by  fi-compass  e.g.  to  help  developing 
investment platforms. 

Website application process – only 1 respondent claimed that the application process is not 
user-friendly and 2 expressed satisfaction to a small extent, while the majority considered it 
as smooth. These results point to the conclusion that the application process is not a feature 
that currently requires improvement. 
Based  on  the  online  questionnaires  (EIAH  and  NPBs)  results,  it  seems  that  the  users  of  the 
EIAH  services  are  mostly  interested  in  capacity  building  support  for  projects,  financial 
Instruments implementation and management, state aid, and on how to structure projects to 
improve their access to finance. 

To what extent has EIAH proved complementarity to other existing initiatives? 
Interviewees  of  the  EIAH  did  not  identify  overlaps  with  other  advisory  services  within  the 
EIB.  They  pointed  at  the  fact  that  the  Hub  enhances  cooperation  as  it  acts  more  as  a 
coordination centre, which directs public and private project promoters to other EIB advisory 
services.  The  interviewees  of  the  Hub  share  the  opinion  that  collaboration  with  external 
services  can  be  improved,  but  is  still  work  in  progress.  It  was  mentioned  several 
interviewees,  also  NPBs,  that  better  use  can  be  made  of  local  available  services,  but  that 
there should be financial resources to cover for these services.  

The  majority  of  the  users  of  the  EIAH  services  considered  them  as  unique  (6  respondents), 
while  3  respondents  claimed  that  its  services  are  partly  provided  by  others.  Those  NPB 
respondents  that  have  made  use  of  the  services  offered  by  EIAH  or  are  aware  of  project 
promoters  that  have  used  them,  also  claim  that  the  services  are  partly  provided  by  others, 
e.g.  private  sector  consultancies,  trade  and  commercial  associations,  NPBs,  Commission  -
funded  TA  facility,  and  the  European  Association  of  Development  Banks.  It  is  therefore 
important  the  EIAH  team  continue  to  exercise  care  in  avoiding  crowding  out  of  the  private 
sector. 

62 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
3  Conclusions and recommendations 

3.1  Conclusions 

EFSI 
Relevance 

  Investment gaps and market needs still persist in Europe. Gaps to invest in R&D, energy, 
ICT,  education,  industry,  transport  &  logistics  and  water  &  waste  are  estimated  at  an 
annual € 655 billion61. There is not so much a need for liquidity, but rather a need for high 
risk financing. 

  EFSI  is  relevant  in  terms  of  the  size,  as  it  targets  €315  billion  financing  of  investment 

gaps over 3 years, with which EFSI contributes to closing the above mentioned gaps. 

  In  terms  of  geographical  coverage,  2662  out  of  28  EU  countries  were  reached,  showing  a 
broad  spread. A closer look reveals, however, that the EU15 received 91% and the EU13 
received a mere 9% of EFSI support (excluding multi-country operations). For the IIW UK, 
Italy and Spain received 63,4%, for the SMEW Italy, France and Germany received 36,1% 
of total EFSI support. Possible reasons for the lower EFSI support in Central  and Eastern 
Europe  are  the  competition  from  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF), 
less capacity to develop large projects, less experience with PPP projects, a less developed 
venture capital market and the smaller projects’ size.  

  In terms of sector coverage, EFSI proved relevant in terms of covering R&D (45%), energy 
(21%), ICT (17%) sectors. Some sector gaps are less addressed, but this is not seen as a 
major issue. 

  The  design  of  EFSI  enabled  the  EIB  to  address  more  high  risk  financing,  both  by  an 
increase  in  the  volume  of  Special  Activities  and  the  development  of  new  financial 
products for high risk financing. Before the launch of EFSI, EIB was signing circa €4 billion 
of  Special  Activities63  per  annum.  This  should  increase  to  circa  €15  to  €20  billion  of 
Special  Activities  by  the  end  of  2016.  So  in  this  respect  EFSI  is  relevant  in  addressing 
market gaps by increasing the availability of high risk financing to eligible projects.  

  However,  there  is  a  strong  need  for  EFSI  to  provide  higher  risk  financing,  in  a 
complementary  and  subordinated  position  to  other  investors.  At  the  start,  EIB  was  not 
willing to take higher risk, but this has improved. 

  In general the design of EFSI is perceived as relevant, although there are some important 

issues of concern: 
-  First,  the  need  to  complement  additionality  in  terms  of  risks  (which  is  defined  in  the 
EFSI Regulation as being a Specific Activity for the EIB) with other factors. In fact, this 
higher risk level may not always be higher than risk levels that other suppliers cover.  
-  Secondly,  the  design  of  EFSI  is  less  suitable  for  certain  countries  for  the  reasons 
indicated  above  (capacity,  experience  with  PPP  constructions,  size  of  projects  and 
markets).  

-  Thirdly,  the  financial  conditions  of  EFSI  are  reported  to  not  always  be  sufficiently 

attractive for National Promotional Banks/financial institutions. 

61 Source: EIB (2016) Restoring EU Competitiveness 
62 27 out of 28 countries after the October 2016 Board 
63 ‘Special activities’ is a EIB risk classification for riskier projects 

63 

 
 
 
                                                 
-  Lastly, the complexity of the process and  the difficulty of co-financing  with European 
Structural and Investment Funds due to the rules hinder the mixing with these Funds.  

  The  cooperation  with  National  Promotional  Banks/National  Promotional  Institutions  and 
investment  platforms  started  recently.  Currently,  NPBs/NPIs  are  searching  for  the  best 
cooperation  in  their  local  markets,  which  is  sometimes  difficult  due  to  their  lower 
maturity/capabilities.  As  at  30  June  2016,  no  investment  platform  had  been  set  up  yet, 
but  this  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  it  takes  time  and  depends  on  the  regulatory 
environment.  Also  more  information  is  needed  about  the  specific  role  of  the  EIB  in  the 
platforms  and  there  is  a  need  for  Technical  Assistance  to  set  them  up,  especially  in  the 
EU13. 

Effectiveness 

  EFSI  approvals  are  on  track  after  its  first  year.  However,  actual  signatures  are  lagging 
behind (at 21% of the 315 billion target). This is especially true for the IIW, partly due to 
the nature of projects financed under the IIW, which take a long preparation time. Also, it 
takes  time  to  develop  new  (more  risky)  products  under  this  window.  Hence,  a  ramp  up  is 
expected in the coming years.  

  In  terms  of  mobilisation  of  private  and  public  capital,  a  multiplier  of  15  is  targeted. 
Currently  the  expected  multiplier  for  the  signed  actions  is  14.1.  It  is  at  this  stage  too 
early  to  assess  whether  with  the  upcoming  projects  the  target  multiplier  of  15    will  be 
reached on the total portfolio after 3 years. This is a point for attention in the selection 
of  new  projects  in  the  context  of  the  performance  of  the  portfolio  as  a  whole.  However, 
the EIB expects the IIW multiplier to increase as the EIB is expected to ramp up the roll-
out of new products that are higher leveraged than the more classic products which were 
mainly  used  during  the  first  year  of  EFSI.  We  note  that  mobilising  private  finance  is  a 
valid  objective  of  EFSI.  However,  the  objective  of  closing  investment  gaps  and  market 
needs  through  offering  the right solutions to  the right projects throughout the countries 
and sectors should be even more important. 

  In terms of the objectives relating to growth and jobs, no targets have been set for EFSI. 
The  EIB  Group  will  work  on  modelling  tools  to  estimate  the  impact.  We  would  very  much 
welcome  the  monitoring  of  indicators  relating  to  growth  and  jobs,  as  these  are  the 
ultimate objectives of the investments.  

Efficiency 

  As mentioned above, the overall multiplier needs to increase somewhat in order to reach 

the expected investment level. This improvement is expected by the EIB (see above). 

  Governance  structures  are  in  place  and  are  working  well.  There  are  only  a  few  minor 

issues for improvement.  

  Relating to the speed of approval of actions, some beneficiaries and intermediaries under 

the IIW have indicated the need to speed-up the approval/due diligence process.  

  Although  stakeholders  are  aware  of  the  support  which  can  be  provided  by  EFSI,  further 
effort is needed to explain the specific products and the role of the investment platforms. 
New  products  will  require  further  promotion  and  explanation  in  order  to  avoid 
misunderstanding  and  to  ensure  a  quick  take  up.  Up  until  now,  direct  contacts  with  EIB 
and EIF prove to be the most frequently used channel. Local promotion is in the process of 
being taken up and needs to be further reinforced.  

Additionality, Coherence and Added Value 

  Firstly, in terms of added value, the new products developed by the EIB for taking higher 
risks,  are  additional  to  the  products  the  EIB  already  provided.  These  new  products  are 

64 

 
 
 
valued  by  the  market,  although  sometimes  perceived  as  still  not  risky  enough.  Some 
beneficiaries indicated that the EFSI support is cheaper compared to other investors and 
support  has  a  longer  tenor  than  alternative  support  instruments.  These  are  important 
elements  to  be  assessed  in  order  to  avoid  potential  market  distortion  and  to  guarantee 
additionality.  

  Additionality  is  a  key  issue  and  linked  in  the  Regulation  to  ‘Special  Activity’  as  per  the 
EIB's governing documents. However, in some cases Special Activities are not perceived by 
the  market  as  having  a  higher  risk  compared  to  what  the  commercial  market  can  offer. 
The survey and interviews, especially those with NPBs, indicate that some of the financed 
projects  could  have  been  financed  without  EFSI  whereas  others  could  not  have  been 
financed to the same extent. However, in general, the fact that the promoters decided on 
EFSI  financing  suggests  that  the  alternatives  did  not  provide  the  financing  to  the  same 
extent, conditions or in the same time frame.  

  Special Activities identified by the EIB tend to be channelled to EFSI as from the moment 
that  projects  are  eligible  for  EFSI  funding,  rather  than  first  exhausting  its  capacity  to 
undertake  Special  Activities  on  its  own-funds,  in  order  to  retain  some  flexibility  to 
manage the expectations of clients in the event of refusal by the Investment Committee. 
Hence,  there  is  a  risk  that  projects  that  normally  would  have  been  financed  by  the  EIB 
without EFSI support are now covered by EFSI and thus hinder the additionality principle.   

  In  our  opinion,  the  assessment  whether  to  provide  the  EU  Guarantee  should  go  beyond 
‘ticking  the  box’  of  Special  Activities,  but  should  evolve  towards  fully  understanding 
whether the EU  guarantee is used as  designed. The project applications  submitted to the 
EFSI  Investment  Committee  for  support  under  the  IIW  revealed  a  growing  substantiating 
description of  the Additionality aspect. However the market (NPBs, beneficiaries) is still 
in  doubt  whether  additionality  is  always  met.  For  the  future,  this  remains  a  crucial 
parameter  for an  optimal usage of the  EU budget and a  maximal contribution of private 
funds alongside to cover risky projects in line with EFSI policy. Overall, there is a need to 
better  clarify/define  the  concept  of  additionality,  which  is  understood  differently  by  the 
various stakeholders. In order to improve transparency, within the constraints imposed by 
commercially sensitive information, the decisions by the Investment Committee should be 
made public, including a justification for the decision. 

  In  terms  of  complementarity,  there  is  a  high  complementarity  with  COSME  and  InnovFin, 
as  EFSI  enables  to  ‘frontload’  these  funds  to  respond  to  the  market  needs.  For  ESIF,  the  
Commission  and  EIB  Group  see  an  added  value  in  combining  EFSI  with  ESIF.  However, 
regulatory  issues  complicate  this  combination,  which  are  partly  addressed  in  a  proposal 
for amendment for the Common Provisions Regulation for ESIF. At the same time, ESIF is 
in  certain  cases  seen  as  a  competitor  to  EFSI.  Especially  in  Cohesion  countries,  projects 
will be rather financed through ESIF in order to absorb those funds in time. Concerning the 
financial  instruments  under  CEF  and  Horizon  2020,  there  is  an  indication  that  EFSI 
competes and the risk is that EFSI covers projects that could have been financed by these 
instruments.  

  In  terms  of  added  value,  the  projects  are  scored  by  EIB  on  different  criteria,  such  as 
contribution  to  the  EFSI  objectives,  additionality,  economic  and  technical  viability  of  the 
projects  and  maximisation  of  private  investment.  However,  in  accordance  with  the 
Delegated  Act  of  the  Scoreboard,  there  is  no  definition  on  a  minimum  threshold  per 
criterion, nor a weighting. The NPBs could be even stronger partners locally. Indeed, they 
have access to local beneficiaries and understand the market needs. Hence, they can help 
in  offering  complementary  solutions  jointly  with  EFSI,  benefiting  in  the  maximum 
multiplier effect on financing.  

65 

 
 
 
EU Guarantee 

  The EU guarantee was used for the upfront financing of SMEs and Midcaps under  COSME 
and InnovFin and was relevant as there was a high demand for the products offered under 
those initiatives. For the IIW, the guarantee is used as a first loss piece for the supported 
operations, allowing the EIB to take on higher risk. In this sense, the guarantee proved to 
be relevant.  

  Despite  the  recent  start  and  objectives  set  at  the  end  of  the  3-year  period,  the  EU 
Guarantee proved adequate to cover investments done by the EIB and EIF under EFSI. The 
division  between  the  IIW  and  the  SMEW  needs  to  be  monitored,  there  was  a  recent  shift 
and a potential further shift towards the SMEW may be envisaged. 

  As market conditions have not been changed and there is a high demand for risk financing, 

the Guarantee still responds to the identified needs. 

  The EU Guarantee is efficient and effective, however  some changes have been made and 
are  suggested  for  future  optimal  usage  (increased  size  of  SMEW  guarantee  coverage, 
multiple portfolios, subordinated debt treatment, currency fluctuations). The scope of this 
evaluation did not include a detailed quantitative analysis of the relationship between the 
size of the guarantee versus the portfolio risk, which was carried out by the Commission 
in  its  evaluation.  However  so  far  the  current  provisioning  rate  of  the  Guarantee 
Fund   (50%)  is  estimated  to  be  higher  than  the  amount  needed  to  cover  the  risk  on  the 
EFSI portfolio (33,4%). 

  So far there have been no calls under the guarantee.  

  The  procedures  on  the  decision  to  approve  the  use  the  EU  guarantee  and  the  minimum 

thresholds for the different assessment criteria could be made clearer. 

EIAH 

Relevance and Effectiveness  

  The EIAH was set up in September 2015. Its governance structure is in place and it started 
working on developing the activities relating to its mission as indicated in the Regulation. 

  In  terms  of  relevance,  there  is  a  high  need  for  technical  assistance  support  and  it  is 
expected  by  stakeholders  that  this  need  will  grow  in  the  coming  years.    In  terms  of  its 
mandate  to  provide  a  single  point  of  entry  for  technical  assistance  for  authorities  and 
project  promoters,  the  EIAH  website  acts  as  a  good  access  point,  although  the  EIAH  is 
reached through existing contacts within the EIB and the EC.  

- 

- 

In  terms of effectiveness and the type  of support provided  to the users  of  the EIAH 
services so far, it is clear that due  to  the  short  existence  of  EIAH,   not  all expected 
services are  fully  developed and promoted  yet. The services  currently  provided have 
included  assistance  in  the  structuring  of  projects  to  improve  access  to  financing; 
project  development  support,  upstream  or  policy  advice,  market  studies,  sector 
strategies, and project screening. Also financial advice is provided, but there has been 
less  activity  for  instance  in  the  in  the  support  provided  for  setting  up  investment 
platforms  and  in  the  field  of  training  on  project  development  or  peer-to-peer 
exchange and  sharing  of know-how with NPBs and other advisory  services.  It should 
be  noted  that  there  are  ongoing  advisory  programmes  in  the  latter  areas  directly 
provided by other parts of EIB. 

To  date,  the  capacity  of  the  Hub  itself  has  not  yet  reached  the  level  required  to 
provide  for  all  the  support  mentioned  in  the  mandate.  Considering  the  capacity 
66 

 
 
 
 
currently  available,  the  Hub  rather  directs  the  promoters  to  the  right  services 
provided  by  the  EIB  or  to  other  service  providers.  However,  the  legal  basis  and  the 
resulting  work  programmes  indicate  also  the  need  for  the  Hub  to  provide  actual 
advisory  support  through  the  resources  made  available  under  the  EIAH  budget. 
Moreover,  there  is  demand  to  develop  services  within  the  Member  States  that  lack 
capacity. A complicating factor for this is that NPBs do not always have the capacity 
to  provide  such  services  and,  in  case  they  have  this  capacity,  there  may  be 
administrative issues in terms of contracting for delivering these services under the 
EIAH umbrella.  

  Also  in  terms  of  relevance,  as  concerns  sector  coverage,  the  sectors  where  the  requests 
for EIAH support are most frequent are Energy, Transport and Urban / rural development, 
which is in line with the mandate given by the EFSI Regulation. 

- 

Until  June  2016,  the  geographical  spread  of  the  services  is  good  and  covers  27 
Member States. However, reaching all regions where needs are greatest, central and 
eastern regions in particular, requires more awareness raising and targeted sourcing , 
for  which  the  Hub  needs  local  presence  or  to  develop  partnerships  with  NPBs/local 
service providers.  

  Concerning  the  support  for  investment  platforms,  it  is  clear  that  there  will  be  a  higher 
demand for services in this field. However, up to the end of June 2016  very few requests 
relating  to  investment  platforms  have  been  received    by  EIAH  but  various  concepts  are 
being explored.  

  It  is  still  too  early  to  provide  a  general  conclusion  on  the  effective  use  of  existing 
expertise by the EIAH, as this is being established. Nonetheless, some NPBs are uncertain 
on  the  scope  and  nature  of  the  future  cooperation  between  the  NPBs  and  the  EIAH, 
meaning that there is still room for clarifying and strengthening the cooperation between 
the National Promotional Banks and the Hub. 

Efficiency 

  It is too early to provide a valid conclusion on the efficiency of the EIAH. Concerning the 
budget, the Hub is in a ramp up phase and therefore the budget has not been fully used so 
far, and higher absorption is expected in the forthcoming years.  

  No issues have been identified as concerns the governance model, but as noted, there is a 
demand from Member Stes to adjust the model to bring more local  provision of services. 
The  EIB,  also  thanks  to  resources  made  available  under  the  Hub,    already  has  positive 
experience  with  provision  of  services  at  local  level  (Greece)  and  it  is  recommended  to 
replicate it also in other selected countries according to needs. 

  The  awareness  on  the  services  of  the  EIAH  is  still  relatively  limited.  Stakeholders  that 
became  acquainted  with  the  EIAH  were  mainly  directed  to  it  through  contact  with  EIB 
staff.  The  EIAH  started  only  recently,  but  a  wider  promotion  and  communication  on  the 
services of the EIAH is clearly a point for attention.  

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Added value and complementarity 

  Although there is a high need for support, the support provided up till now by the EIAH is 
perceived  as  not  tailored  enough  to  the  information  needs  and  response  times  are 
perceived  as  too  long.  It  is  clear  that  the  EIAH  is  still  in  the  process  of  developing  its 
services, and in this process the development of tailored services is a point for attention. 
However, there is a balance to be achieved in this respect since more tailored services by 
necessity takes more time. 

  So far the EIAH has received feedback once from its users through a structured procedure. 
It  is  clear  that  in  order  to  make  sure  that  the  opinion  of  stakeholders  is  taken  into 
account and that services are constantly improved, a more systematic feedback procedure 
will need to be established beyond the already planned client survey. 

  There is a clear need for the advisory services that the Hub should provide or direct 
to.  In  terms  of  complementarity,  there  are  services  provided  by  others,  such  as 
private  sector  consultants,  trade  and  commercial  associations,  NPBs,  Commission 
funded  technical  assistance  services,  etc.  .  It  is  therefore  important  the  EIAH  team 
continue to exercise care in avoiding crowding out of the private sector and ensuring 
complementarity. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2  Recommendations 

EFSI 

  In  terms  of  relevance,  it  is  firstly  recommended  to  complement  the  key  parameter  of 
Additionality  of  the  EFSI  operations  financed  than  is  currently  the  case  with  the  Special 
Activity selection criteria. The aim is to avoid crowding out other sources of financing and 
to guarantee added value. In order to increase the additionality and relevance of EFSI, it 
is recommended that the EIB takes a higher risk position, by e.g. granting more equity type 
instruments  or  to  finance  in  a  subordinated  manner.  It  is  furthermore  recommended  to 
maintain/increase  monitoring  of  and  communication  on  the  additionality  in  the  portfolio 
of  projects,  both  internally  (provide  better  guidelines  for  EIB  staff)  and  externally  to 
avoid criticism from stakeholders and increase transparency.  

  Secondly, in order to better address the needs of countries that currently make less use of 
EFSI support, it is recommended to further investigate the specific needs and market gaps 
in these countries and work out concrete solutions to transform these needs in bankable 
project to facilitate their ability for absorption of EFSI. If market gaps in the EU13 prove 
to  be  higher  than  market  gaps  in  the  EU15,  one  could  argue  that  EFSI  support  could  be 
better allocated than it is right now. We recommend to further tailor financial products to 
the EU13  needs, to critically look at the  suitability  of the eligibility criteria, and  to take 
actions  to  improve  further  the  capacity  development  for  the  preparation  for  projects  to 
be supported under EFSI.  

  In  view  of  the  need  to  better  address  financing  of  smaller  projects,  attention  should  be 
paid to offering better solutions for smaller projects under the IIW. A potential solution is 
suggested by the bundling of projects and a stronger cooperation with other investors in 
local  markets.  We  recommend  to  get  a  better  view  on  the  need  for  large  projects  under 
EFSI, as there are indications  that this  need is relatively limited as compared to  smaller 
projects.  

  In terms of added value, a positive recommendation for EIB (especially under the IIW) is to 
continue its recent development of new tailor made products for higher risk financing (e.g. 
more equity type financing). 

  EFSI  support  is  effective  in  terms  of  approvals  (1/3  approved  after  1/3  time),  however 
signatures and disbursements need to speed up in order to reach the targeted investment 
amount.  We  recommend  to closely  review  the procedures and  to investigate where  these 
can be streamlined. A close monitoring is recommended.  

  EFSI  support  is  effective  in  increasing  access  to  financing  and  mobilizing  private  capital 
(63%  private  investment,  14.1  expected  multiplier).  However,  we  recommend  to  assess 
whether  the  expected  multiplier  will  be  reached  and  to  monitor  future  evolution  in  this 
respect.  This  parameter  is  important,  but  should  not  be  managed  to  the  detriment  of 
higher priority criteria such as relevance and additionality. 

  As  the  ultimate  goal  is  to  contribute  to  growth  and  jobs,  we  recommend  to  identify 
relevant  indicators  and  to  establish  monitoring  procedures  to  reveal  information  on  the 
contribution of EFSI to these objectives.  

  In our view, contribution to the EFSI objectives and additionality should be the criteria to 
which  a  project  should  highly  contribute.  We    recommend  to  define  these  as  important 
parameters in the project selection criteria and to establish a minimum threshold for the 
different criteria in the scoreboard.  

  In  terms  of  coherence,  we  recommend  to  further  structure  and  enable  complementarity 
with  and  avoid  overlap  with  other  funds  (CEF,  H2020,  ESIF,  co-financing  with  NPBs  & 
banks). This is more urgent in certain countries (EU13) or sectors. 

69 

 
 
 
  In terms of efficiency, we recommend to further raise awareness on EFSI, its products and 
especially  to  communicate  and  explain  the  possibilities  for  the  set-up  of  investment 
platforms and the role EIB will have in these platforms. Communication methods could be 
improved, both internally within EIB Group and within EFSI governance structures (MD, IC, 
EIB,  EIF,  EIAH,  SG),  and  externally  with  the  market  and  all  relevant  stakeholders 
(NPBs/NPIs, Investment platforms, Banks, Project sponsors, MAs).  

EU Guarantee 

  We recommend to better weigh the different assessment criteria in the scoreboard and to 
set minimum criteria/thresholds, where possible, for each of the four criteria according to 
their  importance.  We  recommend  to  monitor  in  greater  detail  and  through  clear 
procedures  that  the  usage  of  the  EU  Guarantee  fully  complies  with  EFSI's  eligibility 
criteria and its policy objectives.  

  We recommend to clearly monitor the allocation of the EU Guarantee budget between the 
IIW  and  the  SMEW.  A  further  shift  following  the  recent  budget  re-allocation  may  be 
needed if the SMEW continues to evolve at its current pace. 

  The  EU  Guarantee  has  been  effective  in  supporting  riskier  activities  in  the  two  windows, 

however we suggest to further increase the support to high risk project financing. 

  In terms of efficiency, we recommend to closely follow up on the future evolution  of risk 
on  the  EFSI  portfolio  to  assess  whether  the  provisioning  rate  of  the  Guarantee  Fund 
remains adequate.  

EIAH 

  In order to raise awareness and understanding on the services the EIAH can provide, it is 
recommended  in  terms  of  relevance  and  effectiveness,  to  increase  communication  and 
raise awareness  on potential  services with relevant  EIAH  stakeholders  through  different 
communication channels, including direct contacts in the countries. 

  To reach full implementation of its mission and throughout the EU-28, it is recommended 
that the capacity of the Hub is increased, and that a stronger local support is  needed in 
order to enforce more tailor made assistance, based on the specific situation and needs in 
the  country.  This  cooperation  will  also  serve  the  coordination  and  coherence  of  the 
services  provided  by  the  EIAH  and  other  suppliers.  Special  attention  should  be  paid  to 
those countries that have less capacity available within the institutions. There is also an 
issue  relating  to  the  administrative  arrangements  for  the  services  provided  by 
decentralized organizations under the EIAH umbrella 

  It  is  recommended  to  monitor  the  speed  of  delivery  of  EIAH  services  and  to  provide  an 

estimation of the average deliveries timing on the EIAH webpage.  

  It  is  furthermore  recommended  to  establish  a  formal  feedback  procedure,  to  track 

customer satisfaction and steer activities accordingly. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendices 

Annex 1 Abbreviations  

CEF 

COSME 

EASI 

EC  
EFSI 
EIAH 
EIB 
EIF 

EIPP 

ESIF 

EU 

FI 

IC 

Innovfin 

IPE 

IWW 

MD 

NPB 

NPI 

RCR 

SB 

SME 

SMEG 

SMEW 

Connecting Europe Facility 

(EU  Programme  for  the)  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises 
and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 

(EU Programme for) Employment and Social Innovation  

European Commission 
European Fund for Strategic Investments 
European Investment Advisory Hub 
European Investment Bank 
European Investment Fund 

European Investment Project Portal 

European Structural and Investment Fund 

European Union 

Financial Intermediary 

Investment Committee 

EU Finance for Innovators 

Investment Plan for Europe 

Infrastructure and Innovation Window 

Managing Director 

National Promotional Bank 

National Promotional Institutions 

Risk Capital Resource 

Steering Board 

Small and medium sized enterprises 
SME Guarantee Facility 

Small and medium sized enterprises Window 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2 Glossary  

Additionality 

EFSI Agreement 

EIAH Agreement 

Investment platforms 

Mid-cap companies 

National 
institutions 

promotional 

banks 

or 

Small  and  medium-sized  enterprises’ 
or ‘SMEs’ 

The  support  by  the  EFSI  of  operations  which  address 
market failures or sub-optimal investment situations and 
which could not have been carried out in the period during 
which  the  EU  guarantee  can  be  used,  or  not  to  the  same 
extent,  by  the  EIB,  the  EIF  or  under  existing  Union 
financial  instruments  without  EFSI  support.  Projects 
supported  by  the  EFSI  shall  typically  have  a  higher  risk 
profile than projects supported  by EIB normal operations 
and  the  EFSI  portfolio  shall  have  overall  a  higher  risk 
profile than the portfolio of investments supported by the 
EIB under its normal investment policies before the entry 
into force of Regulation  
(EU)  2015/1017  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF 
THE  COUNCIL  of  25  June  2015  on  the  European  Fund  for 
Strategic Investments, the European Investment Advisory 
Hub and the European Investment Project Portal. 

The legal instrument whereby the Commission and the EIB 
specify the conditions laid down in this Regulation for the 
management of the EFSI 

The legal instrument whereby the Commission and the EIB 
specify the conditions laid down in this Regulation for the 
implementation of the EIAH 

Special  purpose  vehicles,  managed  accounts,  contract-
based  co-financing  or  risk-sharing  arrangements  or 
arrangements  established  by  any  other  means  by  which 
entities  channel  a  financial  contribution  in  order  to 
finance  a  number  of  investment  projects,  and  which  may 
include:  
(a)  national  or  sub-national  platforms  that  group 
together several investment projects on the territory of a 
given Member State;  
(b)  multi-country  or  regional  platforms  that  group 
together  partners  from  several  Member  States  or  third 
countries  interested  in  projects  in  a  given  geographic 
area;  
(c)  thematic  platforms  that  group  together  investment 
projects in a given sector. 

Entities having up to 3 000 employees that are not SMEs 
or small mid-cap companies 

Legal  entities  carrying  out  financial  activities  on  a 
professional  basis  which  are  given  a  mandate  by  a 
Member  State  or  a  Member  State's  entity  at  central, 
regional  or  local  level,  to  carry  out  development  or 
promotional activities 

micro,  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  as  defined  in 
Article  2  of  the  Annex  to  Commission  Recommendation 
2003/361/EC ( 1 ) 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Small mid-cap companies 

Entities having up to 499 employees that are not SMEs 

73 

 
 
 
  
 
 
Annex 3 Interview topic lists  

Interview questions EC 

1.  What developments do you see in investment gaps and market needs since the start 

of EFSI? 

2.  Has EFSI been able to help address market gaps? How? What are the features of EFSI 

that are responding to the needs? Which features are less relevant? 

3.  Please  elaborate  on  the  role  of  the  EFSI  (EIB  and  EIF)  and  EIAH  in  achieving  the 

objectives of the EFSI Regulation? 

4.  How do you expect these market gaps to develop in the coming years? Why? 

5. 

Is  EFSI  sufficiently  funded  to  address  all  market  gaps?  Why/why  not? 
Recommendations on the most relevant use of EFSI in the future? 

6.  All  EFSI  operations  approved  until  now  were  ‘special  activities’  hence  ‘additional’ 
according  to  the  EFSI  Regulation.  Do  you  think  that  the  concept  of  ‘additionality’ 
could be refined/ improved? How?  

7.  How  do  you  see  the  coherence/overlap  with  other  Union  instruments?  What  are  the 

main issues? 

8.  To  what  extent  are  the  governance  structures  of  the  EFSI  that  are  in  place,  namely 
the Investment Committee, the Managing Director, the Deputy Managing Director and 
the Steering Board efficient and effective in helping the implementation of the EFSI? 

9.  Are there issues in supporting financing of projects across all sectors? What needs to 

be done to ensure a spread over the different sectors? 

10. Which  are  the  reasons  why  EFSI  focused  on  specific  sectors,  e.g.  transport,  energy, 

ICT, SMEs etc. (and less on e.g. social infrastructure, environment)?  

11. Are  there  issues  in  supporting  financing  of  projects  across  all  regions/  all  MSs? 

Please, elaborate on regional specific issues. 

12. What needs to be done to overcome these issues? 

13. To what extent have the NPBs and Investment platforms supported the Commissions’ 

objectives? 

14. What  needs  to  be  done  to  attract  more  private  finance?  What  are  possible 

bottlenecks? 

15. What is the role of the EU guarantee? 

16. Has the EU guarantee been effectively used so far? Did it evolve and why? 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
17. How will the financing supported by the EU guarantee be used in the coming 5 years? 

What are the main needs (size, sectors, and geography)? 

18. Are  there  any  bottlenecks  in  the  management  of  the  Guarantee  Fund?  Do  you  think 

that the call procedures are well designed? 

19. How does the EC contribute to achieve the objectives of the EFSI Regulation? Do you 

think that the EC experience could be used differently? 

20. Any recommendations for the most relevant use of the EIAH in the future? 

21. How to ensure and monitor maximum job creation and growth?  

Guarantee Fund 

22. How  is  the  Guarantee  Fund  used  over  time?  What  are  the  main  needs  (sectors, 

geography)? 

23. How did the use of the Guarantee Fund evolve and why? 

24. Are there any bottlenecks for the use of the Guarantee Funds? 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
Interview questions EIAH 

1.  What developments do you see in investment gaps and market needs since the start 

of EIAH? 

2.  How do you expect these will develop in the coming years? Why? 

3.  How will this affect your support? 

4.  What activities did you employ in relation to your mission? (Coverage of TA and other 

services  in  relation  to  the  objectives,  cooperation  with  partners  and  frequency  of 

cooperation in relation to the objectives?) 

New unmet needs found and addressed 

5.  To  what  extent  has  the  EIAH  discovered  unmet  needs?  Which  needs  have  been 

discovered? 

6.  Who contacted you for advice? Mainly project sponsors, public authorities, other? 

7.  Which type of assistance did you offer to your users? 

8.  Have  you  been  able  to  develop  new  advisory  services  based  on  the  needs  of  the 

beneficiaries? 

9.  Do  you  feel  the  beneficiaries  of  the  EIAH  were  satisfied  with  the  assistance  they 

received? Where do you think you can improve? 

10. How many of the advisory requests received by EIAH led to EFSI support?  

Single point of access 

11. To what extent  do you function as a  single point of access for technical  assistance? 

Do you feel beneficiaries recognise this function? 

12. How  visible  is  the  EIAH  as  a  single  point  of  entry  for  technical  assistance  for 

authorities and project promoters? Could the EIAH visibility be improved, if so how? 

13. How  do  you  see  the  coherence/overlaps  with  other  advisory  services  (e.g.  Jaspers, 

ELENA etc.)? What are the main issues? 

76 

 
 
 
 
Sectoral and geographical spread 

14. To  what  extent  do  you  manage  to  reach  all  regions  and  sectors?  What  are  the  main 

bottlenecks? What do you undertake to address those? 

15. In which sectors is the demand for advisory services the highest? What is the reason 

for this and why do other sectors require less advisory services? 

16. Which  sectors  are  you  supporting  most  effectively?  What  is  the  reason  for  this 

effectiveness and could you leverage this to other sectors? 

17. Based  on  the  requests  the  EIAH  has  received,  what  are  the  main  difficulties  in 

generating  projects  across  all  sectors?  Please  elaborate  on  sector  specific  issues. 

What needs to be done to overcome these issues? 

18. What  are  the  main  difficulties  in  generating  projects  across  all  regions?  Please, 

elaborate  on  regional  specific  issues.  What  needs  to  be  done  to  overcome  these 

issues? 

Advisory services 

19. Did  any  NPB  consult  the  EIAH  for  assistance/advice?  What  was  the  scope  of  the 

advice? 

20. To what extent does the EIAH ensure peer-to-peer exchange, share of know-how and 

support to project promoters? Are there any bottlenecks? What can be improved? 

21. How  and  to  what  extent  have  you  been  able  to  leverage  the  knowledge  and 

experience  from  the  EIB,  the  Commission,  NPBs,  the  Managing  Authorities  and  other 

Union authorities? 

22. How do you think EIAH will contribute to further generation of the pipeline? Are there 

any improvements needed? 

23. What is the added value of the support of EIAH to projects to its beneficiaries in your 

opinion? 

24. Do you monitor feedback you receive from beneficiaries? How could feedback be more 

efficiently used to improve the hub? 

77 

 
 
 
Funding 

25. Is the EIAH sufficiently funded to meet its’ objectives? In case of bottlenecks, explain. 

Operational structure and recommendations 

26. How is the operational structure organised and is there a clear division of tasks?  

27. Any other recommendations for the future functioning of the EIAH? 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
Interview questions EIB/EIF 

Market development 

1.  What developments do you see in investment gaps and market needs since the start 

of EFSI? Are there geographical and sectoral differences in this? 

2.  Has EFSI been able to help address market gaps? How? What are the features of EFSI that are 

responding to the needs? Which features are less relevant?  

3.  How do you expect these market gaps will develop in the coming years? Why? 

4. 

Is EFSI sufficiently funded to address all market gaps? Why/why not? Recommendations on the 
most relevant use of EFSI in the future? 

5.  Are there issues in generating projects across all sectors? 

6.  How  do  you  see  the  coherence/overlap  with  other  Union  instruments?  What  are  the 

main issues? 

7.  To  what  extent  are  the  governance  structures  of  the  EFSI  that  are  in  place,  namely 

the Investment Committee, the Managing Director, the Deputy Managing Director and 

the Steering Board efficient and effective in helping the implementation of the EFSI? 

Project generation 

8.  What  are  the  main  difficulties  in  generating  projects  across  all  sectors?  Please 

elaborate on sector specific issues. 

9.  Are there issues in generating projects across all regions? 

10. What  are  the  main  difficulties  in  generating  projects  across  all  regions?  Please 

elaborate on regional specific issues. 

11. What needs to be done to overcome these issues? 

12. How has the project pipeline developed over time? 

13. What  are  your  projections  in  terms  of  project  pipeline  over  the  coming  years 

(increase, decrease, remain stable, what about geographical and sectoral coverage)? 

79 

 
 
 
 
14. To  what  extent  have  the  NPBs  and  Investment  platforms  supported  the  EFSI 

objectives? How? 

Private finance, additionality and coherence 

15. What  needs  to  be  done  to  attract  more  private  finance?  What  are  the  possible 

bottlenecks? 

16. How do you assess the additionality of the supported projects? 

17. How  do  you  see  the  coherence/overlaps  with  other  instruments?  What  are  the  main 

issues? 

18. How do you stimulate and monitor the effects of EFSI on employment? 

EIAH 

19. How do you perceive the support from the EIAH? 

20. How do you think EIAH will contribute to further generation of the pipeline? Are there 

any changes needed? 

21. Which sectors or regions are best supported by EIAH? How to increase the coverage? 

22. Any recommendations for amendments in the design of EFSI or EIAH? 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interview questions National Promotional Banks (‘NPBs’)   

Market gaps 

1.  What developments do you see in investment gaps and market needs since the start 
of EFSI? How do you expect these market gaps to develop in the coming years? Why? 

2.  Which of the sectors are the most relevant (in your country), in terms of highest need 

for filling the financing gaps/market failure?  

3.  Are there any sectors that should be added to EFSI? 

4.  Has EFSI been able to help address market gaps? How? What are the features of EFSI 
that are responding to  the  needs?  Which features are less relevant? To  what  extent 
would the investment in the project(s) have been financed without EFSI? 

5. 

Is there a difference in this between the SME window and the other sectors? 

6.  What could be your role in best addressing investment gaps and market needs? 

7.  Did you encounter any geographical project concentration? 

Cooperation 

8.  Do you have a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) with the EIB in place? 

If yes, what is the scope?  

9.  And are you planning to extend the scope of this MoU? If no MoU, what is the reason? 

Do you intent to sign a MoU in the near future? 

10. How do you assess the cooperation with EIB? 

11. How do you assess the cooperation with EIF? 

12. To  what  extent  would  the  investment  in  the  project(s)  have  been  financed  without 

EFSI support? 

13. What is the feedback you receive in your market on EFSI? 

14. Would Investment Platforms have an added value? 

Competing initiatives 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15. Are  there other  financial  solutions available,  similar  to  those  offered  by  the  EIB/EIF 

under EFSI that could be used instead of EFSI? 

16. How  did  you  perceive  the  activities  of  the  EIB/EIF  within  your  market?  Do  you 

considerer it as competition or are activities complementary?  

17. To  what  extent  would  the  investment  in  the  project(s)  have  been  financed  without 

EFSI support? 

18. What is the feedback you receive in your market on EFSI? 

EIAH 

19. Do you have a MoU with EIAH? What does it cover? 

20. How do you perceive the functioning of the EIAH?  

21. Do you promote their services? 

22. To your opinion, are project promoters sufficiently aware of the support that can be 

provided by the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH, ‘The Hub’)? 

23. Are you planning to deepen your relationship with EIAH?  

24. Do  you  have  recommendations  for  the  optimal  support  of  the  EIAH  and  your 

cooperation with them? 

Promotion 

25. Is EFSI effectively promoted and has it reached all potential users? 

26. To what extent would a wider promotion lead to a higher demand/use of EFSI? 

Bottlenecks 

27. Are there any problems in the design of EFSI that hinder the use of EFSI? 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4 Outcomes Survey  

Evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 - NPBs  

Live 

04-10-2016 

25-10-2016 

17 days 

35 

en 

Panelist count: 

Bounced: 

Declined: 

Partial completes: 

Screened out: 

Reached end: 

45 

4 (8,9%) 

0 (0%) 

3 (25%) 

0 (0%) 

9 (75%) 

Total responded: 

12 (26,7%) 

Status: 

Start date: 

End date: 

Live: 

Questions: 

Languages: 

Filter is Off 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  In which country(ies)  did/will your  project(s)  receive EIB  financing with  EFSI  support?  (more  than 
one answer possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Austria 

Belgium 

Croatia 

Czech Republic 

France 

Germany 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Whole EU 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Total respondents: 12 

Skipped question: 0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

8 

8 

17 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  To  what  extent  would  the  investment  in  the  project(s)  have  been  financed  without  EFSI  support 
(SME window) (in case of more than one supported investment, please take the average): 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

The  project(s)  would  not  have  been  financed 
without EFSI support 

The  project(s)  would  have  been  partly  financed 
and  as  a  result  the  scope  would  have  been 
reduced 

The project(s) was not going to be realised in the 
envisaged time period without EFSI support 

The  project(s)  would  have  been  financed  for 
100% from other sources 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

1 

3 

0 

3 

0 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

11 

33 

  0 

33 

  0 

22 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  To  what  extent  would  the  investment  in  the  project(s)  have  been  financed  without  EFSI  support 
(infrastructure and innovation window) (in case of more than one supported investment, please take 
the average): 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

The  project(s)  would  not  have  been  financed 
without EFSI support 

The  project(s)  would  have  been  partly  financed 
and  as  a  result  the  scope  would  have  been 
reduced 

The project(s) was not going to be realised in the 
envisaged time period without EFSI support 

The  project(s)  would  have  been  financed  for 
100% from other sources 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

0 

1 

0 

3 

3 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

11 

  0 

33 

33 

22 

4. Which of the sectors are the most relevant in your country, in terms of highest need for filling the 
financing gaps/market failure? (more than one answer possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Research, development and innovation 

Energy sector 

Transport 

SMEs/ Mid-cap companies 

ICT 

Environment and resource efficiency 

Human capital, culture and health 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

5 

3 

3 

6 

3 

5 

4 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

56 

33 

33 

67 

33 

56 

44 

  0 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Is there any sector eligible for financing for which there is a potential high need, but which is not 
covered by EFSI? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

No 

Yes (please specify): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

7 

0 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

6. Have the market needs changed since the inception of EFSI in June 2015? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Yes, the needs increased highly 

Yes, the needs increased moderately 

No, the needs are the same 

Yes the needs decreased moderately 

Yes the needs decreased highly 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

1 

2 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

78 

  0 

22 

% 

11 

22 

67 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. Which needs should EFSI address differently? 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 2000 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total respondents: 2 

Skipped question: 7 

Total 

% of total respondents 

2 

% 

17 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

8.  How  do  you  expect  the  funding  needs  for  risky  projects  (that  will  not  be  financed  by  banks)  to 
evolve in the next 5 years? The demand for financing of projects with a high risk profile will: 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Decrease 

Slightly decrease 

Remain at its current level 

Slightly increase 

Increase 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

1 

2 

1 

5 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

11 

22 

11 

56 

  0 

  0 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.1. In which fields/sectors do you expect the highest need for EFSI support in the coming years? 

  Research, development and innovation 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Low 

2 Medium 

3 High 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,44 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

5 

4 

0 

% 

  0 

56 

44 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

9.2. In which fields/sectors do you expect the highest need for EFSI support in the coming years? 

  Energy sector 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Low 

2 Medium 

3 High 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

3 

3 

3 

0 

% 

33 

33 

33 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.3. In which fields/sectors do you expect the highest need for EFSI support in the coming years? 

  Transport 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Low 

2 Medium 

3 High 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 1,89 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

3 

4 

2 

0 

% 

33 

44 

22 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

9.4. In which fields/sectors do you expect the highest need for EFSI support in the coming years? 

  SMEs/ Mid-cap companies 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Low 

2 Medium 

3 High 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,22 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

3 

4 

0 

% 

22 

33 

44 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.5. In which fields/sectors do you expect the highest need for EFSI support in the coming years? 

 

ICT 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Low 

2 Medium 

3 High 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,22 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

5 

3 

0 

% 

11 

56 

33 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

9.6. In which fields/sectors do you expect the highest need for EFSI support in the coming years? 

  Environment and resource efficiency 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Low 

2 Medium 

3 High 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,44 — Median: 2,50 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

3 

5 

0 

% 

11 

33 

56 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.7. In which fields/sectors do you expect the highest need for EFSI support in the coming years? 

  Human capital, culture and health 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Low 

2 Medium 

3 High 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,22 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

3 

4 

0 

% 

22 

33 

44 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

9.8. In which fields/sectors do you expect the highest need for EFSI support in the coming years? 

  Other, please specify 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Low 

2 Medium 

3 High 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 0 — Median: 0 

Total respondents: 1 

Skipped question: 8 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

0 

0 

1 

% 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  100 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10. Are there any problems in the design of EFSI that hinder the use of EFSI? (more than one answer 
possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Eligibility criteria 

Changed market needs 

Financial conditions  (pricing,  maturity, collateral 
requirements, other covenants) 

Minimum/Maximum  size  of  the  EFSI  financing 
support 

Governance 

Decision process 

Complexity of process 

Complexity  of  rules  for  co-financing  with  the 
Structural funds 

No specific problems 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

0 

6 

2 

2 

4 

4 

6 

0 

1 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

22 

  0 

67 

22 

22 

44 

44 

67 

  0 

11 

  0 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11. To what extent is EFSI effectively promoted and has it reached all potential users? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

The  instrument  is  widely  known  by  potential 
users 

The  instrument  is  partly  known  by  potential 
users 

The instrument is unknown by potential users 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

1 

6 

1 

1 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

12. To what extent would a wider promotion lead to a higher demand/use of EFSI? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

The use would largely grow 

The use would moderately grow 

The use would remain the same 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

0 

7 

1 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

11 

67 

11 

11 

  0 

% 

  0 

78 

11 

  0 

11 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13.  Are  there  other  financial solutions  available,  similar  to  those  offered  by  the  EIB/EIF  under  EFSI, 
that could be used instead of EFSI? (more than one answer possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

No 

Yes, 
(guarantees/loans/equity, not grants) 

regional/national 

resources 

Yes, EU budget sources (guarantees/loans/equity, 
not grants) 

Yes, National Promotional Banks 

Yes, other sources (please, specify): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

7 

5 

8 

2 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

14.1. How would you compare the other financial solutions available to the EFSI support? 

  Other solutions are easier to apply for 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 1,89 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

6 

1 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

11 

78 

56 

89 

22 

  0 

% 

22 

67 

11 

  0 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14.2. How would you compare the other financial solutions available to the EFSI support? 

  Other solutions are better addressing local/regional needs 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 1,56 — Median: 1,50 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

4 

5 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

14.3. How would you compare the other financial solutions available to the EFSI support? 

  Other solutions better comply with local/regional legislation 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,33 — Median: 2,50 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

2 

5 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

44 

56 

  0 

  0 

% 

22 

22 

56 

  0 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14.4. How would you compare the other financial solutions available to the EFSI support? 

  Other solutions have a lower administrative burden 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 1,89 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

6 

1 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

14.5. How would you compare the other financial solutions available to the EFSI support? 

  Other, please specify 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 1 — Median: 1 

Total respondents: 2 

Skipped question: 7 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

22 

67 

11 

  0 

% 

50 

  0 

  0 

50 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15. Have you already set up an Investment platform? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

No (please, specify why not): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

6 

2 

% 

11 

67 

22 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

16. Please,  share your opinion on the added value of Investment Platforms: (more than one answer 
possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

There is no to limited added value 

They  would  have  an  added  value  in  financing 
projects from different sources 

They  would  have  an  added  value  in  financing 
smaller projects 

They  would  have  an  added  value  in  financing 
projects with a higher risk profile 

They  would  provide  an  added  value  in  (please, 
specify): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

0 

2 

3 

5 

1 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

22 

33 

56 

11 

22 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17.1. How would you assess the added value of combining EFSI financing with other EU sources: (e.g. 
European Structural and Investment Funds, Connecting Europe Facility or Horizon 2020) 

  European Structural and Investment Funds 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High added value 

2 Reasonable added value 

3 Limited added value 

4 No added value 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

4 

0 

1 

2 

% 

22 

44 

  0 

11 

22 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

17.2. How would you assess the added value of combining EFSI financing with other EU sources: (e.g. 
European Structural and Investment Funds, Connecting Europe Facility or Horizon 2020) 

  Connecting Europe Facility 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High added value 

2 Reasonable added value 

3 Limited added value 

4 No added value 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 1,67 — Median: 1 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

3 

2 

1 

0 

3 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

33 

22 

11 

  0 

33 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17.3. How would you assess the added value of combining EFSI financing with other EU sources: (e.g. 
European Structural and Investment Funds, Connecting Europe Facility or Horizon 2020) 

  Horizon 2020 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High added value 

2 Reasonable added value 

3 Limited added value 

4 No added value 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 1,71 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

5 

0 

0 

2 

% 

22 

56 

  0 

  0 

22 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

17.4. How would you assess the added value of combining EFSI financing with other EU sources: (e.g. 
European Structural and Investment Funds, Connecting Europe Facility or Horizon 2020) 

  Other, please specify 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High added value 

2 Reasonable added value 

3 Limited added value 

4 No added value 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 1 — Median: 1 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 6 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

67 

  0 

  0 

  0 

33 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18. If you have already committed resources to the Investment Plan for Europe, how do you plan to 
use them? (more than one answer possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

IIW debt 

IIW equity 

SMEW debt 

SMEW equity 

Investment platform 

None of the above 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

4 

2 

3 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

% 

44 

22 

33 

11 

22 

22 

11 

33 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

19.  Do  you  have  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  (‘MoU’)  concerning  the European  Investment 
Advisory Hub (EIAH) in place? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

No 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

8 

1 

0 

% 

89 

11 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20. If you have a Memorandum of Understanding, what is the purpose and scope? Would you like to 
extend the scope of this MoU? 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 2000 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total respondents: 4 

Skipped question: 5 

Total 

% of total respondents 

4 

% 

33 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

21. If you do not have a 'MoU', what is the reason? Do you intent to sign an MoU in the near future? 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 2000 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total respondents: 1 

Skipped question: 8 

Total 

% of total respondents 

1 

% 

8 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

22. The European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH, 'The Hub') was launched just  over a year ago. To 
what extent are you aware of the services provided by 'The Hub'? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Fully aware of the services 

Aware to a large extent 

Partly aware of the services 

Not aware of the services 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

2 

4 

3 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

22 

44 

33 

  0 

  0 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23. How do you see your role in your relationship with EIAH? (more than one answer possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Users 

Relays 

Partners 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

3 

8 

1 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

24. Are you planning to deepen your relationship with EIAH? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

Maybe 

No, please specify why: 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

5 

2 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

33 

89 

11 

  0 

% 

22 

56 

22 

  0 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25. Are you promoting the services offered by EIAH? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

No 

Yes (please, specify how): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

5 

2 

% 

22 

56 

22 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

26. To your opinion, are project promoters sufficiently aware of the support that can be provided by 
the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH, 'The Hub')? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes, they are aware 

A large part are aware 

A small part are aware 

No, they are not aware at all 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

1 

6 

1 

1 

% 

  0 

11 

67 

11 

11 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27. Have you made use of the services offered by EIAH  or are you aware of project promoters that 
have? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

No 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

3 

4 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

28. What type of advisory services were sought? (more than one answer possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Project identification 

Project preparation 

Support  to  structuring  projects  to  improve  their 
access to finance 

Implementation  and  management  of  Financial 
Instruments 

Project implementation/ delivery 

Procurement 

State aid 

Capacity building 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 4 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

2 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

33 

44 

22 

% 

67 

67 

67 

67 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
29. What was the sectoral / field context? (more than one answer possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Energy infrastructure 

Transport 

Telecommunications 

Research, development and innovation 

Environment and resource efficiency 

Human capital, culture and health 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 4 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

% 

33 

  0 

33 

  0 

  0 

33 

33 

33 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

30. Do you consider the services of the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH, 'The Hub') as useful 
in terms of support for project identification, preparation and development? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

To a large extent 

Partly 

No 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 4 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

67 

  0 

  0 

  0 

33 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
31.1.  To  what  extent  do  you  consider  the  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  (EIAH,  'The  Hub') 
effective in: 

  Acting  as  a  single  point  of  entry  to  a  wide  range  of  advisory  and  technical  assistance 
programmes 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Not effective 

2 Moderately effective 

3 Very effective 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,50 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 4 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

1 

1 

1 

% 

  0 

33 

33 

33 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

31.2.  To  what  extent  do  you  consider  the  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  (EIAH,  'The  Hub') 
effective in: 

  A cooperation platform to leverage, exchange and disseminate expertise among the EIAH 
partner institutions and beyond 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Not effective 

2 Moderately effective 

3 Very effective 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 4 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

67 

  0 

33 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
31.3.  To  what  extent  do  you  consider  the  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  (EIAH,  'The  Hub') 
effective in: 

  An  instrument  to  assess  and  address  new  needs  by  reinforcing  or  extending  existing 
advisory services or creating new ones as demand arises 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Not effective 

2 Moderately effective 

3 Very effective 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,50 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 4 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

1 

1 

1 

% 

  0 

33 

33 

33 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

31.4.  To  what  extent  do  you  consider  the  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  (EIAH,  'The  Hub') 
effective in: 

  Providing advice on the establishment of investment platforms 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Not effective 

2 Moderately effective 

3 Very effective 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 4 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

67 

  0 

33 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
32. In what other area(s) you would have liked to receive support from EIAH? (more than one answer 
possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

None 

Project identification 

Project preparation 

Support  to  structuring  projects  to  improve  their 
access to finance 

Implementation  and  management  of  Financial 
Instruments 

Project implementation/ delivery 

Procurement 

State aid 

Capacity building 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 4 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

% 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

  0 

  0 

33 

33 

  0 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

33.  Are  there  other  initiatives  that  you  know  of  that  provide  the  same  services  as  the  European 
Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH, 'The Hub') 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Yes, the same services are provided by other(s) 

Yes,  the  same  services  are  partly  provided  by 
other(s) 

No, the services of the EIAH are unique 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 4 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

  100 

  0 

  0 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
34. Which initiatives would you consider similar or potentially overlapping with the services provided 
by the EIAH? (more than one answer possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Private sector consultancy 

Other International organisations 

National Promotional Bank/ Institution 

EC funded TA facility 

Trade and commercial association 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

  0 

35. Do you have any recommendations on how to improve the EFSI design and/or implementation? 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 2000 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total respondents: 5 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of total respondents 

5 

% 

42 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 - intermediaries  

Live 

05-10-2016 

24-10-2016 

16 days 

29 

Partial completes: 

Screened out: 

Reached end: 

4 (28,6%) 

0 (0%) 

10 (71,4%) 

Total responded: 

14 

Status: 

Start date: 

End date: 

Live: 

Questions: 

Filter is Off 

1.  In  which  country(ies)  your  business/project,  for  which  you  received  EFSI  support,  is/will  be 
implemented? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Belgium 

Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Luxembourg 

Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Whole EU 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

1 

8 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

14 

7 

57 

14 

14 

7 

21 

7 

7 

7 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Please, specify your type of organisation: 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Private entity 

Public entity 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

9 

4 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

3. From which entity did you receive financing? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

EIB 

EIF 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

14 

1 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

64 

29 

7 

% 

  100 

7 

  0 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Please select the field/sector of the project(s):(more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Research, development and innovation 

Energy sector 

Transport 

SMEs/ Mid-cap companies 

ICT 

Environment and resource efficiency 

Human capital, culture and health 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

0 

8 

1 

4 

1 

5 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

57 

7 

29 

7 

36 

  0 

7 

5. Is there any sector eligible for financing for which there is a potential high demand not covered by 
EFSI? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

No 

Yes (please, specify): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

7 

0 

7 

% 

50 

  0 

50 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. How many of your supported  investments have been co-financed by EFSI for the SME window (if 
not known, approximately)? 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 255 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of total respondents 

10 

% 

71 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

7. How many EFSI investments have you co-financed for the infrastructure and innovation window (if 
not known, approximately)? 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 255 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total respondents: 8 

Skipped question: 2 

Total 

% of total respondents 

8 

% 

57 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.  Which  difficulties  did/do  you  encounter  when  searching  for  financing  for your  project(s)? (more 
than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

No market financing was/is available 

available 

The 
expensive 

financing 

offers  were/are 

The available financing was/is insufficient 

The collateral requirements were/are high 

The term of the financing was/is too short or not 
appropriate 

Other conditions of the available financing were 
unfavourable 

We did/do not encounter difficulties 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

10 

20 

20 

20 

30 

10 

20 

30 

9. Could the project(s) have been carried out without EIB/EIF funding with support from EFSI to the 
same extent or within the same timeframe? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

The  project(s)  would  not  have  been  realised  in 
the envisaged time period without the support 

The  project(s)  could  have  been  financed  to  the 
same extent from other sources 

The  project(s)  could  not  have  been  carried  out 
without the support to the same extent or within 
the same timeframe 

I cannot answer 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

4 

1 

6 

1 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

40 

10 

60 

10 

10 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10.  Are  there  other  financial solutions  available,  similar  to  those  offered  by  the  EIB/EIF  under  EFSI, 
which could have been provided to your project, instead of EFSI? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

No 

Yes, 
(guarantees/loans/equity, not grants) 

regional/national 

resources 

Yes, EU budget sources (guarantees/loans/equity, 
not grants) 

Yes, national promotional banks or institutions 

Yes, other resources, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

6 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

% 

60 

10 

  0 

10 

20 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

11.1.  How  would  you  compare  the  other  financial  solutions  available  to  the  EIB/EIF  funding  with 
support from EFSI? 

  Other solutions are easier to apply for 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,57 — Median: 3 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

1 

5 

3 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

10 

10 

50 

30 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11.2.  How  would  you  compare  the  other  financial  solutions  available  to  the  EIB/EIF  funding  with 
support from EFSI? 

  Other solutions are better addressing local/regional needs 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,88 — Median: 3 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

1 

7 

2 

% 

  0 

10 

70 

20 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

11.3.  How  would  you  compare  the  other  financial  solutions  available  to  the  EIB/EIF  funding  with 
support from EFSI? 

  Other solutions better comply with local/regional legislation 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 3 — Median: 3 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

0 

8 

2 

% 

  0 

  0 

80 

20 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11.4.  How  would  you  compare  the  other  financial  solutions  available  to  the  EIB/EIF  funding  with 
support from EFSI? 

  Other solutions have a lower administrative burden 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,50 — Median: 3 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

0 

6 

2 

% 

20 

  0 

60 

20 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

11.5.  How  would  you  compare  the  other  financial  solutions  available  to  the  EIB/EIF  funding  with 
support from EFSI? 

  Other, please specify 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 1 — Median: 1 

Total respondents: 2 

Skipped question: 8 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

0 

0 

1 

% 

50 

  0 

  0 

50 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12. Why did you accept EIB/EIF financing under EFSI? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

EFSI  support  lowered  the  risk  to  other  investors 
by taking a higher risk tranche of the project 

EFSI  support 
investors offered 

is  cheaper  than  what  other 

EFSI support is the only financing available 

EFSI  support 
alternatives 

  has  a 

longer  tenor  than 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

2 

3 

2 

2 

5 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

20 

30 

20 

20 

50 

  0 

13. Would you consider EFSI support as critical/essential for your future projects/business financing? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

Maybe 

No (please explain why): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

5 

4 

1 

0 

% 

50 

40 

10 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14.  Do  you  believe  that  EFSI  support  to  projects/  business  financing  is  suitable  to  address  market 
failures / sub-optimal investment situations and, for SMEs, enhance access to finance? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

Partly 

No (please, explain why): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

7 

3 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

15. Have the market needs addressed by EFSI changed since its inception in June 2015? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Yes, the needs increased highly 

Yes, the needs increased moderately 

No, the needs are the same 

Yes the needs decreased moderately 

Yes the needs decreased highly 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

0 

1 

7 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

70 

30 

  0 

  0 

% 

  0 

10 

70 

10 

  0 

  0 

10 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16. Is EFSI type support needed within your sector of activity? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

High need 

Moderate need 

Low need 

No need 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

4 

5 

0 

0 

1 

% 

40 

50 

  0 

  0 

10 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

17. What are your expectations for the funding needs for risky projects (that will not be fully financed 
by commercial banks) in the next 5 years? The demand for financing of projects with a high risk profile 
will: 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Decrease 

Slightly decrease 

Remain at its current level 

Slightly increase 

Increase 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

0 

3 

1 

3 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

20 

  0 

30 

10 

30 

  0 

10 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18. Did you experience any problems in receiving EFSI financing? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

We did not experience problems 

We experienced minor problems 

We experienced a few significant problems 

We  experienced  many  significant  problems 
(please specify): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

6 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

60 

40 

  0 

  0 

  0 

19. Are there any problems in the design of EFSI that hinder the use of EFSI? (more than one answer is 
possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Eligibility criteria 

Changed market needs 

Financial conditions  (pricing,  maturity, collateral 
requirements, other covenants) 

Minimum/Maximum  size  of  the  EFSI  financing 
support 

Governance 

Decision process 

Complexity of process 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

5 

1 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

20 

10 

10 

10 

  0 

10 

50 

10 

10 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20. To what extent is EFSI effectively promoted and has it reached all potential users? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

The  instrument  is  widely  known  by  potential 
users 

The  instrument  is  partly  known  by  potential 
users 

The instrument is unknown by potential users 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

0 

7 

2 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

21. To what extent would a wider promotion lead to a higher demand/use of EFSI? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

The use would largely grow 

The use would moderately grow 

The use would remain the same 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

3 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

70 

20 

  0 

10 

% 

30 

70 

  0 

  0 

  0 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22. How did you become aware of the EFSI initiative? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

% 

EFSI page on European  Investment Bank  website 
/  European  Commission's  Investment  Plan  for 
Europe webpage 

National Promotional Bank or institution 

Promotional events 

From a colleague 

When  speaking  to  my  EIB/EIF  counterpart  (i.e 
after sending the financing application to the EIB 
group) 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

23. How do you perceive the EIB/EIF application procedure (under EFSI): 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Easy 

Moderately easy 

Difficult 

Very difficult 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

7 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

90 

20 

% 

  0 

70 

20 

  0 

10 

  0 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
24. How do you perceive the time lag between application and signature of the contract? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Too long, it affected my investment negatively 

Too  long,  but  it  did  not  affect  negatively  my 
investment 

Reasonably short 

Short 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

0 

7 

3 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

25. How many months did it take between the application and the contract signature? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

0-3 months 

4-6 months 

7-12 months 

More than 12 months 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

4 

5 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

70 

30 

  0 

% 

10 

40 

50 

  0 

  0 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26. Do you know about the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH)? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

% 

Yes,  I  contacted  the  EIAH  before  receiving  EFSI 
support 

Yes,  I  contacted  the  EIAH  after  receiving  EFSI 
support 

Yes, but I have not contacted the EIAH 

No 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

0 

0 

0 

10 

0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  100 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

27. In case you contacted the EIAH, did you find their response helpful? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

To a large extent 

Partly 

No 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 1 

Total 

% of responses 

% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  100 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
28.1. To what extent do you think EIB contributed in: 

 

Identifying the EFSI project(s) 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High contribution 

2 Contribution to a large extent 

3 Contribution to a small extent 

4 No contribution 

5 I do not know 

- N/A 

Average: 2 — Median: 1 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

4 

2 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

28.2. To what extent do you think EIB contributed in: 

  Providing sufficient information for the financing opportunities 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High contribution 

2 Contribution to a large extent 

3 Contribution to a small extent 

4 No contribution 

5 I do not know 

- N/A 

Average: 2 — Median: 1 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

5 

1 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

40 

20 

  0 

20 

  0 

20 

% 

50 

10 

  0 

10 

10 

20 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
28.3. To what extent do you think EIB contributed in: 

  Ensuring a smooth application process 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High contribution 

2 Contribution to a large extent 

3 Contribution to a small extent 

4 No contribution 

5 I do not know 

- N/A 

Average: 1,56 — Median: 1 

Total respondents: 10 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

5 

3 

1 

0 

0 

1 

% 

50 

30 

10 

  0 

  0 

10 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

28.4. To what extent do you think EIB contributed in: 

  Other, please specify 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High contribution 

2 Contribution to a large extent 

3 Contribution to a small extent 

4 No contribution 

5 I do not know 

- N/A 

Average: 0 — Median: 0 

Total respondents: 1 

Skipped question: 9 

Total 

% of responses 

% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  100 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
29. Do you have any recommendations on how to improve the implementation of EFSI? 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 2000 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total respondents: 3 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of total respondents 

3 

% 

21 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 - Fin.intermed.  

Live 

12-10-2016 

02-11-2016 

9 days 

19 

Partial completes: 

Screened out: 

Reached end: 

4 (22,2%) 

0 (0%) 

14 (77,8%) 

Total responded: 

18 

Status: 

Start date: 

End date: 

Live: 

Questions: 

Filter is Off 

1. Which are the country(ies) of your SME lending/guaranteeing activity, for which you received EFSI 
support? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Belgium 

Czech Republic 

France 

Hungary 

Italy 

Poland 

Spain 

Sweden 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

2 

2 

1 

7 

1 

3 

1 

Total respondents: 18 

Skipped question: 0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

6 

11 

11 

6 

39 

6 

17 

6 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Please, specify your type of organisation: 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Private entity 

Public entity 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 18 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

10 

7 

1 

% 

56 

39 

6 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

3. What is the SME lending volume covered by InnovFin and /or COSME (EFSI) guarantee as compared 
to your overall SME loan origination? 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 255 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of total respondents 

14 

% 

78 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  Could  the SME  financing/guaranteeing have  been  carried  out  without  EFSI  support  to  the  same 
extent and/or targeting the same SME segments and/or with the same features (e.g. level of collateral 
cover)? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

The  SME  financing/guaranteeing  would  not  have 
been realised without the support 

The  SME financing/guaranteeing could have  been 
financed to the same extent from other sources 

The  SME  financing/guaranteeing    could  not  have 
been carried out without the support to the same 
extent or within the same timeframe 

I cannot answer 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

7 

0 

12 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

50 

  0 

86 

  0 

7 

5. Are there other financial solutions available, similar to those offered by the EIF with EFSI support, 
which could have been provided to your SME financing/guaranteeing activity instead? (more than one 
answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

No 

Yes, 
(guarantees/loans/equity, not grants) 

regional/national 

resources 

Yes, EU budget sources (guarantees/loans/equity, 
not grants) 

Yes, national promotional banks or institutions 

Yes, other resources, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

8 

5 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

57 

36 

7 

21 

7 

  0 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.1. How would you compare the other financial solutions available to the EFSI support? 

  Other solutions are easier to apply for 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,50 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

7 

7 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

6.2. How would you compare the other financial solutions available to the EFSI support? 

  Other solutions are better addressing local/regional needs 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,71 — Median: 3 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

4 

10 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

50 

50 

  0 

% 

  0 

29 

71 

  0 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.3. How would you compare the other financial solutions available to the EFSI support? 

  Other solutions better comply with local/regional legislation 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,92 — Median: 3 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

1 

11 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

6.4. How would you compare the other financial solutions available to the EFSI support? 

  Other solutions have a lower administrative burden 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,38 — Median: 2,50 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

4 

7 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

7 

79 

14 

% 

14 

29 

50 

7 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.5. How would you compare the other financial solutions available to the EFSI support? 

  Other, please specify 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 1,75 — Median: 1 

Total respondents: 6 

Skipped question: 8 

Total 

% of responses 

2 

1 

1 

2 

% 

33 

17 

17 

33 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

7. Would you consider EFSI support  as critical/essential for your future SME financing/guaranteeing 
activity? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

Maybe 

No (please explain why): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

11 

3 

0 

0 

% 

79 

21 

  0 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. Do you believe that EFSI support through InnovFin and/or COSME is suitable to enhance access to 
finance for SMEs? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

Partly 

No (please, explain why): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

13 

1 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

9. Is EFSI type support through InnovFin and/or COSME needed within your country? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

High need 

Moderate need 

Low need 

No need 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

10 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

93 

7 

  0 

  0 

% 

71 

29 

  0 

  0 

  0 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10. What are your expectations for the funding needs of SMEs for risky projects in the next 5 years? 
The demand for financing of projects with a high risk profile will: 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Decrease 

Slightly decrease 

Remain at its current level 

Slightly increase 

Increase 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

0 

4 

4 

6 

0 

0 

% 

  0 

  0 

29 

29 

43 

  0 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

11. Did you experience any problems in receiving EFSI support through InnovFin and/or COSME? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

We did not experience problems 

We experienced minor problems 

We experienced a few significant problems 

We  experienced  many  significant  problems 
(please specify): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

9 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

64 

36 

  0 

  0 

  0 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12.  Are  there  any  problems  in  the  design  of  EFSI  through  InnovFin  and/or  COSME  that  hinder  their 
use? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Eligibility criteria 

Changed market needs 

Financial conditions  (pricing,  maturity, collateral 
requirements, other covenants) 

Minimum/Maximum size of the support 

Governance 

Decision process 

Complexity of process 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

9 

0 

4 

2 

0 

1 

1 

6 

0 

% 

64 

  0 

29 

14 

  0 

7 

7 

43 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

13. To what extent were you aware that InnovFin and/or COSME guarantees would benefit from the 
EFSI guarantee support? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Not aware at all 

Aware at the time of application 

Aware only at the time of signature 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

8 

2 

3 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

7 

57 

14 

21 

  0 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14.  To what  extent  would  a  wider  promotion  lead  to  a  higher  demand/use  of  EFSI  and  in  turn  of 
InnovFin and/or COSME? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

The use would largely grow 

The use would moderately grow 

The use would remain the same 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

2 

9 

2 

1 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

14 

64 

14 

7 

  0 

15.  How  did  you  become  aware  of  the  EFSI  initiative  and  the  InnovFin  and/or  COSME  guarantee 
programmes? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

EFSI page on European  Investment Bank  website 
/  European  Investment  Fund  website  /European 
Commission's 
for  Europe 
Investment  Plan 
webpage 

Promotional events 

From a colleague 

When  speaking  to  my  EIB/EIF  counterpart  (i.e 
after sending the financing application to EIF) 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

4 

4 

1 

12 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

29 

29 

7 

86 

7 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16. How do you perceive the EIF application procedure (under COSME and/or InnovFin): 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Easy 

Moderately easy 

Difficult 

Very difficult 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

9 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

17. How do you perceive the time lag between application and signature of the contract? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Too long, it affected my investment negatively 

Too  long,  but  it  did  not  affect  negatively  my 
investment 

Reasonably short 

Short 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

1 

3 

6 

4 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

7 

64 

29 

  0 

  0 

  0 

% 

7 

21 

43 

29 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18. How many months did it take between application and signature of the contract? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

0-3 months 

4-6 months 

7-12 months 

More than 12 months 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 14 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

6 

6 

2 

0 

0 

% 

43 

43 

14 

  0 

  0 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

19.  Do  you  have  any  recommendations  on  how  to  improve  the  implementation  of  EFSI  through 
COSME and/or InnovFin? 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 2000 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total respondents: 9 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of total respondents 

9 

% 

50 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 - final beneficiaries  

Live 

05-10-2016 

31-10-2016 

16 days 

23 

Partial completes: 

Screened out: 

Reached end: 

5 (21,7%) 

0 (0%) 

18 (78,3%) 

Total responded: 

23 

Status: 

Start date: 

End date: 

Live: 

Questions: 

Filter is Off 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  In  which  country(ies)  your  business/project,  for  which  you  received  EFSI  support,  is/will  be 
implemented? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Austria 

Belgium 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Slovakia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Whole EU 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 23 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

% 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

7 

1 

1 

2 

1 

5 

1 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

4 

4 

9 

9 

9 

9 

4 

30 

4 

4 

9 

4 

22 

4 

4 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Please, specify your type of organisation: 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Public entity 

Corporate / project company 

Financial intermediary 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 23 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

3 

18 

0 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

3. From which entity did you receive financing? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

EIB 

EIF 

Financial intermediary 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 23 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

21 

0 

2 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

13 

78 

  0 

9 

% 

91 

  0 

9 

9 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Please select the field/sector of the project(s):(more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Research, development and innovation 

Energy sector 

Transport 

SMEs/ Mid-cap companies 

ICT 

Environment and resource efficiency 

Human capital, culture and health 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 23 

Skipped question: 0 

6 

7 

4 

0 

0 

2 

1 

6 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

5. How many employees does your organisation currently have? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

0-9 

10-49 

50-249 

250-999 

1000-3000 

>3000 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

2 

0 

3 

2 

10 

Total respondents: 18 

Skipped question: 4 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

26 

30 

17 

  0 

  0 

9 

4 

26 

% 

6 

11 

  0 

17 

11 

56 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.  Which  difficulties  did/do  you  encounter  when  searching  for  financing  for your  project(s)? (more 
than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

No market financing was/is available 

available 

The 
expensive 

financing 

offers  were/are 

The available financing was/is insufficient 

The collateral requirements were/are high 

The term of the financing was/is too short or not 
appropriate 

Other conditions of the  available financing were 
unfavourable 

We did/do not encounter difficulties 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

1 

8 

3 

1 

5 

3 

6 

3 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

5 

42 

16 

5 

26 

16 

32 

16 

7. Could the project(s) have been carried out without  EIB/EIF funding with support from EFSI to the 
same extent or within the same timeframe? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

The project(s) was not going to be realised in the 
envisaged time period without the support 

The  project(s)  could  have  been  financed  to  the 
same extent from other sources 

The  project(s)  could  not  have  been  carried  out 
without the support to the same extent or within 
the same timeframe 

I cannot answer 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

4 

7 

4 

1 

4 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

21 

37 

21 

5 

21 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.  Are  there  other  financial  solutions  available,  similar  to  those  offered  by  the  EIB/EIF  under  EFSI, 
which could  have been provided to your project, instead of EFSI? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

No 

Yes, 
(guarantees/loans/equity, not grants) 

regional/national 

resources 

Yes, EU budget sources (guarantees/loans/equity, 
not grants) 

Yes, national promotional banks or institutions 

Yes, other resources, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

8 

2 

0 

3 

3 

4 

% 

42 

11 

  0 

16 

16 

21 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

9.1.  How  would  you  compare  the  other  financial  solutions  available  to  the  EIB/EIF  funding  with 
support from EFSI? 

  Other solutions are easier to apply for 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,83 — Median: 3 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

2 

10 

7 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

11 

53 

37 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.2.  How  would  you  compare  the  other  financial  solutions  available  to  the  EIB/EIF  funding  with 
support from EFSI? 

  Other solutions are better addressing local/regional needs 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,82 — Median: 3 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

2 

9 

8 

% 

  0 

11 

47 

42 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

9.3.  How  would  you  compare  the  other  financial  solutions  available  to  the  EIB/EIF  funding  with 
support from EFSI? 

  Other solutions better comply with local/regional legislation 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,83 — Median: 3 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

2 

10 

7 

% 

  0 

11 

53 

37 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.4.  How  would  you  compare  the  other  financial  solutions  available  to  the  EIB/EIF  funding  with 
support from EFSI? 

  Other solutions have a lower administrative burden 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 2,58 — Median: 3 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

5 

7 

7 

% 

  0 

26 

37 

37 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

9.5.  How  would  you  compare  the  other  financial  solutions  available  to  the  EIB/EIF  funding  with 
support from EFSI? 

  Other, please specify 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Partly 

3 No 

- I cannot answer 

Average: 0 — Median: 0 

Total respondents: 6 

Skipped question: 13 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  100 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10. What features of EFSI do you consider profitable compared to other alternatives? (more than one 
answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

EFSI  support  lowered  the  risk  to  other  investors 
by taking a higher risk tranche of the project 

4 

EFSI  support 
investors offered 

is  cheaper  than  what  other 

EFSI support is the only financing available 

EFSI  support 
alternatives 

  has  a 

longer  tenor  than 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

13 

0 

8 

1 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

21 

68 

  0 

42 

5 

5 

11. Would you consider EFSI support as critical/essential for your future projects/business financing? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

Maybe 

No (please explain why): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

6 

10 

1 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

32 

53 

5 

11 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12.  Do  you  believe  that  EFSI  support  to  projects/  business  financing  is  suitable  to  address  market 
failures / sub-optimal investment situations and, for SMEs, enhance access to finance? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

Partly 

No (please, explain why): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

8 

7 

0 

4 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

13. Is EFSI support needed within your project sector(s)? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

High need 

Moderate need 

Low need 

No need 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

3 

10 

3 

0 

3 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

42 

37 

  0 

21 

% 

16 

53 

16 

  0 

16 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14. What are your expectations for the funding needs for risky projects (that will not be fully financed 
by commercial banks) in the next 5 years? The demand for financing of projects with a high risk profile 
will: 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Decrease 

Slightly decrease 

Remain at its current level 

Slightly increase 

Increase 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

0 

6 

5 

4 

1 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

15. Did you experience any problems in receiving EFSI financing? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

We did not experience problems 

We experienced minor problems 

We experienced a few significant problems 

We  experienced  many  significant  problems 
(please specify): 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

14 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

5 

  0 

32 

26 

21 

5 

11 

% 

74 

21 

  0 

  0 

5 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16. How did you become aware of the EFSI initiative? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

EFSI page on European  Investment Bank  website 
/  European  Commission's  Investment  Plan  for 
Europe webpage 

National Promotional Bank or institution 

Promotional events 

From a colleague 

When  speaking  to  my  EIB/EIF  counterpart  (i.e 
after sending the financing application to the EIB 
group) 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

4 

0 

3 

0 

14 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

17. How do you perceive the EIB/EIF application procedure (under EFSI): 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Easy 

Moderately easy 

Difficult 

Very difficult 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

11 

4 

0 

1 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

21 

  0 

16 

  0 

74 

11 

% 

5 

58 

21 

  0 

5 

11 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18. How do you perceive the time lag between application and signature of the contract? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Too long, it affected my investment negatively 

Too  long,  but  it  did  not  affect  negatively  my 
investment 

Reasonably short 

Short 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

0 

6 

12 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

19. How many months did it take between the application and the contract signature? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

0-3 months 

4-6 months 

7-12 months 

More than 12 months 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

1 

9 

7 

1 

1 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

32 

63 

5 

% 

5 

47 

37 

5 

5 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20. Do you know about the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH)? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total 

% of responses 

Yes,  I  contacted  the  EIAH  before  receiving  EFSI 
support 

Yes,  I  contacted  the  EIAH  after  receiving  EFSI 
support 

Yes, but I have not contacted the EIAH 

No 

Other, please specify 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

0 

0 

2 

15 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

21. In case you contacted the EIAH, did you find their response helpful? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

To a large extent 

Partly 

No 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total respondents: 17 

Skipped question: 2 

Total 

% of responses 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

14 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

  0 

  0 

11 

79 

11 

% 

  0 

6 

  0 

6 

6 

82 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22.1. To what extent do you think EIB/EIF contributed in: 

 

Identifying the EFSI project(s) 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High contribution 

2 Contribution to a large extent 

3 Contribution to a small extent 

4 No contribution 

5 I do not know 

- N/A 

Average: 1,69 — Median: 1 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

9 

4 

2 

1 

0 

3 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

22.2. To what extent do you think EIB/EIF contributed in: 

  Providing sufficient information for the financing opportunities 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High contribution 

2 Contribution to a large extent 

3 Contribution to a small extent 

4 No contribution 

5 I do not know 

- N/A 

Average: 1,44 — Median: 1 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

9 

7 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

% 

47 

21 

11 

5 

  0 

16 

% 

47 

37 

  0 

  0 

  0 

16 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22.3. To what extent do you think EIB/EIF contributed in: 

  Ensuring a smooth application process 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High contribution 

2 Contribution to a large extent 

3 Contribution to a small extent 

4 No contribution 

5 I do not know 

- N/A 

Average: 1,61 — Median: 1 

Total respondents: 19 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of responses 

9 

7 

2 

0 

0 

1 

% 

47 

37 

11 

  0 

  0 

5 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

22.4. To what extent do you think EIB/EIF contributed in: 

  Other, please specify 

(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.) 

Response 

1 High contribution 

2 Contribution to a large extent 

3 Contribution to a small extent 

4 No contribution 

5 I do not know 

- N/A 

Average: 0 — Median: 0 

Total respondents: 2 

Skipped question: 17 

Total 

% of responses 

% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  0 

  100 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23. Do you have any recommendations on how to improve the implementation of EFSI? 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 2000 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total respondents: 2 

Skipped question: 0 

Total 

% of total respondents 

2 

% 

9 

0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 - EIAH  

Closed 

05-10-2016 

08-11-2016 

35 days 

18 

Partial completes: 

Screened out: 

Reached end: 

Total responded: 

1 (6,7%) 

0 (0%) 

14 (93,3%) 

15 

Status: 

Start date: 

End date: 

Live: 

Questions: 

Filter is Off 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  In  which  country(ies)  will/is  implemented  your  business/project,  for  which  you  contacted  the 
European investment advisory hub (EIAH)? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Hungary 

Italy 

Latvia 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Other, please specify 

Total  % of responses 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Total respondents: 15 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

% 

13 

7 

7 

13 

13 

13 

7 

7 

13 

13 

7 

13 

13 

7 

7 

7 

7 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Please, specify your type of organisation: 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Public entity 

Corporate / project company 

Financial intermediary 

Other, please specify 

Total  % of responses 

10 

2 

0 

3 

Total respondents: 15 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

3. When did you ask for EIAH advice? (please, specify MM/YYYY) 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 255 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total  % of total respondents 

14 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 1 

% 

67 

13 

0 

20 

% 

93 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. How did you get to know the EIAH? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

EIAH Website 

Commission website 

EIB staff 

Promotional activity (conferences, social media) 

(National Promotional) Bank 

Professional network 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total  % of responses 

5 

3 

9 

6 

1 

4 

2 

0 

% 

36 

21 

64 

43 

7 

29 

14 

0 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

5. The European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH, 'The Hub') was launched just over a year ago. How 
visible  is  the  EIAH  as  a  single  point  of  entry  for  technical  assistance  for  public  entities  and  project 
promoters? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Very visible 

Visible 

Not very visible 

Not visible at all 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total  % of responses 

0 

6 

8 

0 

0 

0 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

% 

0 

43 

57 

0 

0 

0 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. What type of advisory services were sought?  (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Project identification 

Project preparation 

Support to structuring projects to improve their access to 
finance 

Implementation and management of Financial Instruments 

Project implementation/ delivery 

Procurement 

State aid 

Capacity building 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total  % of responses 

3 

8 

9 

4 

3 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

% 

21 

57 

64 

29 

21 

7 

0 

7 

14 

0 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. What sector/field does your project (or project idea) cover? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Energy infrastructure 

Transport 

Telecommunications 

Research, development and innovation 

Environment and resource efficiency 

Human capital, culture and health 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total  % of responses 

2 

6 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

0 

% 

14 

43 

7 

21 

21 

21 

21 

0 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

8.  Have the  needs  in  this sector  (or  these sectors)  for  technical  assistance changed  since  the EIAH’s 
inception in September 2015? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total  % of responses 

Yes, the needs increased highly 

Yes, the needs increased moderately 

No, the needs are the same 

Yes the needs decreased moderately 

Yes the needs decreased a lot 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

2 

6 

4 

0 

0 

0 

2 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

% 

14 

43 

29 

0 

0 

0 

14 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9. How do you expect the needs for technical assistance to evolve in the next 5 years? The demand for 
technical assistance will: 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Decrease 

Slightly decrease 

Remain at its current level 

Slightly increase 

Increase 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total  % of responses 

0 

2 

1 

4 

4 

0 

3 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

10. What type of assistance did you receive from the EIAH? (more than one answer is possible) 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

Total  % of responses 

Received information on financing opportunities 

Was directed to another source of information/institute to 
receive information 

Received concrete advisory support for project 
development and implementation 

Received guidance and feedback on project development 
and eligibility criteria 

Received training on project development and eligibility 
criteria 

Took part in peer-to-peer exchange and sharing know how 
regarding project development 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

5 

2 

6 

5 

1 

1 

4 

0 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

% 

0 

14 

7 

29 

29 

0 

21 

% 

36 

14 

43 

36 

7 

7 

29 

0 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11. Did you receive tailored information that was specifically dedicated to answer your question? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Yes 

To a large extent 

To some extent 

No 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total  % of responses 

3 

2 

4 

4 

1 

0 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

12. Were you satisfied with the assistance provided by the EIAH? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Very satisfied 

Satisfied 

Satisfied to some extent 

Not satisfied 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total  % of responses 

3 

1 

3 

4 

3 

0 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

% 

21 

14 

29 

29 

7 

0 

% 

21 

7 

21 

29 

21 

0 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13. Was your request for technical advice dealt with within a reasonable timeline? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

1 Yes, completely 

2 Yes, to a large extent 

3 Yes, to some extent 

4 No, the timeline was too long 

- I cannot answer 

Total  % of responses 

3 

2 

3 

3 

3 

% 

21 

14 

21 

21 

21 

Average: 2,55 — Median: 2,50 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

14. In what other area(s) you would have liked to receive support from EIAH? 
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.) 

Response 

None 

Project identification 

Project preparation 

Support to structuring projects to improve their access to 
finance 

Implementation and management of Financial Instruments 

Project implementation/ delivery 

Procurement 

State aid 

Capacity building 

Other, please specify 

I cannot answer 

Total  % of responses 

3 

0 

1 

4 

5 

2 

0 

2 

3 

2 

0 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

% 

21 

0 

7 

29 

36 

14 

0 

14 

21 

14 

0 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15.  Are  there  other  initiatives  that  you  know  of  that  provide  the  same  services  as  the  European 
Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH, 'The Hub') 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

Total  % of responses 

yes, the same services are provided by other(s) 

yes, the same services are partly provided by other(s) 

no, the services of the EIAH are unique 

I cannot answer 

0 

3 

6 

5 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

16. Do you consider the EIAH website application process as user friendly? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Yes, to a large extent 

3 Yes, to small extent 

4 No 

- I cannot answer 

Total  % of responses 

2 

6 

1 

1 

4 

% 

0 

21 

43 

36 

% 

14 

43 

7 

7 

29 

Average: 2,10 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17. Is the description of the EIAH services provided on its website sufficiently clear? 
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.) 

Response 

1 Yes 

2 Yes, to a large extent 

3 Yes, to small extent 

4 No 

- I cannot answer 

Total  % of responses 

3 

5 

2 

1 

3 

% 

21 

36 

14 

7 

21 

Average: 2,09 — Median: 2 

Total respondents: 14 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 0 

18. Do you have any recommendations for improving the advisory services provided by the European 
Investment Advisory Hub? 
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 2000 characters.) 

Response 

Open answer 

Total  % of total respondents 

5 

% 

33 

Total respondents: 5 

0% 

20%  40%  60%  80% 

Skipped question: 9 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5 Bibliography 

for 

Centre 
European 
Policy 
Studies 
EIB 

EIB 

EIB 

EIB 

EIB 

EIB 

EIB 

EIB 

EC 

EC 

EC 

EC 

EC 

EC 

EC 

EC 

2016,  Europe’s  Untapped  Capital  Market  Rethinking  financial  integration  after  the 
crisis, Final Report of the European Capital Markets Expert Group Chaired by Francesco 
Papadia 

Brussels. July 2015. Agreement on the management of the European Fund for Strategic 
Investments and on the granting of the EU Guarantee between the European Union and 
the European Investment Bank.  

Brussels.  July  2015.  Framework  Agreement  on  the  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub 
between the European Union and the European Investment Bank.  

July 2015. Board of directors. Report of the European Parliament and European Council 
on the European Investment Advisory Hub. 

July  2015.  Specific  Grant  Agreement  ECFIN-119-2015/SI2.712039  implementing  the 
Framework  Partnership  Agreement  on  the  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  between 
the European Union and the European Investment Bank for the year 2015. 

July 2016. Board of Directors. Report to the European Parliament and European Council 
on the European Investment Advisory Hub.  

August  2016.  Specific  Grant  Agreement  ECFIN-147-2016/SI2.735750  implementing  the 
Framework  Partnership  Agreement  on  the  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  between 
the European Union and the European Investment Bank for the year 2016. 

September 2016.  Operations Evaluation. Evaluation of the functioning of the European 
Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI). 

October 2016. Debora Revoltella. Does Higher Public Investment lead to more growth? 

July 2015. Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
25 June 2015 on the European Fund for Strategic Investments, the European Investment 
Advisory  Hub  and  the  European  Investment  Project  Portal  and  amending  Regulations 
(EU)  No  1291/2013  and  (EU)  No  1316/2013  —  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments.  

Brussels. July 2015. Communication from  the Commission  to  the European  Parliament 
and the Council. Working together for jobs and growth: The role of National Promotional 
Banks (NPBs) in supporting the Investment Plan for Europe.  

December  2015.  Amendment  No  1  to  the  Specific  Grant  Agreement  ECFIN-119-2015  / 
S12.712039  Implementing  the  Framework  Partnership  Agreement  on  the  European 
Investment Advisory Hub - Transmittal for signature. 

Brussels.  May  2016.  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council, and the European Court of Auditors on the management of the Guarantee Fund 
for the European Fund for Strategic Investment in 2015.  

September  2016.Financial  Counsellors  Working  Party  Meeting:  Commission  Staff 
Working Document EFSI Evaluation. 

Strasbourg. September 2016. State of the Union 2016: The European Fund for Strategic 
Investments (EFSI) – Frequently Asked Questions. 

Brussels. June 2016. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, 
the European Council, the Council, the European economic and social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions. Europe investing again. Taking stock of the Investment Plan 
for Europe and next steps. 

Brussels. September 2016. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of 
the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) 2015/1017 as regards the 
extension of the duration of the European Fund for Strategic Investments as well as the 
introduction  of  technical  enhancements  for  that  Fund  and  the  European  Investment 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
EC 

EFSI 

EFSI 

EFSI 

EFSI 

EFSI 

EFSI 

EFSI 

EFSI 

EFSI 

EFSI 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

EIAH 

task 

EU 
force 
Lopez  de 
Silanes 
Molina, 
Prof. 
Florencio 
et al 

Other 

Other 

Advisory Hub. 

Brussels.  September  2016.  Corrigendum  of  SWD(2016)297  final  of  14/9/2016 
concerning  only  the  correction  of  wrong  numbering  of  sub-chapters.  Commission  staff 
working document. Evaluation accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of 
the European Parliament and of the Council.  

December  2015.  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  Steering  Board.  EFSI 
Strategic Orientation. 

December  2015.  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  IIW  and  SMEW.  Annual 
operational report. 

December 2015. EFSI – SME Window. Semi-annual operational report. 

December 2015. European Fund for Strategic Investments IIW and SMEW Schedule II of 
the EFSI Agreement Annual Operational Report Reporting date: 31 December 2015. 

February  2016.  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  Steering  Board.  Rule 
applicable to  operations with  investment  platforms  and  national  promotional  banks  or 
institutions. 

June 2016. EFSI - SME Window-Semi-annual operational report.  

June 2016. EFSI - IIW and SME Mid-year operational report. 

June  2016.  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  IIW  and  SMEW  Schedule  II  of  the 
EFSI Agreement Mid-Year Operational Report Reporting date: 30 June 2016. 

July 2016. Call procedure under EFSI. 

July  2016.  Procedure  on  Monitoring  of  Calls  and  Payments  under  the  EU  Guarantee 
under EFSI. 

2015. Technical and financial report. 

December 2015. EFSI-SME Window, semi-annual operational report. 

December 2015. Annual operational report. 
March 2016. Update on EIAH requests, situation as of 31/03/2016 

June  2016.  Bi-annual  technical  report,  January-June  2016  from  European  Investment 
Advisory Hub. 
June 2016. Update on EIAH requests, EIAH Data as of 30/06/2016. 
June 2016. Mid-year operation report, 30/06/2016. 
June 2016. EFSI-SME Window, semi-annual operational report, 30/06/2016. 
July 2016. Update on EIAH requests, situation as of 31/07/2016 
August 2016. Update on EIAH requests, EIAH Data as of 31/08/2016. 

August 2016. European Investment Advisory Hub, state of play. 

Rules of procedure. 
Pricing policy for the services delivered under the EIAH. 
Key performance indicators (KPI) for the EIAH. 

What is the European Investment Advisory Hub? 

Investment  Offensive  for  Europe:  EU  Task  Force  identifies  2.000  potential  projects 
worth €1,3 trillion. 

The European Capital Markets Study, Estimating the Financing Gaps of SMEs, 2015 

December 2014. Special Task Force (Member States, Commission, EIB) on investment in 
the EU - Final Task Force Report. 
Restoring EU competitiveness, 2016 Updated version. 

171 

 
 
 
Other 

Other 

Other 

Other 

Other 

(EU)  N°1291/2013  and 

Investments  and  amending  Regulations 

March 2015. European Court of Auditors. Opinion N°4/2015 concerning the proposal for 
a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  European  Fund  for 
Strategic 
(EU) 
N°1316/2013. 
March  2016.  KPMG.  Report  of  factual  findings  resulting  from  the  agreed-upon 
procedures  as  at  31  December  2015  in  relation  to  INFRASTRUCTURE  and  INNOVATION 
WINDOW (IIW) Schedule III of ‘the Agreement on the Management of the European Fund 
for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and on the granting of the EU Guarantee’ between the 
EUROPEAN  UNION  and  the  EUROPEAN  INVESTMENT  BANK  for  the  period  from  22  July 
2015 to 31 December 2015. 
EFSI IIW – Q2 2016 RISK Profile Report. 
September 2016. InnovFin SME Guarantee. 
September 2016. COSME Loan Guarantee Facility 2014-2020. 

172 

 
 
 
EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory 

About EY 
EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory 
services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust 
and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. 
We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to 
all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a 
better working world for our people, for our clients and for our 
communities. 

EY refers to the global organization and/or one or more of the member 
firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate 
legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by 
guarantee, does not provide services to clients.  
For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com. 

This report contracted by the European Commission was written by 
EY.  

173