COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the European Fund for Strategic Investments, of the European Investment Advisory Hub, and of the European Investment Project Portal Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the InvestEU Programme
Date: 2018-06-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, capital market, competitiveness, database, digitisation, fund (EU), innovation, investment, single market, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.6.2018  SWD(2018) 316 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the European Fund for Strategic Investments, of the European Investment Advisory Hub, and of the European Investment Project Portal  Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  establishing the InvestEU Programme {COM(2018) 439 final} - {SEC(2018) 293 final} - {SWD(2018) 314 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................................... III 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1  PURPOSE AND SCOPE ....................................................................................................................... 2 

2 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ................................................................................ 4 

2.1  DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES ............................................................. 4 

3 

STATE OF PLAY .............................................................................................................................. 8 

3.1  EUROPEAN FUND FOR STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS ........................................................................... 8 
3.2  THE EU GUARANTEE ....................................................................................................................... 9 
3.3  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT ADVISORY HUB ....................................................................................... 9 
3.4  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT PROJECT PORTAL .................................................................................. 10 

4  METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 12 

5  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .................................... 16 

5.1  EUROPEAN FUND FOR STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS ......................................................................... 16 
5.2  THE EU GUARANTEE ..................................................................................................................... 45 
5.3  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT ADVISORY HUB ..................................................................................... 47 
5.4  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT PROJECT PORTAL .................................................................................. 51 

6  CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 55 

6.1  EUROPEAN FUND FOR STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS ......................................................................... 55 
6.2  THE EU GUARANTEE ..................................................................................................................... 58 
6.3  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT ADVISORY HUB ..................................................................................... 59 
6.4  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT PROJECT PORTAL .................................................................................. 59 
6.5  LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................................................................ 60 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 63 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ................................................................................ 68 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS .................................................................... 88 

ANNEX 4: EIB PRODUCTS UNDER EFSI IIW ................................................................................ 113 

ANNEX 5: POTENTIAL OVERLAPS – DEBT & EQUITY PRODUCTS SUPPORTING 
LENDING TO SMES, 2014-2020 ......................................................................................................... 114 

I 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Figures 

Figure 1 - The Investment Plan for Europe ..................................................................................... 1 
Figure 2 - The EFSI: the EU Guarantee and the EIB risk bearing capacity ................................... 5 
Figure 3 - EFSI state of play as of 12 April 2018 ........................................................................... 8 
Figure 4 - Published projects per Member State as of end March 2018 ....................................... 11 
Figure 5 - Project review analysis ................................................................................................. 13 
Figure 6 - Investment as a % of GDP in EU28 ............................................................................. 16 
Figure  7  -  Share  of  private  finance  mobilised  in  total  EFSI  investment  mobilised  and  in  the 
estimated annual EU investment gap ............................................................................................ 18 
Figure 8 - EFSI geographical distribution (both windows) .......................................................... 19 
Figure 9 - Sectoral distribution of the EFSI support - IIW ........................................................... 20 
Figure 10 - SMEW sectoral distribution ....................................................................................... 21 
Figure 11 - EFSI Scoreboard ........................................................................................................ 22 
Figure 12 - Impact of EFSI and the wider EIB Group on the EU GDP and employment ............ 28 
Figure 13 - Project promoters under IIW on EFSI application and appraisal procedure .............. 30 
Figure 14 - Evaluation of time elapsed between approvals and signature, IIW ........................... 31 
Figure 15 - EU programmes and portfolio of financial instruments ............................................. 32 
Figure 16 - Annual commitments made under EIB’s InnovFin products ..................................... 32 
Figure 17 - Risk profile of the EFSI operations compared to non-EFSI EIB operations ............. 39 
Figure 18 - Access to alternative financing .................................................................................. 41 
Figure 19 - Would the project have gone ahead to the same extent and timescale without EFSI 42 
Figure 20 - Comparative advantages of EIB financing under EFSI ............................................. 42 
Figure 21 - EIB Special Activities vs standard EIB operations in 2014-2017 ............................. 46 
Figure 22 - Proportion of EFSI in EIB’s Special Activities ......................................................... 46 
Figure 23 - EIPP - State of play (March 2018) ............................................................................. 52 

List of Tables  

Table 1 - The split of the EU Guarantee and its development over time ........................................ 9 
Table 2 - Targeted surveys conducted and the response rate ........................................................ 13 
Table 3 - Investment level forecasts ............................................................................................. 17 
Table 4 - Increase in the number of approved equity type operations under EFSI IIW ............... 21 
Table 5 - EFSI 1.0 performance compared to initial expectations ................................................ 23 
Table 6 - EFSI support - state of play per window ....................................................................... 23 
Table 7 - EFSI multipliers at aggregate & window level by type of product ............................... 24 
Table 8 - EFSI financing signed and private finance / investment mobilised (end 2017) ............ 25 
Table 9 - Forecast number of direct jobs created .......................................................................... 27 
Table 10 - Summary of monthly IC meetings, March 2016 – January 2018 ................................ 30 
Table 11 - Types of added value for the EFSI .............................................................................. 35 

II 

 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ABBREVIATIONS 

ASD 

CCS 

CEE 

CEF 

CGE 

COSME 

CPR 

DI 

EaSI 

EBRD 

EC 

ECA 

ECB 

ECFIN 

EFG 

EFSI 

EGRF 

EIAH 

EIB 

EIF 

EIPP 

EL 

ELTI 

EPEC 

ERR 

Advisory Services Department 

Cultural and Creative Sectors 

Central Eastern Europe 

Connecting Europe Facility 

Computable General Equilibrium 

Programme  for  the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  Small 
and Medium-sized Enterprises  

Common Provisions Regulation 

Debt Instrument 

EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation 

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 

European Commission 

European Court of Auditors 

European Central Bank 

Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs 

Equity Facility for Growth 

European Fund for Strategic Investments 

EFSI Guarantee Request Form  

European Investment Advisory Hub 

European Investment Bank 

European Investment Fund 

European Investment Project Portal 

Expected Loss 

European Long-Term Investors 

European PPP Expertise Centre  

Economic Rate of Return  

III 

 
 
ESIF 

EU 

EUR 

FI 

FPA 

GDP 

GIPP 

IA 

IC 

IIW 

IMF 

European Structural Investment Funds 

European Union 

Euro 

Financial Instrument 

Framework Partnership Agreement 

Gross Domestic Product 

Global Infrastructure Project Pipeline 

Impact Assessment 

Investment Committee 

EFSI’s Infrastructure and Innovation Window 

International Monetary Fund 

InnovFin 

“InnovFin – EU Finance for Innovators” 

IPE 

JRC 

KMI 

KPI 

LGF 

MDB 

MFF 

MLI 

MS 

NPB 

NPBI 

NPI 

OECD 

RAC 

RCR 

R&D 

Investment Plan for Europe 

Joint Research Centre 

Key Monitoring Indicator 

Key Performance Indicator 

Loan Guarantee Facility 

Multilateral Development Banks 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Multilateral Lending Institutions  

Member States 

National Promotional Bank 

National Promotional Bank or Institution 

National Promotional Institution 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 

Risk Adjusted Capital  

Risk Capital Resources  

Research and Development 

IV 

 
RDI 

S&P 

SACP 

SFSB 

SIF 

SMAF 

SMEG 

SMEW 

SRSS 

SWD 

TA 

TFEU 

TFP 

TRL 

VC 

Research, Development and Innovation 

Standard & Poor's 

Stand-Alone Credit Profile 

Smart Finance for Smart Buildings 

Sustainable Infrastructure Foundation 

SME Access to Finance Index 

SME Guarantee 

Small and Medium Enterprise Window 

Structural Reform Support Service 

Staff Working Document 

Technical Assistance 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Total Factor Productivity 

Technology Readiness Level 

Venture Capital 

V 

 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

As  a  response  to  the  economic  and  financial  crisis  and  its  negative  impact  on  the  level  of 
investment  in  the  EU,  the  Commission  launched  in  November  2014  the  Investment  Plan  for 
Europe ('IPE'). It focuses on removing obstacles to investment and seeks to deliver jobs, growth, 
and innovation in Europe. 

The Investment Plan for Europe consists of three mutually reinforcing pillars.  The first pillar, 
the European Fund for Strategic Investments ('EFSI') aims at mobilising at  EUR 315 billion of 
additional  public  and  private  investment  in  infrastructure,  innovation,  and  SME  financing  by 
mid-2018. This is to be achieved via an EU budgetary guarantee to the EIB Group that allows 
them to increase the financing of projects with a higher risk-profile. Given EFSI's success in the 
first  two  years  of  implementation,  the  Commission  proposed  to  extend  the  EFSI  duration  and 
increase its financial capacity to EUR 500 billion by 2020. The amended EFSI Regulation ('EFSI 
2.0')1 was adopted on 13 December 2017. 

Figure 1 - The Investment Plan for Europe 

Source: ICF adapted from EIB 

The second pillar of the Investment Plan for Europe helps to ensure that investments reach the 
real economy by promoting and developing a pipeline of viable investment projects. It consists 
of the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH, the Hub) that provides technical assistance to 
both private and public project promoters, as well as of the European Investment Project Portal 
(EIPP,  the  Portal)  that  is  an  online  platform  connecting  EU-based  project  promoters  and 
investors from the EU and beyond.  

The third pillar aims at supporting the investment environment by improving regulation at all 
levels and eliminating barriers to investment. However, it is not in the scope of this evaluation, 

1 Regulation 2015/1017 (hereafter also referred as EFSI 1.0 Regulation) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/2396 
on 13 December 2017 (hereafter also referred to as EFSI 2.0 Regulation).  

1 

 
 
 
                                                 
as the third pillar is not included under the EFSI Regulation. Moreover, the nature of initiatives 
under pillar three differs significantly from the EFSI, EIAH and EIPP. 

1.1  Purpose and scope 

The EFSI 2.0 Regulation provides that the Commission has to submit to the European Parliament 
and  the  Council  an  independent  evaluation  of  the  application  of  the  EFSI  Regulation  before 
tabling any new proposals for a post-2020 investment support instrument. 

This Staff Working Document presents the results of an external independent evaluation of the 
application  of  the  EU  Regulation  2015/1017  (the  'EFSI  Regulation')  and  draws  on  other 
evaluations  (see  section  4).  This  evaluation  accompanies  an  impact  assessment  as  well  as  a 
proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  establishing  the 
InvestEU Programme (referred to as the ‘InvestEU’) for the period 2021-2027. 

The  evaluation  performed  by  an  external  contractor,  ICF  Mostra  (thereafter  'the  independent 
evaluation'), covers the functioning of the EFSI, the use of the EU Guarantee, the activity of the 
EIAH and of the EIPP.  

The conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation will serve to assess the extent to which 
the  EFSI,  the  EIAH,  and  the  EIPP  are  achieving  their  objectives.  The  conclusions  will  also 
inform the future Commission legislative proposals related to establishing the investment support 
instrument for the period 2021-2027 (InvestEU Programme). The EFSI independent evaluation 
and the InvestEU Impact Assessment have been prepared in parallel, however early results from 
this evaluation as well as the results of the previous evaluations informed the preparation of the 
InvestEU Impact Assessment (see Annex 1 for further details).  

Unless  explicitly  specified  otherwise,  the  evaluation  covers  actions  since  their  launch  until  31 
December  2017  (EFSI  1.0).  Due  to  its  recent  adoption,  it  does  not  evaluate  the  effects  of  the 
EFSI Regulation as amended on 13 December 2017 (also referred to as EFSI 2.0). To the extent 
possible, it does however consider the introduced improvements.  

Given that the EFSI was launched in July 2015, most signed projects supported by the EFSI have 
not been completed yet. Investment projects are long term in nature and it can take several years 
between project approval, signature, disbursement and realisation. The EFSI’s impacts can thus 
only partially be captured after such a short period. The evaluation, however, evaluates impacts 
to the extent possible and focuses on the likely expected results. The EFSI Regulation requires 
another independent evaluation at the end of the investment period. This future evaluation should 
be  able  to  better  capture  the  EFSI’s  impacts,  as  most  projects  will  have  been  approved  and 
signed by that time. 

The evaluation focuses on the assessment of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, EU added 
value and coherence of the following: 

1.  Assessment of the functioning of EFSI. This assessment in particular includes: 

  Whether the EFSI consists of a good use of resources of the EU budget, mobilises a 

sufficient level of private capital, and crowds-in private and public investment. 

  Whether  maintaining  a  scheme  for  supporting  investment  is  useful  from  a  macro-
economic,  point  of  view,  in  particular  its  contribution  to  employment  and  GDP 
growth. 

  Evaluation of the use of the scoreboard referred to in the EFSI Regulation against the 
criteria of relevance and effectiveness. This in particular includes the consideration of 
the appropriateness of each pillar and their relative roles in the assessment. 

  Whether  the  projects  supported  by  the  EFSI  fulfil  the  additionality  requirements  as 

defined in the EFSI Regulation: 

o  operations which address market failures or sub-optimal investment situations; 

2 

 
o  operations  which  without  EFSI  could  not  have  been  carried  out  by  the  EIB, 
the EIF, or under existing Union financial instruments in the period in which 
the EU guarantee can be used, or could not have been carried out to the same 
extent;  

o  projects supported by the EFSI shall typically have a higher risk profile than 
projects supported by normal operations. A risk corresponding to EIB special 
activities,  as  defined  in  Article  16  the  EIB  Statute  is  a  strong  indication  of 
additionality.  

2.  Assess the use of the EU Guarantee. This in particular addresses the question whether the 

guarantee represents a good use of resources of the EU budget.  

3.  Assess the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH). This  includes  an assessment of 

the EIAH's market uptake and complementarity with other existing advisory services. 

4.  Assess the European Investment Project Portal (EIPP). This  includes the assessment of 

EIPP’s relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, and EU added value. 

This  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  and  the  independent  evaluation  have  been  prepared 
according to the Roadmap published on 21 December 20172. It draws on the final deliverables 
prepared  by  ICF  Mostra  (hereafter  ICF)  under  contract  with  the  European  Commission.  The 
report  delivered  by  ICF  answers  the  evaluation  questions  (see  Annex  3)  and  contains 
recommendations  addressed  to  the  Commission.  This  SWD  however,  also  draws  on  previous 
EFSI evaluations3 and other relevant studies.  

2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-6318655_en  
3  Evaluation  of  the  functioning  of  the  EFSI  by  the  EIB,  September  2016.  Ad-hoc  audit  of  the  application  of  the 
Regulation 2015/1017 published on 14 November 2016 and prepared by EY.  

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

In  2014,  after  more  than  six  years  since  the  onset  of  the  global  financial  crisis,  the  pace  of 
economic recovery in the EU was still slow. Low investment has been one of the main reasons 
for  the  weakness  of  the  recovery,  as  noted  in  the  Commission  macroeconomic  forecasts  from 
that period4. Although there was considerable variation between Member States and sectors, EU 
investment activity in 2013 was 15 percent or some EUR 430 billion below the pre-crisis peak in 
real  terms.  In  the  hardest-hit  Member  States,  the  shortfall  ranged  from  25  to  over  60  percent5. 
The  weakness  reflected  low  demand  growth,  low  levels  of  capacity  utilisation,  heightened 
economic and  policy uncertainty, and, in  some countries, the bursting of construction/ housing 
bubbles, corporate deleveraging and financing constraints. 

At  that  time,  the  subdued  level  of  investment  activity  was  jeopardising  Europe’s  long-term 
growth potential. It led to an erosion of the existing productive capital stock and, worryingly, it 
meant that Europe was not making the productive investment in human and physical capital that 
is needed for future competitiveness, growth and employment. This trend undermined the ability 
of European firms to compete in the global economy and to provide rewarding jobs and a high 
standard of living. 

Back  in  2014,  annual  Gross  Domestic  Product  (GDP)  growth  in  the  EU  was  anticipated  to  be 
relatively moderate at 1.3%, while growth in the euro area was expected to be 0.8%. Expected 
GDP  growth,  which  was  already  relatively  slow  before  the  crisis  because  of  low  productivity 
gains,  had  fallen  further  due  to  low  investment  and  high  structural  unemployment.  It  was 
imperative  to  find  ways  to  break  this  vicious  circle  and  turn  it  into  a  virtuous  circle,  where 
investment projects could contribute towards a stronger increase in employment and demand, as 
well as to a sustained increase in potential growth. 

The IPE was announced in 2014 as a comprehensive investment support strategy that aimed to 
contribute  to  restoring  EU  competitiveness  and  help  boost  growth  and  investments  in  the 
European Union. 

2.1.1  European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)  

The  EFSI  is  an  initiative  implemented  by  the  European  Investment  Bank  ('EIB')  and  the 
European Investment Fund ('EIF'), together the EIB Group, with the aim to support investments 
as well as to increase access to finance for SMEs (up to 250 employees) and mid-cap companies 
(up to 3 000 employees)6. The EFSI comprises an EU Guarantee of EUR 26 billion (underpinned 
by provisioning of budgetary resources of EUR 9.1 billion) offered to the EIB Group from the 
EU budget, and a capital contribution of EUR 7.5 billion provided by the EIB. Overall, the EFSI 
targets to mobilise EUR 500 billion of additional investments by end-2020.  

The  objectives  of  the  EFSI  are  reflected  in  two  windows:  the  Infrastructure  and  Innovation 
Window  ('IIW'),  which  is  composed  of  the  IIW  Debt  and  the  IIW  Equity  sub-windows,  both 
implemented by the EIB, and the SME Window ('SMEW'), which is implemented by the EIF.  

EFSI operations backed by the EU Guarantee are part of the EIB Group operations, are assessed 
according  to  EIB  Group  standard  rules  and  procedures  and  are  approved  by  the  EIB  Group 
governing bodies. An EFSI Investment Committee ('IC') composed of eight independent experts 
decides  on  the  use  of  the  EU  Guarantee  on  projects  proposed  by  the  EIB  under  the  IIW, 

4 EC, Autumn 2014. European Economic Forecast: 
 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2014/pdf/ee7_en.pdf   
5  Special  Task  Force  (Member  States,  Commission,  EIB)  on  Investment  in  the  EU,  Final  Task  Force  Report, 
http://www.eib.org/attachments/efsi_special_task_force_report_on_investment_in_the_eu_en.pdf  
6 Article 3 of the EFSI Regulation. 

4 

 
                                                 
including those with National Promotional Banks ('NPBs') and National Promotional Institutions 
('NPIs'), and the IC is also consulted on SMEW products.  

2.1.2  The EU Guarantee  

The  EU  Guarantee  is  an  irrevocable,  unconditional,  and  first  demand  guarantee  to  the  EIB, 
which aims to increase the volume of higher risk projects that can be financed by the EIB Group 
or support otherwise additional projects. A significant part of the EIB and EIF operations under 
the IIW and the SMEW is covered by the EU Guarantee, while a part is carried out at the own 
risk of the EIB Group. 

The EU maximum guarantee amounts to EUR 16 billion until 6 July 2018 and to EUR 26 billion 
thereafter. The allocation of the EU Guarantee between the two windows is the following: up to 
EUR  19.5  billion  to  the  IIW  and  up  to  EUR  6.5  billion  to  the  SMEW7.  In  addition,  the  EIB 
contributes  its  own  resources  of  EUR  7.5  billion,  resulting  in  the  total  EFSI  guarantee/risk 
bearing capacity of EUR 33.5 billion.  

Figure 2 - The EFSI: the EU Guarantee and the EIB risk bearing capacity  

Source: Commission services 

The EU Guarantee Fund 

The EU Guarantee Fund ("the Guarantee Fund') established under Article 12 of the Regulation 
constitutes  a  liquidity  cushion  from  which  the  EIB  is  to  be  paid  in  the  event  of  a  default  of  a 
supported  EFSI  operation,  i.e.  to  honour  a  call  on  the  EU  Guarantee.  The  liquidity  cushion  is 
intended  to  provide  an  appropriate  safety  margin  and  to  avoid  exposing  the  Union  budget  to 
sudden  guarantee calls, which would entail spending  cuts or  budget amendments. Therefore, it 
contributes to the transparency and predictability of the budgetary framework. 

It  is  funded  from  payments  from  the  EU  general  budget  and  revenues  originating  from  EFSI-
guaranteed  operations.  The  Guarantee  Fund  has  to  be  maintained  at  a  certain  percentage  (the 
“target  rate”)  of  the  total  amount  of  the  EU-guaranteed  obligations.  Under  EFSI  1.0  the  target 
rate was set at 50%. The target rate was adjusted under EFSI 2.0 and set at 35%. 

An  EFSI  Account,  managed  by  the  EIB,  has  been  established  to  collect  the  EU  revenues 
resulting from EFSI-guaranteed operations and recovered amounts. To the extent of the available 
balance, it is also used for the payment of calls under the EU Guarantee. 

7 Article 11 of the EFSI 2.0 Regulation 

5 

 
 
                                                 
2.1.3  European Investment Advisory Hub  

The EIAH is a joint Commission and EIB initiative that became operational in September 2015 
and to which both institutions contribute financially8. The EIAH is established within the EIB, 
which is responsible for its daily management. The Commission is responsible to award annual 
grants (based on specific grant agreements) to the EIB, representing 75% of the EIAH’s annual 
budget. The remaining share is provided by the EIB.  

The  EIAH  aims  at  providing  targeted  support  to  public  and  private  project  promoters  for  the 
identification,  preparation,  development  and  implementation  of  investment  projects  across  the 
EU.  The  EIAH  services  are  meant  to  be  complementary  to  those  provided  by  other  advisory 
programmes supported by the EU budget and they can be delivered by the EIB itself, by other 
public entities such as National Promotional Banks or International Financial Institutions (having 
entered into an agreement with the EIB) or by external service providers. 

The EIAH has three main components: 

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

and initiatives; 

  A  cooperation  platform  to  leverage,  exchange,  and  disseminate  expertise  among  the 

EIAH partner institutions and beyond; and  

  An  instrument  to  assess  and  address  unmet  needs  by  reinforcing  or  extending  existing 

advisory services or creating new ones as demand arises. 

Capacity  building  is  also  provided  on  a  number  of  issues  related  to  investment  projects  (i.e. 
tendering process, cost benefit analysis), access to finance, including using financial instruments 
based on EU funds. Moreover, the EIAH provides advice to support the potential establishment 
of investment platforms.  

The EIAH operates in four delivery-oriented work streams: 

  First work stream - requests coming from the website. Those requests are generally at an 
initial  stage  and  need  further  development  to  receive  more  detailed technical  assistance 
from the EIAH.  

  Second work stream - requests coming via expert sources such as consultancies, NPBs, 
individual experts, the EIB and EC staff. These  requests have undergone some form of 
“pre-screening”  already  and  have  thus  a  higher  chance  of  being  ready  to  receive  more 
detailed technical assistance. 

  Third  work  stream  -  development  of  local  presence.  The  focus  is  on  developing  a 
network  of  local  partners  (e.g.  NPBs/NPIs)  that  would  ultimately  be  able  to  provide 
technical assistance on behalf of the EIAH in specific geographical/thematic sectors. 

  Fourth  stream  -  market  development.  This  stream  includes  the  preparation  of  targeted 
studies  aimed  at  identifying  the  investment  potential  in  priority  sectors  and  the 
development of investment platforms.  

2.1.4  European Investment Project Portal 
The EIPP is  an  online  platform9 of investment projects whose role is  to increase  visibility and 
promote EU-based projects to potential investors around the world. 

8 The EU shall contribute 75% of the total EIAH Budget, up to a maximum of EUR 20 million annually (up to EUR 
10 million in 2015) whereas the EIB shall contribute 25% of the total EIAH Budget up to a maximum amount of 
EUR 6.6 million per year (up to EUR 3.3 million in 2015). 
9 https://ec.europa.eu/eipp/  

6 

 
                                                 
The lack of transparency represented a barrier to investment in the EU, in particular following 
the 2008 financial crisis. According to the EFSI Regulation10, the main purpose of the EIPP is to 
ensure  investment  projects  have  more  visibility  to  investors,  ensuring  enhanced  transparency 
around EU investment opportunities.  

The  Commission  thus  designed  and  implemented  the  EIPP  to  build  a  bridge  between  project 
promoters  and  investors.  Through  the  Portal,  private  and  public  project  promoters  can  present 
their  projects,  hence  boosting  the  visibility  of  existing  EU  investment  opportunities  and 
providing the investors with the possibility to contact directly the project promoters.  

To facilitate this, projects are presented in a structured format that enables promoters to disclose 
as much project information as they deem necessary to attract the investors. The publication on 
the  EIPP  is  free  of  charge  and  a  project  must  fulfil  a  set  of  eligibility  criteria11  defined  in  the 
Commission Implementing Decision12.  

The EIPP is independent from EFSI financing and the EIAH advisory support or other EU and 
EIB financial and technical support initiatives and instruments. The publication of an investment 
project  on  the  EIPP  is  not  a  pre-condition  for  receiving  any  EU/EIB  financing  or  advisory 
support.  

The Portal is available in all official languages of the EU. It provides useful features, such as a 
card view and a map view of projects, advanced search and filtering criteria, as well as the option 
for  investors  to  register  and  subscribe  for  project  updates  and  newsletters,  making  it  easy  for 
them to find projects according to their own preferences and interests. The EIPP is thus designed 
to support international investors specify and devise their own forward-looking pipelines of EU 
investment projects. 

10 Article 15 of the EFSI Regulation 
11  Admission  criteria  according  to  the  Commission  Implementing  Decision  2017/919;  projects  have  to  (i)  have  a 
total  cost of  at  least  EUR 1 million, (ii)  fall under  one of  the pre-determined  high  economic-value-added,  (iii) be 
expected  to  start  within  three  years  of  their  submission,  (iv)  be  promoted  by  a  public  or  private  legal  entity 
established in an EU Member State, and (v) be compatible with all applicable EU and national laws. Publication of a 
project can be denied on legal, reputational, or other grounds. 
12  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2016/1942  of  4  November  2016,  as  amended  by  Commission  Decision  (EU) 
2017/919 of 29 May 2017 repealing Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1214 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
3  STATE OF PLAY 

3.1  European Fund for Strategic Investments 

Less  than  three  years  after  its  introduction,  EFSI  financing  approved  amounted  to  EUR  57.5 
billion, representing a total investment mobilised of EUR 287.4 billion across both windows. It is 
estimated that EFSI investments supported around 3.6 million jobs. 

Figure 3 - EFSI state of play as of 15 May 2018 

Source: EIB  

This relates to 396 approved operations under the IIW and 411 transactions under the SMEW. 
The  latter  will  ease  access  to  finance  for  an  estimated  number  of  around  635,000  SMEs  and 
small  mid-cap  companies.  The  transactions  approved  (including  multi-country  operations) 
covered 28 EU Member States across all general objectives set out in the EFSI Regulation. Most 
of  the  estimated  investment  mobilised  relates  to  smaller  companies  (28%),  RDI  (22%)  and 
energy investments (22%).  

As of 15 May 2018, EFSI support was expected to mobilise EUR 186.2 billion of investments to 
projects  under  the  IIW  and  a  further  EUR  101.2  billion  towards  projects  under  the  SMEW 
bringing the total investment mobilised to EUR 287.4 billion. EFSI operations signed by the end 
of December 2017 are expected to mobilise around EUR 134 billion of private sector investment, 
representing 64 per cent of the total EFSI investment mobilised. These investments helped bring 
high-speed  internet  access  to  about  11  million  households,  improved  health  care  for  1  million 
people, as well as renewable energy for 4.2 million households.  
As of 31 December 2017, France, Italy and Spain attracted 17.2, 16.6 and respectively 10.7 per 
cent of the total amount of signed financing. More generally, EU 15 Member States account for 
around  four  fifths  of  all  EFSI  financing.  However,  when  compared  to  corresponding  shares  in 

8 

 
 
the total EU 28 GDP - EU 15 account for 93 per cent of the total EU 28 output13. In other words, 
the amount of EFSI financing broadly corresponds to the respective size of the Member States’ 
economies. 

Detailed discussion on the EFSI’s state of play can be found in section 5.1, especially in parts on 
Relevance and Effectiveness.  

3.2  The EU Guarantee  

Table 1 below presents the changes of the EU Guarantee from EFSI’s launch until May 2018.  

At  the  end  of  2017,  the  overall  outstanding  disbursed  exposure  covered  by  the  EU  Guarantee 
amounted to nearly EUR 10.1 billion, up from EUR 4.4 billion in 2016. The exposure of the EU 
budget  to  possible  future  payments  under  the  EU  Guarantee  in  terms  of  signed  operations 
(disbursed and undisbursed) amounted to EUR 13.5 billion. 

As  of  end-May  2018,  there  was  one  default  of  an  EFSI  supported  operation  and  consequently 
one related call on the EU Guarantee. The EU Guarantee has also been called to cover funding 
costs that were paid out of existing revenues stemming from IIW operations.  

Table 1 - The split of the EU Guarantee and its development over time 

(in billion EUR) 

EFSI 1.0 

EFSI 
adjustment14 

1.0 

EFSI 2.0 

IIW  

SME 

Total EU Guarantee 

EIB risk bearing capacity 

Total EFSI guarantee 

Source: Commission services 

13.5 

2.5 

16.0 

5.0 

21.0 

13.0 

3.0 

16.0 

5.0 

21.0 

19.5  

6.5 

26.0 

7.5 

33.5 

3.3  European Investment Advisory Hub 

The European Investment Advisory Hub was set up in September 2015. The Hub was in a ramp 
up phase throughout 2015 and 2016 when its capacity and the quality of the demand emerging 
from  project  promoters  was  not  yet  sufficient  to  provide  for  the  full  support  mentioned  in  its 
mandate.  However,  since  then,  there  has  been  an  active  management  and  a  sustained  effort  to 
balance  out  the  unused  budget  during  the  initial  phase  and  the  Hub  is  now  operating  at  full 
speed.  

As of end-May 2018, 770 requests were received by the EIAH. Out of these requests, 603 were 
related to projects (53% from private sector, 44% from public sector and 3% from other sources). 
Most  of  the  requests  were  coming  from  transport  (23%),  energy  (20%),  environment  and 
resource efficiency (15%) and SMEs (10%). 

By type of requests, 6% were for proposed cooperation, 13% for general information, 21% for 
technical assistance, 24% requests for funding and 32% requests for both funding and technical 
assistance. 

13 Based on the Eurostat data for the GDP at market prices as of 2016. Available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/national-accounts/data/main-tables  
14 In July 2016, following a high demand for SME products, the Steering Board decided to adjust the allocation of 
the  EU  Guarantee  between  the  Innovation  and  Infrastructure  Window  (IIW)  and  the  SME  Window  (SMEW)  by 
increasing the limit for the SMEW up to the maximum amount of EUR 3 billion (EUR 500 million increase).  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  requests  are  screened  by  a  multi-disciplinary  group  involving  experts  from  different 
departments of the EIB. As a result of the screening, 87 requests received or are receiving more 
detailed technical assistance. The countries with the highest number of requests allocated were 
Poland (7), Bulgaria (7), Greece (6), Italy (6), Belgium (5), Latvia (5), and Romania (4). Eleven 
of those specific assignments have been identified as potential EFSI operations. 

A two-phase market gap analysis on the identification of market needs was carried out by PwC 
for  the  EIAH.  The  first  phase  conducted  in  2016  focused  on  the  general  market  gap  analysis, 
while the second on the SME sector in 2017. The objective of the study was to assess the current 
situation  concerning  project  advisory  activities  for  investments  and  inform  about  the  technical 
and functional capacity gaps at EU level.  

The study under the first phase concluded that the lack of supply is not the dominant problem at 
EU level, and that other issues tend to be more dominant, i.e. availability, access, affordability 
and awareness. The second phase confirmed these results, in as much as the lack of supply is not 
the main issue slowing down the uptake of advisory services for SMEs. In both phases, the MS 
were  classified  according  to  their  needs  for  advisory  services  in  general  and  for  SMEs  in 
particular.  

Co-operation with the EBRD 

Under the current partnership signed by the EIB and the EBRD in 2017, the EBRD is providing 
under  the  EIAH's  umbrella  their  well-established  Advice  for  Small  Businesses  Support 
programme to SMEs in Bulgaria, Greece and Romania.  

Co-operation with the National Promotional Banks and Institutions (NPBIs) 

As of end-May 2018, the Hub signed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with 23 NPBIs from 
18  MS.  The  MoU  types  range  from  a  mutual  recognition,  cooperation  arrangements  (level  of 
engagement 1 and 2) to the delivery of technical assistance on the behalf of the EIAH by NPBs 
(level 3). 

In order to support the delivery by NPBs of technical assistance on the behalf of the EIAH, a call 
for  proposals  was  launched  in  December  2017  for  the  delivery  of  local  investment  advisory 
services by NPBs.  

3.4  European Investment Project Portal 

The European Investment Project Portal was launched in June 2016. The relative belated launch 
of the Portal compared to the other two IPE initiatives was mainly due to a lower than initially 
expected number of projects received for publication on the Portal. After a slow start-up however 
the Portal is now fully operational.  

As of end May 2018, 691 projects had been submitted for publication of which 313 projects were 
published on the EIPP. Out of the 313 published projects, 90 are in the field of digital economy, 
65 in energy, 89 in transport, 96 in social infrastructure, 54 in resource & environment and 30 in 
financing for SMEs and mid-caps.15 The total project cost of the projects published was EUR 69 
billion.  

15  Project  promoters  can  choose  up  to  two  sectors.  This  is  based  on  the  first  and  second  sector  chosen  by  the 
promoters. The actual number of SME projects is however much higher as illustrated by their company size. 

10 

 
                                                 
Figure 4 - Published projects per Member State as of end May 2018

Source: Commission services 

The  published  projects  cover  all  MS.  However,  some  countries  have  published  considerably 
more  projects  than  others  have.  Greece  is  the  country  with  the  highest  number  of  published 
projects, namely 63, followed by Italy with 28, Spain and Croatia with 20 each. Countries that 
have  been  affected  more  by the financial  crisis seem to  be among the  most active ones  on the 
EIPP.  

Between June 2016 and May 2018 there have been more than 220,000 cumulative visits to the 
Portal.  The  weekly  numbers  varied  between  around  500  and  2000  visits.  The  Member  States 
with the highest number of visits in 2018 were Greece with 9%, followed by Italy and Spain with 
8%  each  as  well  as  Belgium  with  7%.  This  suggests  that  among  the  countries  that  visit  the 
website more often are those that have more published projects.  

Regarding  the  contacts  between  investors  and  project  promoters,  they  amounted  to  more  than 
1,300 over the analysed period and almost 80% of the promoters were contacted by investors. 

The  profile  of  organisations  having  submitted  the  project  is  balanced  in  favour  of  private 
organisations.  In  total,  583  projects  (84%)  were  received  from  private  organisations  and  108 
from public project promoters. 

The  company  size  also varied,  most  of  the  organisation  that  indicated their  status  being  SMEs 
(508, more than 90%), Mid-Caps (37) and a few large companies (17) based on all the projects 
submitted for publication. 

11 

 
 
 
 
4  METHODOLOGY 

For the evaluation conducted by ICF, the evidence and the data were collected through several 
complementary  sources  including  desk  research,  literature  review,  portfolio  analysis,  expert 
review  of  the  EU  Guarantee  Fund,  as  well  as  interviews  and  six  targeted  surveys  of  main 
stakeholders. This was further complemented by an in depth review of a sample of EFSI, EIAH, 
and  EIPP  projects.  Based  on  this  and  the  triangulation  of  evidence,  this  evaluation  can  be 
considered reliable and valid.  

The  literature  review  focused  on  barriers  and  investment  gaps  related  to  sectors  receiving  the 
largest part of EFSI support (SMEs and mid-caps, Research & Development (R&D), energy & 
transport). 

Box 1 - Examples of documentation/ data reviewed as part of the desk research 

■  Portfolio  data  on  operations  from  both  windows  available  on  the  EIB  and  EIF  websites  as 
well  as  provided  directly by  EIB/  EIF  (i.e.  Operational  and  Risk  Reports,  supplemented  by 
additional  data  provided  by  EIB  upon  ICF  request)  with  the  cut-off  point  for  31  December 
2017; 

■  Past assessment and evaluation of EFSI produced by, inter alia, the EIB, the European Court 

of Auditors and independent consultants; 
■  Recent EIB and EIF Operational Plans16; 

■  Unpublished/ internal documentation provided by the EIB/ EIF/ ECFIN i.e. relevant parts of 
the EIB Credit Risk Policy Guideline, PowerPoint presentations from the internal meetings, 
minutes from the IC meetings, EC-EIB communication framework on EFSI; 

■  Essential  guidelines  i.e.  documentation  on  estimation  of  multipliers,  Key  Performance 

Indicators/ Key Monitoring Indicators; 

■  Documentation related to Rhomolo-EIB model developed by Joint Research Centre of the EC 

in Sevilla, including model specification and description of main assumptions; 

■  DG ECFIN internal documentation related to the estimation of the provisioning/target rate; 

■  EIAH bi-annual technical reports, MoUs signed between the EIAH and NPBs/NPIs, statistics 
on EIAH requests and their outcome, statistics on the EIPP website visitors and users, as well 
as  projects  uploaded,  EIAH  Framework  Partnership  Agreement,  EIAH  Annual  Grant 
Agreements, financials of the EIAH and EIPP; 

■  Eurostat data on GDP and population to determine the take-up of the EFSI in relative terms at 

a national level; 

■  Analysis of investment gap using Eurostat data. 

Source: ICF Evaluation report 

Portfolio  analysis  focused  on  multipliers  and  investment  targets,  sectoral  and  geographical 
distributions, share of private investment mobilised as well as analysis of Key Performance and 
Monitoring  Indicators.  Comparison  of  risk  rating  at  portfolio  level  focused  on  aggregate 
information for the whole IIW portfolio as well as risk rating for 60 individual signed operations.  

In addition, a sample of 60 EFSI projects was reviewed in detail against the evaluation criteria 
and, in particular, to assess their additionality.  

16 EIB, 2017. Operational Plans. Available at: 
 http://www.eib.org/infocentre/publications/all/operational-plan-2017-2019.htm  and  EIF,  2016.  Operational  Plan 
2017-2019. Available: http://www.eif.org/news_centre/publications/eif_cop_2017_2019.pdf  

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 5 - Project review analysis  

Source: ICF Evaluation report 

The  consultation  activities  included  initial  scoping  interviews,  semi-structured  interviews  with 
71 key stakeholders and 5 targeted surveys.  

Table 2 - Targeted surveys conducted and the response rate 

Survey 

Number of responses   Response rate [in %] 

Survey of project promoters under IIW 

Survey of financial intermediaries under 
IIW 

Survey of National Promotional Banks 

Survey of beneficiaries of EIAH assistance 

Survey of project promoters from the EIPP 

Source: ICF Evaluation report.  

90 

20 

12 

20 

61 

45 

26 

37 

17 

31 

To support this evaluation, a 12-week internet-based general open public consultation (OPC) was 
conducted.  It  the  subject  focus  of  this  OPC  was  the  EU  Support  for  Investment17.  Although  a 
specific  OPC  for  the  EFSI  was  not  launched  for  this  evaluation,  the  results  of  the  above 
mentioned OPC were useful to complement the results of the targeted consultation. In particular 
it brought further insight from the wider society and stakeholders about the relevant policy area. 

In  addition, past evaluations  also constituted an important source  of information  and evidence. 
This includes in particular:  

  a Commission evaluation on the use of the EU Guarantee and the functioning of the EU 

Guarantee Fund18 accompanied by an opinion of the Court of Auditors19, 

  an EIB evaluation on the functioning of the EFSI20, and  
  an independent external evaluation on the application of the EFSI Regulation21.  

Main findings of these evaluations were summarised in the Commission Communication on the 
Investment Plan for Europe (COM (2016) 764)22. 

17 This was a subpart of the OPC on Investment, research and innovation, SMEs and single market. 
18 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0297&from=EN  
19 http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/News/NEWS1611_11/OP16_02_EN.pdf  
20 http://www.eib.org/infocentre/publications/all/evaluation-of-the-functioning-of-the-efsi.htm  
21 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/independent-evaluation-investment-plan_en  
22 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/COM-2016-764-F1-EN-MAIN.PDF  

13 

 
 
                                                 
The main challenges and limitations that affected the independent evaluation were the following: 

  At this stage of implementation and given the long-term nature of investment projects, it is 
difficult to evaluate final outcomes and impacts to the real economy of these initiatives. This 
is  particularly  relevant  for  the  EFSI  where  several  years  may  elapse  between  project 
planning  and  final  implementation,  but  also  for  the  EIAH  and  the  EIPP.  The  evaluation 
however assesses impacts to the extent possible and focuses on the likely expected results. 

  Due  to  the  negotiations  on  the  amended  EFSI  Regulation  that  was  adopted  only  in 
December 2017, the timing requirements for the delivery were clear only at a relatively late 
stage. The available time to conduct this evaluation was thus limited. Consequently, several 
tasks had to be started in parallel with narrowed scope to develop and test propositions. This 
presents some limits to the extensiveness of the underlying analysis but not to the robustness 
of its findings.  

  Possible stakeholder fatigue – the contractor undertook the evaluation in parallel to the EFSI 
evaluation commissioned by the EIB as also required by the EFSI Regulation. In addition, 
the ECA has been performing and EFSI audit during the same period. Consequently, several 
stakeholders reported a “responded fatigue” during the data collection phase. There is a risk 
that  this  affected  stakeholders’  willingness  to  respond  to  surveys  and  interviews  and 
potentially in the quantity of provided feedback. 

  Challenges in the assessment of 'additionality' – the contractors faced several conceptual and 
methodological challenges in testing additionality at project level. At a conceptual level, the 
evaluators identified different interpretations of the concept – one linked to market failures 
and  a  broader  one  linked  to  policy  objectives.  Market  failure  theory  justifies  public 
intervention only if it is geared towards fixing market failures and, as such, the ‘acid test’ for 
determining additionality with reference to market failure is whether the market could have 
financed  the  project in  the  absence  of  the  intervention  on  reasonable  terms  and  within  the 
same timeframe as the intervention. On the other hand, the notion of sub-optimal investment 
with  reference  to  policy  objectives  does  not  require  the  existence  of  a  market  failure  as  a 
pre-condition for demonstrating additionality.  

In  line  with  the  previous  evaluation  of  EFSI,  the  independent  evaluation  assessed 
additionality on the basis of the (narrower) market failure theory, following the results of the 
surveys  targeting  IIW  project  promoters,  financial  intermediaries  (involved  in  IIW 
intermediated operations) and NPBs, which all posed similar questions. The results of these 
surveys  should  however,  be  treated  with  caution  due  to  the  inherent  risk  of  response  bias 
(i.e. the respondent’s tendency to potentially over-state or even under-state additionality to 
justify  public  intervention)  and  the  uncertainties  associated  with  hypothetical  questions 
relating to possible counterfactual outcomes. 

  The  review  of  the  sample  of  60  projects  that  received  financing  under  IIW  has  some 
limitations. While 60 operations out of a total of 279 represent 21.5% of the total portfolio, 
this  is  not  a  statistically  fully  representative  sample.  Due  to  timing,  resources,  logistical 
limitations, and availability of data, a sample reflecting the main characteristics of the IIW 
portfolio  was  used23.  Even  if  not  fully  representative,  this  review  provided  valuable 
additional  evidence,  particularly  when  considered  in  combination  with  other  collected 
information. 

  The survey of financial intermediaries under SMEW was not conducted. This was in light of 
the available data from earlier surveys/research and also because of survey fatigue. This was 
mitigated by: 

23 Note for instance that with the population size of 279, Confidence Level of 95% and Confidence Interval of 5, the 
minimum size of the sample that would allow to claim the representativeness of the findings is 162.  

14 

 
                                                 
–  “analysis of the robustness of arguments about the ‘front-loading’ and ‘top-up’ of 
existing mandates as a main means of achieving the additionality under SMEW; 

– 

interviews with financial intermediaries under SMEW; 

–  comparison of the characteristics (risk profile, target beneficiaries, geographic 

coverage) of the EFSI mandates and portfolios;  

–  analysis of the use of new risk-sharing positions since EFSI; and, 
–  analysis of the use of new collaborations since EFSI.”24 

  The assessment of the EFSI’s impact of on the real economy has been mainly based on the 
available EIB/JRC modelling exercise (Rhomolo-EIB model). All modelling typically relies 
on assumptions and results have to be interpreted with care.  

To  mitigate  for  these  limitations,  the  evaluation  method,  as  further  described  in  Annex  3,  was 
combined  with  evidence  from  previous  EFSI  evaluations  and  other  sources.  Therefore,  the 
reliability and validity of this evaluation can be regarded as strong. 

24 Source: ICF  Evaluation report. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
5  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1  European Fund for Strategic Investments 

5.1.1  Relevance 

The assessment of the EFSI’s relevance has been positive and concluded that the EFSI has been 
a relevant instrument to address investment gaps and market needs, as well as to respond to the 
needs of project promoters, financial intermediaries and private investors.  

The extent to which the EFSI has addressed investment gaps and needs 

The EFSI has been created as a demand driven instrument to address the substantial decline of 
the overall investment as a share of the EU GDP compared to the pre-crisis 1996-2007 level. The 
evaluation found the existence of substantial and unquestionable investment needs back in 2014 
and early 2015.  

In  the  aftermath  of  the  financial  crisis,  the  share  of  investment  in  the  GDP  had  declined 
considerably below the pre-crisis 1996-2007 average for EU 28 Member States (see Figure 6). 
Investment levels have not yet recovered to their pre-crisis level and have remained well below 
historical trends.  

Figure 6 - Investment as a % of GDP in EU28 

 Source: ECFIN calculations based on data from the AMECO database 
The EIB 2014 and 2016 Competitiveness report25 pointed to a continued decline in infrastructure 
investment, with  both  decreases of government and  private investment since 2011. The update 
report published in 2016 estimated the total annual investment gap in energy (EUR 100 billion), 
R&D (EUR 130 billion), environment and resource efficiency (EUR 90 billion), ICT (EUR 60 
billion), R&D (EUR 130 billion), and the transport sector (EUR 80 billion). 

The evaluation concludes that volumes of investment mobilised under the EFSI are relevant and 
sufficient  in  scale  to  make  a  significant  contribution  to  the  investment  needs  identified  at  the 
commencement of the initiative. 

To respond to the changing investment environment, EFSI 2.0 has already refocused its support 
by  introducing  some  policy-oriented  measures.  In  particular,  a  40%  target  under  the 
Infrastructure  and  Innovation  Window  to  support  projects  that  contribute  to  climate  action. 

25 EIB, 2016. Restoring EU Competitiveness. Available at:  
http://www.eib.org/attachments/efs/restoring_eu_competitiveness_en.pdf  

16 

 
 
                                                 
Moreover,  additionality  criteria  have  been  enhanced  to  better  target  sub-optimal  investment 
situations. 

Evidence  suggests  that  there  is  still  a  need  for  a  demand-driven  support  like  the  EFSI.  The 
Spring 2018 ECFIN economic forecast concludes26: 

  Public investment is expected to grow faster than GDP, though it still has to catch up a 

lot to reach its previous share of output.  

 

  At  the  end  of  2019,  despite  its  improvements  since  2012,  potential  output  growth  is 
estimated to remain below the rates recorded before the crisis. This is mainly because of 
a still subdued contribution from capital accumulation, despite the recent increase in the 
ratio between investment and potential output. 
Investment  (gross  fixed  capital  formation),  which  had  frequently  been  identified  as  the 
weakest link in the post-crisis recovery, is showing signs of a broad-based pick-up (see 
table below).  
In 2018, investment growth is expected to pick up to 4.2% in both the euro area and the 
EU,  before  slowing  in  2019  to  3.4%  in  the  euro  area  and  to  3.2%  in  the  EU.  The  year 
2018 is forecast to be the first year since 2007 in which investment increases in all EU 
Member  States.  The  continued  strength  of 
implies  strong  growth 
contributions  and  increases  in  capital  deepening  which  further  support  cyclical 
improvements in labour productivity. 

investment 

 

While these forecasts show an improved macroeconomic picture, the investment levels have still 
not reached the historical average of 21.28% of GDP as observed between 1996 and 2007. This 
implies an investment gap of around 157 billion in 2017 (see Table 4). Even with the expected 
growth, investment is forecasted to still remain below the pre-crisis average (20.44% in 2018 and 
20.71%  in  2019  as  opposed  to  21.3%).  Consequently,  even  11  years  after  the  start  of  the 
financial crisis, the investment will not have recovered to its pre-crisis levels.  
Table 3 - Investment level forecasts 

(in EUR billion)27 

EU GDP 
Investment level 
Investment gap compared to 1996-2004 
investment level average (21.1%) 
Investment gap compared to 1996-2007 
investment level average (21.3%) 
Investment level 

2017 

 15.327,16  
 3.075,90  

2018 
forecast 
 15.935,75  
 3.257,82  

2019 
forecast  
 16.544,88  
 3.426,03  

 157,37  

 103,83  

 64,11  

 185,39  

 132,97  

 94,36  

20,07% 

20,44% 

20,71% 

Source: AMECO (May 2018 data, current prices) and Commission services calculations  

This Commission assessment is broadly in line with the estimates of the investment gap prepared 
by  the  independent  evaluation  (see  Figure  7).  Furthermore,  the  EIB  has  estimated  a  large 
investment  gap  (i.e.  EUR  270  billion)  in  transport,  energy  and  resource  management 
infrastructure until 202028.  

26 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/ip077_en.pdf 
27 ECFIN calculation based on data from the AMECO database as of 23 May 2018.  Gross fixed capital formation at 
current  prices:  total  economy  (UIGT)  Unit:  Mrd  ECU/EUR-  Standard  aggregation.  Gross  domestic  product  at 
current prices (UVGD) Unit: Mrd ECU/EUR- Standard aggregation. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/ameco/  
28  See  EIB,  'Restoring  EU  competitiveness',  2016.  The  estimate,  until  2020,  include  investments  in  modernising 
transportation and logistics, upgrading energy networks, increasing energy savings, renewables, improving resource 
management, including water and waste. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 7 - Share of private finance mobilised in total EFSI investment mobilised and in the 
estimated annual EU investment gap29 

Source: ICF based on data sourced from  year-end EFSI operational reports for 2015, 2016 and 2017. Investment 
gap calculated by ICF in relation to historical trends.  

All these data sources lead to conclude that demand-driven EFSI investment support is thus still 
relevant  in  the  current  improved  economic  environment.  Downsizing  or  discontinuing  the 
support  would  risk  derailing  this  current  positive  trend  and  would  risk  increasing  again  the 
investment gap. 
It  should  be  emphasized  that  the  estimates  do  not  include  potential  sub-optimal  investment 
situations  and  investment  needed  to  reach  EU  policy  objectives  like  climate  action, 
sustainability,  R&D  investment,  social  investments.  An  extensive  analysis  of  expected  future 
investment needs and gaps in these areas is included in the InvestEU Impact Assessment, where 
the Commission has estimated investment needs in several key policy areas over the 2020-2030 
period.  
Moreover, the independent evaluation also concluded that, while the conditions have improved, 
especially  for  access  to  finance  by  SMEs,  there  are  still  considerable  investment  gaps.  In 
particular,  the  independent  evaluation  concluded  that  “Although  the  overall  picture  has 
improved  at  a  macro  level,  both  in  terms  of  the  scale  of  the  financing  gap  and  financing 
conditions  (especially for  SMEs),  there  remain  substantial  and  pressing  investment  needs.  For 
example,  infrastructure  investment  in  2016  was  still  20  per  cent  below  pre-crisis  levels.  And 
while  SMEs,  en  masse,  may  have  seen  improvements  in  terms  of  available  finance,  available 
evidence suggests that access to finance remains problematic for a substantial share of the SME 
population, in particular in some countries, and for start-up and early stage growth innovative 
SMEs  even  in  those  Member  States  with  the  most  developed  financial  markets.  Ongoing  EU 
investment support therefore remains relevant and necessary.” This conclusion is also consistent 
with the preliminary results of the Commission’s Impact Assessment on the InvestEU.  

To  conclude,  current  evidence  suggests  that  a  market-based  instrument  like  the  EFSI  is  still 
relevant and needed in the coming years. The improvements adopted by EFSI 2.0 should already 
respond  to  the  improving  market  environment  (focus  on  climate  action  and  strengthened 
additionality  criteria).  Furthermore,  given  the  expected  development  of  investment  needs  after 
2020, the InvestEU Fund proposes a more policy-focused investment approach.  

29 The difference in the market gap calculation between the ICF and Commission estimates are due to differences in 
methodological approach (for more details see the ICF independent evaluation report).  

18 

Investment gapEFSI investment mobilisedPrivate sector financing mobilised201520162017€196bn€158bn€123bn€98bn€81bn€29€68bn€48bn€18 
 
 
 
                                                 
Geographical and sectoral distribution 

The  EFSI  has  no  specific  sector  or  geographic  allocation  targets  and  investment  is  demand-
driven.  Nevertheless,  the  EFSI  investment  guidelines  require  that  ‘excessive  sectoral  and 
geographical  concentration  is  avoided’30  and  the  EFSI  Strategic  Orientation  sets  indicative 
limits under IIW31. 

The evaluation found that the EFSI has been relevant to address financing market needs and gaps 
across  all  EU  Member  States.  The  EU  15  Member  States  account  for  a  big  share  of  EFSI 
financing - around four fifths under both windows. The 2016 independent evaluation also found 
that:  “[w]hile  sector  coverage  is  generally  not  seen  as  an  issue  by  the  stakeholders  consulted, 
there is a serious concern on the geographical spread.”  

Figure 8 - EFSI geographical distribution (both windows) 

Source: ICF based on EIB 2017 EFSI Operational Report and Eurostat data 

However,  while  in  absolute  terms  the  largest  EU  countries  take  the  lion’s  share  and  EU15 
accounts  for  four  fifths  of  the  EFSI  support,  relative  to  each  country’s  share  in  the  total  EU 
output, the geographical distribution is much more balanced. In fact, the EU15 stands for 93 per 
cent of the total EU 28 GDP.  

This  and  previous  evaluations  found  that  there  are  a  number  of  factors  behind  the  perceived 
lower uptake of the EFSI in some of the ‘New’ Member States (EU13):  

  The EFSI is a demand driven instrument and its support distribution depends on market 

demand and absorption capacity in a given country; 

  The  geographical  distribution  closely  reflects  the  actual  size  of  the  EU13  economies 

relative to overall EU 28 GDP; 

  The size of typical EFSI projects may exceed the typical size of viable projects in smaller 

countries; and  

30 Annex II to the EFSI Regulation, Section 8. 
31 For the IIW portfolio: (i) investment should reach all 28 MS, (ii) the share of investment in any three Member 
States should not exceed 45 per cent of the EFSI portfolio, (iii) an indicative concentration limit of 30 per cent of the 
IIW portfolio for operations in any one sector.  
For  the  SMEW  portfolio:  the  EIF  should  aim  at  reaching  all  the  EU  Member  States  and  achieve  a  satisfactory 
geographical diversification among them.   

19 

 
 
                                                 
  The  need  of  strong  capacity  building  and  technical  assistance  measures  to  facilitate the 
origination,  preparation  and  implementation  of  projects,  a  point  that  has  been  also 
addressed in EFSI 2.0 through the refocusing of the Advisory Hub. Some Member States 
might  have  access  to  alternative  financing,  such  as  other  EU  programmes  that  may  be 
perceived as more favourable (i.e. because of the availability of grants).  

The  EFSI  support  was  able  to  address  market  needs  and  investment  gaps  in  all  main  sectors. 
Overall, projects in the RDI sector32 received around one third of total financing signed under the 
EFSI, followed by the energy sector and support for smaller companies (see Figure 9 and Figure 
10).  

Figure 9 - Sectoral distribution of the EFSI support - IIW 

Source: ICF based on EIB EFSI 2017 Operational Report  

Under the IIW, the energy sector received the biggest share of support, 33% in terms of signed 
operations  (exceeding  the  indicative  30%  sector  concentration  limit  specified  in  the  EFSI 
Strategic  Orientation33)  and  28%  in  terms  of  investment  mobilised  (see  Figure  9).  This  is  a 
substantial  improvement  compared  to  mid-2016  when  46%  of  signed  operations  related  to  the 
energy  sector.  Under  the  SME  window,  the  RDI  sector  received  the  highest  share  of  support, 
70%  in  terms  of  signed  operations  (to  note  that  there  are no  indicative  limits  on  EFSI  SMEW 
support per sector) and 37% in terms of investment mobilised (see Figure 9).  

32 Sectors defined as per Article 9 of the EFSI Regulation 
33 http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/efsi_steering_board_efsi_strategic_orientation_en.pdf   

20 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 10 - SMEW sectoral distribution  

Source: ICF based on EIB EFSI 2017 Operational Report  

EFSI’s response to the need of project promoters, financial intermediaries, and private 
investors 

Overall, the evaluation found that EFSI responded well to the needs of various stakeholders. The 
changes brought about by EFSI in terms of the availability of new products and enhancement of 
existing ones have been assessed as very substantial.  

The EIB introduced six new products under EFSI and further six have been enhanced (see Annex 
4). Examples include: 

  Corporate Hybrid Bonds, focused on low-risk utilities; 

 

Infrastructure Aggregation Platform; 

  ABS Mezzanine, to support lower rated beneficiaries; 

  Captive Funds and Investment Platforms which target NPBIs. 

Furthermore,  there  has  also  been  a  substantial increase  in  the  number  of  quasi-equity  products 
under EFSI (see Table 4) 

Table 4 - Increase in the number of approved equity type operations under EFSI IIW 

Time 

External 
multiplier 

Number of equity 
operations 

Number of equity 
operations with 
multiplier ≥ 15 

Percentage  of 
operations 
multiplier ≥ 15  

equity 
a 

with 

End-2016 

22.93 

End-2017 

14 

22 

70 

11 

17 

70% 

40% 

Source: ICF based on EIB EFSI 2017 Operational Report 

Since 2016, there have also been some new additions to the EIF’s products’ portfolio including: 
venture debt, uncapped guarantees for riskier (subordinated) loans to innovative SMEs and small 
mid-caps;  uncapped  guarantees  for  the  EU  Programme  for  Employment  and  Social  Innovation 
(EaSI); as well as Investment Platforms34.  

34 Three Investment Platforms under SMEW: (1) CDP EFSI Thematic IP for Italian SMEs; over EUR 0.6 billion of 
signed financing already, (2) NPI EFSI multi-country Investment Platform for SMEs securitisation – for EU 28 MS; 
signature  is  still  pending,  (3)  ITAtech  EFSI  Thematic  Investment  Platform  for  Technology  Transfer  in  Italy;  2 
transactions side as of early 2018 

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
In  addition,  the  increased  risk  bearing  capacity  through  the  EFSI  (EU)  Guarantee  enabled  the 
EIB Group to reach new market areas, new client types and develop new ways of engaging with 
existing clients (see section 5.1.2 for further analysis).  

Relevance of the Scoreboard 

The scoreboard is a framework for presenting the results of the appraisal of operations under the 
EFSI IIW. The scoreboard (Figure 11) is comprised of four pillars, each of which deals with a 
particular criterion. The EFSI Regulation provides that ‘the scoreboard […] shall be used by the 
Investment Committee with a view to ensuring an independent and transparent assessment of the 
possible use of the EU guarantee’. 
The evaluation found that the scoreboard constitutes a good framework for decision-making. The 
design of the scoreboard and the evaluation criteria were also found as appropriate.  
Figure 11 - EFSI Scoreboard 

Source: ICF, adapted from EIB (2016) 

5.1.2  Effectiveness 

Achievement of objectives and targets  

The evaluation found that based on approved operations it is likely that the EFSI will come very 
close  to  the  target  of  315  EUR  billion  of  investment  mobilised  by  end-June  2018.  Based  on 
approved  financing  as  of  31  December  2017,  the  EFSI  mobilised  EUR  256.3  billion  of 
investment, which increased to EUR 287.4 by 15 May 2018.  

22 

 
 
Table 5 - EFSI 1.0 performance compared to initial expectations 

Investment 
mobilised target 

Signed  

Approved  

Investment multiplier 

Job creation35 

Expectations at the 
launch of EFSI 
initiative 

EUR 315 billion* 

1:15 

From 1 million to 1.336 
million new jobs 

As of 31 Dec 2017 

EUR 207.3 billion 

EUR 256.3 billion 

1:13½  

  683,075 jobs expected to be created 
of which 114,593 permanent and 
568,482 temporary jobs 
  3,603,541 jobs supported  
  Rhomolo-EIB estimate: 690,000 new 

and induced jobs by 202037 

n/a 

Number  of  SMEs,  small  mid-
caps  and  mid-caps  supported 
under EFSI 
*Target date: mid-2018  
Source: Commission services  
As of end 2017, EFSI support thus mobilised investment amounting to 81% of the target of EUR 
315 billion set for mid-2018 for approved operations. As of May 2018 and based on approved 
operations, the EFSI achieved 91.2% of its target of expected investment mobilised. In general, it 
is expected that by mid-2018 the investment to be mobilised based on approved operations will 
come very close to the initial target of EUR 315 billion. 

549,500 expected to be supported of 
which  
 135,785 have already received financing 

Table 6 - EFSI support - state of play per window 

(in billion EUR) 

31 December 2017 

15 May 2018 

EFSI IIW – financing  

EFSI IIW - investment mobilised  

EFSI SMEW - financing 

EFSI SMEW-investment 
mobilised  

Total EFSI financing 

Total EFSI investment mobilised 

Source: EIB 

Signed 

Approved 

Signed 

Approved 

27.4 

131.4 

10.0 

75.9 

37.4 

207.3 

39.3 

166.7 

12 

89.5 

51.3 

256.3 

29.2 

137.9 

12.4 

86.7 

41.6 

224.6 

43.3 

186.2 

14.2 

101.2 

57.5 

287.4 

In terms of signed operations, the investment mobilised amounted to EUR 207.3 billion at end 
2017 and EUR 224 billion at 15 May 2018. The performance under SMEW has  been  stronger 
than under IIW compared to initial targets. 

35 Source: EIB EFSI 2017 Operational Report.  
Temporary  employment  –  jobs  created  to  implemented  a  given  project  i.e.  construction  phase  of  a  project;  it  is 
measured in person years.   
Permanent employment – jobs of long-term character that are anticipated to last beyond the project implementation 
phase; it is measured in FTE.  
Jobs supported – jobs created as a result of multi-beneficiary intermediates loans, risk-sharing structures and funds 
and  other  than  infrastructure  and  non-SMEs  funds;  direct  jobs  supported  are  measured  based  on  the  information 
provided by financial intermediaries at the inclusion. See also Table 9.  
36The Investment Plan for Europe: Questions and Answers, 20 July 2015- 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5419_en.htm 
37 Based on approved operations as of 31 Dec 2016.  

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
In  addition,  the  evaluation  found  that  the  level  of  multipliers  is  broadly  in  line  with  the  initial 
expectation for the EFSI. As of 31 December 2017, the EFSI multiplier for both windows was 
13.5. This is currently lower than expected but close to the anticipated multiplier of 15 (see table 
below  as  well  as  Table  5).  It  is  important  to  acknowledge  that  there  is  a  potential  trade-off 
between reaching the investment target set by the Regulation and the need to select higher risk 
projects  and  ensure  additionality.  From  the  Commission  perspective,  ensuring  added  value, 
additionality and impact of the EFSI support should be prioritised compared to the volumes of 
investment mobilised.  

Table 7 - EFSI multipliers at aggregate & window level by type of product 

Type 

Multiplier 

e
t
a
g
e
r
g
g
A

W

I
I

W
E
M
S

Hybrid Debt Type 

Equity Type 

Standard Debt Type 

Aggregate 

Hybrid Debt Type 

Equity Type 

Debt Type 

Aggregate 

Equity 

Debt 

Aggregate 

15.2 

11.4 

15.2 

13.5 

15.2 
13.9 

11.7 

12.7 

8.6 

26.6 

15.2 

Source: EIB, 2017 Year-end Operational Report  

Mobilisation of private capital and crowding-in of private investors 

A  key  objective  of  the  EFSI  is  to  maximise  where  possible  private  sector  investment.  The 
evaluation found that at the end of December 2017, the EFSI support was expected to mobilise 
almost  EUR  134  billion  of  private  sector  investment,  which  represents  64  per  cent of  the  total 
EFSI investment mobilised. It is worth noting that equity instruments under the IIW have been 
particularly  successful  in  attracting  private  capital  –  mobilising  over  12  euros  of  private 
financing for every euro of EFSI financing.  
The calculation methodology of investment mobilised is in line with the Financial Regulation38 
provisions and with  the general  practice used  for  centrally managed financial  instruments. The 
independent evaluation however, recommended caution with interpreting these results as a strict 
causality  effect  could  not  be  determined.  It  warned  that  the  entire  volume  of  private  financing 
mobilised  can  not  necessarily  be  attributed  to  the  EFSI.  A  portion  of  this  financing  mobilised 
would have possibly been committed to projects by private investors anyway, even if most likely 
at  different  terms  (different  rate,  maturity).  A  similar  opinion  was  expressed  by  the  ECA.  The 
discussion  on  additionality  in  section  5.1.4.1  demonstrates  that  some  project  promoters  had 
access  to  alternative  sources.  Their  replies  however  suggest  that  this  alternative  financing  may 
have been offered at less favourable terms (lower maturities, higher interest rates, less security 
requirements) and that the EFSI involvement had a significant signalling effect.  

38 For centrally managed financial instruments, article 223 Rules of Application Leverage effect (Article 140 of the 
Financial  Regulation)  states  that  “(…)  the  leverage  effect  of  Union  funds  shall  be  equal  to  amount  of  finance  to 
eligible  final  recipients  divided  by  the  amount  of  the  Union  contribution.  (…)”  This  definition  implies  that  all 
sources of finance flowing into a project are included in the calculation of the “amount of finance to eligible final 
recipients”. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  independent  evaluation  concludes  that  there  is  always  a  risk  that  market  intervention  can 
crowd  out  market  investors  and  although  there  is  some  evidence  under  the  IIW  of  a  potential 
crowding out effect, further research would be needed to establish this with more certainty and to 
determine the nature and scale of any potential crowding out. While the survey, the interviews 
and  the  project  reviews  carried  out  by  the  external  consultants  pointed  to  the  possibility  that 
EFSI  may  have  crowded  out  private  sector  investors  in  some  cases,  the  emphasis  put  by 
respondents  on  signalling  effect  suggests  that  the  EFSI  involvement  helped  project  promoters 
attract other private investors. In particular, 53% of those project promoters that claimed to have 
access to other sources of financing stated that the signalling effect is one of EFSI's main benefit. 
In addition, the respondents also stressed the longer maturity, lower interest rates, and lower or 
no  security  requirements  (Figure  20)  offered  with  the  EFSI  support.  This  suggests  that  some 
project  promoters  who  might  have  had  access  to  alternative  financing  still  benefited  from  the 
EFSI support in terms of the signalling effect, longer maturities and lover interest rates.  

Table 8 - EFSI financing signed and private finance / investment mobilised (end 2017) 

 (EUR bn) 

EFSI 
financing 
signed 

Private 
finance 
mobilised 

Investment 
mobilised 

IIW 

SMEW 

Debt 
Equity 
Total 
Debt 
Equity 
Total 
Debt 
Equity 
Total 

24,133 
3,279 
27,412 
5,973 
4,026 
9,998 
30,106 
7,304 
37,411 
Source: ICF based on EIB EFSI 2017 Operational Report 

 42,296  
  39,851  
  82,148  
  33,562  
  17,814  
  51,375  
  75,858  
  57,665  
  133,523  

81,678 
49,719 
131,397 
48,508 
27,432 
75,940 
130,186 
77,151 
207,337 

EFSI 
total 

Private 
sector share 
of 
investment 
mobilised 

Private 
finance 
mobilised 
per euro of 
EFSI 
financing 

Investment 
mobilised 
per euro of 
EFSI 
financing 

52% 
80% 
63% 
69% 
65% 
68% 
58% 
75% 
64% 

1.8 
12.2 
3.0 
5.6 
4.4 
5.1 
2.5 
7.9 
3.6 

3.4 
15.2 
4.8 
8.1 
6.8 
7.6 
4.3 
10.6 
5.5 

Contribution of NPBIs and Investment Platforms to the EFSI Objectives 

The increased risk bearing capacity through the EFSI enabled the EIB and the EIF to reach new 
market areas, new client  types and develop new ways of engaging with existing clients. 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 particular, the 2016 independent evaluation concluded that: “there are 
indications that  there  is  a  need  for  financing  of  projects  of  a  smaller  size  as  opposed  to  large 
projects under the IIW”. The ICF independent evaluation found that the EFSI made significant 
progress, notably through equity-type products, both for new delivery models and collaboration 
with NPBIs. In particular:  
  More than 80 per cent of the clients benefitting from EFSI IIW are new EIB counterparts39. 

  70-80 per cent of the deals under SMEW have been signed with new counterparts.  

  Cooperation with NPBIs has been strongly enhanced under the EFSI. The share of operations 
co-financed  with  NPBIs  was  established  as  a  key  monitoring  indicator  for  the  EFSI  and  is 
included in the operational reporting required from the EIB Group. At the end of 2017, 141 
operations  signed  under  EFSI  involved  NPBIs,  amounting  to  EUR  7.4  billion  of  EFSI 
financing.  NPBIs  have  made  an  important  contribution  to  the  delivery  of  the  EFSI  policy 
objectives, as their local presence and knowledge has facilitated transaction origination and 

39 EFSI Stakeholders’ consultation Summary report, 8 December 2017  

25 

 
 
                                                 
enabled  smaller  deal  sizes,  which  is  one  recognised  means  to  benefit  real  economy  and 
financed-constrained  beneficiaries.  Cooperation  and  coordination  with  NPBIs  is  also  an 
essential element of improving the EU added value of the EFSI and ensures complementarity 
by reducing overlaps between national schemes and EU level intervention.  

  More widely, the new delivery models (e.g. investment platforms, risk sharing models) and 
collaborations have contributed to financing smaller projects and facilitating local outreach. 
However,  this  has  led  to  only  a  limited  contribution  to  geographical  diversification  of  the 
EFSI portfolio. 

The EIB has also developed new forms of cooperation  – moved from partial to full delegation 
models for risk- sharing40. 

The  EFSI  has  allowed  some  new  instruments  to  be  developed  in  collaboration  with  EU 
programmes and instruments. Examples include: 

  The planned financial close of the CEF Broadband Fund which is a layered fund in which 
the first loss piece will be covered by the CEF equity instrument; the mezzanine tranche 
by the EFSI, and the more senior tranche by other investors (including NPBs, EIB own 
financing and private investors)41; and 

  EFSI  contribution  to  the  Pan-European  VC  funds-of-funds  (up  to  EUR  100  million), 
together  with  Horizon  2020's  InnovFin  Equity  scheme  (up  to  EUR  200  million)  and 
COSME EFG (up to EUR 100 million)42. 

40  In  risk-sharing  operations,  the  EIB  assumes  the  risk  on underlying  transactions  to  support  the  origination of  an 
EFSI  eligible  new  portfolio  of  loans.  In  partial  delegation  models,  the  EIB  retains  the  right  to  approve/reject  any 
addition to the portfolio. In full delegation models, the EIB delegates to the financial intermediary the selection of 
the loans based on pre-defined criteria. 
41 Interview with CEF programme managers 
42 2017, Technopolis, Interim Evaluation of the COSME Programme, Annex A to the final report, EC, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/28084    

26 

 
                                                 
Box 2 - Investment platforms under the EFSI  

EFSI Investment platforms are co-investment arrangements structured with a view to catalysing investments in a 
set  of  projects  (as  opposed  to  individual  projects).  Investment  platforms  are  a  means  to  aggregate  investment 
projects, reduce transaction and information costs and provide for more efficient risk allocation between various 
investors. 

Investment platforms are particularly suited to addressing the difficulties encountered by smaller projects or less 
developed regions by: 

 

pooling smaller or local investment projects, which would by themselves be too small to benefit, and 

  making  bundled  projects  accessible  to  new  investor  groups,  for  example  pension  funds  or  institutional 

investors, that are less familiar with the EU market. 

Investment  platforms  can  be  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. 

As  of  December  2017, 35  investment  platforms  had  been approved,  and out of  which three  with  EFSI  support 
under the SMEW.  

These  platforms  represent  nearly  EUR  4  billion  of  EFSI  financing  and  more  than  EUR  29  billion  of  expected 
investments mobilised.  

A  majority  of  investment  platforms  to  date  have  been  set  up  for  energy  and  environmental  projects,  smaller 
infrastructure projects, affordable and social housing, as well as financing of SMEs and innovative midcaps. They 
generally are single-country investment platforms with a thematic focus. The first platforms approved and signed 
were in Italy, France and Spain, but further diversification can be seen with examples in Finland, Greece, Poland, 
Germany and the Netherlands. A couple of examples, such as the CEF Broadband Fund, will cover the whole EU. 

The majority of these investment platforms involve NPBIs. 

Source: ICF 

EFSI’s contribution to jobs and growth 

At  the  end  of  2017,  signed  EFSI  operations  stood  at  EUR  37.4  billion,  which  is  expected  to 
mobilise EUR 207 billion of investment. Actual disbursements stood at EUR 10.1 billion under 
IIW  and  EUR  10  billion  under  SMEW.  Therefore,  given  the  nature  of  investment  projects, 
considerable amount of the envelope of IIW remains undisbursed. It is thus early to capture the 
full impact of the EFSI on employment and the economic growth. 

The  2016  independent  evaluation  concluded  that  the  "contribution  to  growth  and  jobs  is 
currently insufficiently measured and monitored, while these are key ultimate objectives for the 
longer  term.”  However,  since  then  the  ICF  evaluation  underlined  considerable  efforts  by  the 
European Commission and the EIB Group to estimate the potential impact on jobs and growths.  
Direct jobs  created  or  sustained  is  one  of  the  six  Key  Monitoring  Indicators  against  which  the 
performance of the EFSI is regularly monitored by the Commission43. As of end-2017, the EFSI 
created nearly 115,000 of permanent jobs and over 0.5 million of temporary ones and supported 
over 3.5 million of jobs.  

Table 9 - Forecast number of direct jobs created 

Permanent 
employment 

Temporary 
employment 

Jobs supported 

IIW 

114,593 

568,482 

SMEW 
: 
Source: ICF based on EIB EFSI 2017 Operational Report  

: 

2,090,117 

1,513,424 

According  to  European  Commission  estimations  at  the  outset  of  the  Investment  Plan,  the  Plan 
had the potential to add EUR 330 to EUR 410 billion to the EU's GDP and create 1 to 1.3 million 

43 EIB, 2015. Key Performance Indicators. Available at:  
http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/efsi_steering_board_kpi_kmi_methodology_en.pdf    

27 

 
 
                                                 
new jobs in the coming three years. These estimates were based on the expected impact of EFSI 
and  the  potential  contribution  of  additional  financial  instruments  under  shared  management, 
which are not within the scope of this evaluation. Therefore, we assume that EFSI was expected 
to contribute to the creation of 1 million jobs. After less than three years of implementation, and 
half a year before the end of the target period, the forecast number of new jobs created stands at 
68% of the estimated impact. Therefore, it is likely that at the end of the target period, the initial 
expectations in terms of direct jobs created will not be fully met. 

However,  the  EIB  estimates  include  only  direct  jobs  created.  The  reported  numbers  do  not 
capture the indirect and induced effects of the EFSI on employment nor its impact on economic 
growth. To address these and to provide a plausible estimate, the Economic Department of the 
EIB, in collaboration with the Joint Research Centre (JRC) has undertaken a modelling exercise 
(using Rhomolo-EIB model).  

The  EIB  reported,  based  on  the  Rhomolo-EIB  model,  that  EFSI  operations  approved  since 
inception  up  to  31  December  201644  mobilised  EUR  161  billion  of  investment,  and  will  have 
added  0.67  per  cent  to  EU  GDP  and  generate  690,000  new  jobs  by  2020,  compared  to  the 
baseline scenario (see Figure 12).  

While the Rhomolo EIB model captures also the induced effect on jobs, the current estimate of 
690,000 new jobs by 2020 includes only operations signed by end-201645. In addition, the EFSI 
supported more than 3.5 million jobs. Overall, it is reasonable to expect that the total direct and 
induced jobs created by the EFSI operations to be approved by mid-2018 will come close to 1 
million or slightly above.  

Figure 12 - Impact of EFSI and the wider EIB Group on the EU GDP and employment 

Source: EIB, 2018. Assessing the macroeconomic impact of the EIB Group, version from April 2018 

The  evaluation  found  some  scope  of  improvement  in  particular  in  terms  of  the  transparency 
behind key assumptions of the Rhomolo-EIB model. Nevertheless, it noted the usefulness of this 
challenging and complex exercise. 

Effectiveness of the scoreboard 

The  2016  independent  evaluation  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”. 

44  The EIB and JRC are currently in the process updating the calculations for all approvals up to 31st of December 
2017. However, the results are expected to be available in early June  and will be publicly available.  
45 Due to the time lag of reporting data, the end-2017 results are currently under preparation.  

28 

 
 
                                                 
This  evaluation  found  the  scoreboard  to  be  a  relevant  (see  section  5.1.1)  and  an  effective 
decision-making  framework  for  the  Investment  Committee  (IC).  However,  some  stakeholders 
expressed a view that more clarity on how the EIB derives particular rankings is still needed46. 

EFSI 2.0 introduced a requirement for the Steering Board to establish a minimum score for each 
pillar  in  the  scoreboard  with  a  view  to  enhancing  the  assessment  of  projects.  Moreover,  the 
Steering Board may allow the IC to examine a project whose score is below the minimum score 
under certain conditions. The interviewed IC members sensed that the minimum threshold of 4 
out  of  the  total  of  13  points  for  the  4th  Pillar  could  have  been  higher  in  order  to  reduce  the 
volume-driven incentives. However, there is also an argument that this relatively low threshold 
may present more opportunities for the IC to exercise its independent mandate.  

The interviewed IC members also raised the point that currently the EIB project documentation 
does  not  include  information  on  the  actual  effort  made  by  a  project  promoter  to  identify 
alternative sources of financing and to the terms likely to be offered by alternative sources. It is 
to  be  noted  however,  that  such  information  is  not  required  by  the  EFSI  Regulation  neither 
concerning the eligibility nor the additionality criteria.  
Past EFSI evaluations, including the ECA’s Report on the Extension of EFSI47, argued for more 
transparency,  i.e.  publication  of  the  scoreboards  for  the  EFSI  operations  after  they  are  signed. 
Consequently the EFSI 2.0 envisages the publication of the scoreboard after the signature of the 
project as well as a publication of the rationale of the IC decisions (from March 2018 onwards).  

5.1.3  Efficiency 

EFSI governance 

The EFSI governance includes a Steering Board, an Investment Committee (IC) and a Managing 
Director48. The potential use of the EU guarantee is examined and evaluated by the Investment 
Committee. The latter is composed of a Managing Director and eight independent experts with 
experience in one or more key EFSI-related sectors.  

For the IIW projects, the Investment Committee decides on the application of the EU guarantee 
on  the  basis  on  a  four-pillar  examination  (the  scoreboard).  The  EU  guarantee  to  the  SMEW 
products is decided by the EFSI Steering Board and the Managing Director after consultation of 
the Investment Committee. 

This and the past EFSI evaluations found that that the current EFSI governance structure works 
well. However, the 2016 ECA report called for more transparency and some streamlining49. In 
particular it noted that: “[…]complex interrelations between the Commission and the EIB, and 
their  respective  appointees  within  the  EFSI  decision-making  process,  make  it  difficult  to 
establish  for  accountability  purposes  who  is  ultimately  responsible  to  the  EU  budgetary  and 
legislative authorities for the performance  and risk  management of EFSI as well as to identify 
potential conflicts of interest between EFSI and non-EFSI roles and responsibilities.” 

It  was  found  that  the  IC  is  important  for  the  legitimacy  and  credibility  of  EFSI’s  governance. 
Table  10  below  summarises  information  from  monthly  IC  meetings  that  took  place  between 
March 2016 and January 2018.  

46 Marginal/ acceptable/ good/ excellent in the case of 2nd Pillar, and low/ moderate/ significant/ high for the 3rd 
Pillar 
47 ECA, November 2016. EFSI, an early proposal to extend and expand. 
48 EIB, 2017. EFSI Governance. Available at: http://www.eib.org/efsi/governance/index.htm   
49 ECA, November 2016. EFSI, an early proposal to extend and expand. 

29 

 
                                                 
Table 10 - Summary of monthly IC meetings, March 2016 – January 2018 

Total 
number of 
EFSI 
application 
assessed 

Number of 
applications 
where IC 
decision was 
unanimous 

Number of 
applications 
where IC 
decision was by 
majority 

Number of 
applications with no 
information on the 
proportion of votes50 

Number of 
applications 
rejected 

Number of 
Conflict of 
Interests 
reported 

294 

129 
Source: Copy of minutes provided by the EIB 

20 

143 

4 

13 

Interviewed  IC  members  pointed  to  the  absence  of  feedback  from  the  EIB  on  the  status  of 
projects  that  have  been  approved  and  are  being  implemented.  This  could  be  regarded  as  a 
potentially  missed  opportunity  for  the  IC  members  to  learn  from  their  decisions.  According  to 
the  EIB,  the  EFSI  Secretariat  gives  IC  members  after  each  Board  updated  information  on 
projects and provides regular reports on the EFSI implementation and on specific matters such as 
SMEs, funds, and programme loans. This points at important progresses made on information-
sharing between EIB services and the IC. 

Application and appraisal process 

The  surveys  of  project  promoters  found  that  only  15  per  cent  considered  the  application 
procedure difficult, that share increases to 24 per cent for the appraisal procedure.  

Figure 13 - Project promoters under IIW on EFSI application and appraisal procedure 

Source: Survey of IIW project promoters, N=89  

Project  promoters  sometimes  perceived  the  administrative  requirements  and  paper  work  as 
excessive.  The  efficiency  of  the  appraisal  process  is  seen  as  dependent  on  the  dedication  and 
pragmatism of the EIB staff, which were often acknowledged as excellent. 

Figure 14 shows the improvement of the average time that elapses between the approval of the 
project  and  its  signature  for  the  current  IIW  portfolio51.  The  average  time  (in  weeks)  between 
approval and signature of a project has been falling over time, despite an increase in the volume 
of projects being submitted. This may be also a consequence of some efficiency gains following 
the inception of the EFSI (e.g. use of delegated approvals) and of the increase in the number of 
EIB staff. 

For the SMEW, comparable data shows that deals implemented by the EIF indicate a very stable 
pattern. The average duration (in weeks) between the approval and signature of SMEW projects 
was 12.5, 13.5 and 11.5 weeks in 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively.  

50  The  minutes  documents  from  the  period  between  June  2016  and  March  2017  do  not  provide  the  indication 
whether a given application was approved unanimously or by majority 
51 Generally, EFSI operations under IIW are typically more complex than standard EIB operations. Certain projects 
may require additional time and resources, and the time elapsed between approval and signature is also a function of 
how efficient is a given project promoter who seeks financing.      

30 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 14 - Evaluation of time elapsed between approvals and signature, IIW 

Source: ICF based on the EIB data of 264 signed operations, as of 31st December 2017  

5.1.4  Coherence  

5.1.4.1  Coherence with other EU Programmes  

The  EY  independent  evaluation  noted  that  “[s]takeholders  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.”  It  recommended  to  “[f]urther  develop  and  facilitate 
complementarity  and  synergy,  and  avoid  overlaps,  with  other  financing  sources”.  Similar 
remarks were included in the 2016 EIB evaluation and by other studies52. 
EFSI  was  created  after  several  other  EU  financial  instruments  under  the  2014-2020  MFF  had 
already been in place. Figure 14 maps the main current financial instruments and the EFSI. Some 
initial  overlaps  have  been  resolved  through  prompt  action  by  re-focusing  existing  instruments 
towards new market segments (e.g. projects outside the EU or new thematic products in the case 
of  InnovFin’s  EIB  debt  products)  and/or  developing  a  deal  allocation  policy  formalising  the 
preferential use of the EFSI (e.g. CEF DI, COSME EGF).  

Under  the  IIW,  observed  overlaps  between  the  EFSI  and  the  financial  instruments  concern 
mainly InnovFin debt products and CEF debt instrument. This in turn led to some ‘cannibalising’ 
of these existing instruments by the EFSI. 

52 CEPS 2017 study commissioned by the European Parliament: “With the ambition of securing the efficiency and 
effectiveness  of  present  budgetary  instruments,  it  becomes  essential  to  avoid  duplication  of  effort  and  foster 
synergies and complementarities between instruments.” 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 15 - EU programmes and portfolio of financial instruments 

Source: ICF 
The  effect  of  these  overlaps  is  illustrated  in  the  declining  trends  of  commitments  made  under 
EIB’s  InnovFin  (see  Figure  16).  In  particular,  the  InnovFin  Large  Projects  had  very  similar 
eligibility criteria to the EFSI IIW debt financing and the InnovFin Mid-Cap Guarantee had an 
equivalent product offering as the EFSI’s Risk Sharing.  

Figure 16 - Annual commitments made under EIB’s InnovFin products  

Source: ICF based on Art. 140.8 reports: EC (2017) Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2017), EC (2016) 
Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2016) 335 and EC (2015) Commission Staff Working Document 
SWD(2015) 206 final. Note: covers InnovFin Large Projects, InnovFin MidCap Growth Finance and InnovFin 
MidCap Guarantee  

These issues have to some extent been addressed by refocusing InnovFin’s deployment in light 
of this new context. New InnovFin facilities were subsequently designed minimising the overlap 
with the EFSI. They targeted at research organisation, public entities, or target regions which are 
currently  undeserved  by  InnovFin  operations,  in  particular  in  Associated  Countries  and  less 
innovative EU countries)53. 

There  were  also  some  identified  overlaps  with  CEF  financial  instruments.  The  mid-term 
evaluation of CEF highlighted that most operations eligible under the CEF debt instrument (DI) 
are  also  eligible  under  the  EFSI.  Several  important  energy  and  transport  projects  initially 

53  2017,  EC, 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/h2020_evaluations/swd(2017)221-interim_evaluation-
h2020.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none  

the  Horizon  2020,  Staff  Working  Document,  available  at:  

Interim  Evaluation  of 

32 

 
 
 
                                                 
envisaged to be supported by the CEF DI were eventually financed under the EFSI54. This was 
later addressed  through specific  guidance by the CEF DI Steering Committee to  set out  a deal 
allocation  policy55.  Moreover,  the  budget  allocated  to  the  CEF  DI  was  significantly  reduced 
compared to the initially programmed allocation. 

Under the SMEW, the EFSI has been coherent with existing financial instruments. This is due to 
the  fact  that  the  EFSI  has  been  used  first  to  frontload  and  then  top-up  the  existing  financial 
instruments  and  has  not  created  new  ones.  However,  for  future  investment  programmes  to  be 
designed under the next MFF, it is not  desirable to have an EU instrument topping up another 
one  as  a  default  solution.  This  may  lead  to  inefficiencies,  limited  transparency,  and  create 
confusion for final beneficiaries and financial intermediaries. 

The  EFSI  allowed  the  financial  instruments,  especially  COSME  LGF  and  InnovFin  SME 
Guarantee (SMEG), to overcome budget constraints and to be rolled out more quickly.  

However,  while  this  is  not  subject  to  this  evaluation,  several  additional  overlaps  have  been 
identified between centrally managed financial instruments themselves. For example, in the area 
of SME financing, the current MFF has at least 14 different instruments focusing on SMEs under 
internal, centrally managed EU financial instruments and the EFSI (see Annex 5).  

In  conclusion,  initially  the  EFSI  support  and  centrally  managed  financial  instruments  led  to 
significant overlaps over a number of areas. Moreover, other evaluations found further overlaps 
between  certain  centrally  managed  financial  instruments.  During  the  current  programming 
period,  some  of  these  overlaps  have  already  been  addressed  through  refocusing  certain 
instruments  and/or  developing  a  deal  allocation  policy  formalising  the  preferential  use  of  the 
EFSI.  For  future  programmes,  the  independent  evaluation  recommended  to  strengthen  ex-ante 
assessments and ongoing analysis of market failures and needs at a sectoral level to avoid any 
overlaps between products and to minimise any potential crowding out effects.  

Shared management (Decentralised) programmes 

The  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds'  (ESIF)  financial  instruments  and  the  centrally 
managed  financial  instruments  financed  under  the  EFSI  SMEW  typically  serve  a  similar 
purpose,  increasing  access  to  finance  for  SMEs.  As  a  result,  they  may  target  similar 
beneficiaries.  In  this  context,  overlaps  may  occur  between  guarantee  facilities  under  the  ESIF 
financial  instruments  (FIs)  and  COSME  LGF.  The  recent  mid-term  evaluation  of  COSME56 
highlighted  competition  issues  between  ESIF  FIs  and  COSME  LGF.  As  ESIF  instruments 
involve  MS  resources  and  are  often  provided  below  market  terms,  they  are  seen  as  being 
associated  with  more  burdensome  and  longer  compliance  procedures  with  the  State  Aid  rules. 
The EFSI support does not constitute State Aid and EU centrally managed financial instruments 
are  considered  consistent  with  State  Aid  rules.  Financial  intermediaries  might  thus  have  a 
preference for EU level financial instruments (topped up with EFSI), with potential implications 
for the planned spending under ESIF. This  problem has  already been recognised but  is still an 
area  where  design  arrangements  still  need  to  be  developed  building  on  existing  2016 
guidelines57. 

This evaluation has also identified the scope for increasing synergies between the ESIF and the 
EFSI  via  combination  of  support.  The  number  of  operations  combining  the  EFSI  with  ESIF 
resources however remains relatively limited with 26 such operations being signed under the IIW 

54  Including  Grand  Contournement  Ouest  de  Strasbourg  (A355),  A6  Wiesloch  in  transport  and  the  Transgaz 
"BRUA" Gas Interconnection Project, Italian-France electricity interconnector in energy. 
55 Principles established in September 2015 and "Revised policy guidance regarding complementarity of the CEF DI 
with EFSI" in July 2017). 
56 2017, Technopolis, Interim Evaluation of the COSME Programme, Annex A to the final report, EC, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/28084  
57 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/financial-instruments/    

33 

 
                                                 
by  end-2017.  At  the  project  level,  combining  ESIF  grants58  with  the  EFSI  support  should 
typically  be  intended  for  riskier  revenue  generating  projects  that  present  a  funding  gap  and 
cannot  secure  ‘purely  commercial’  financing  terms.  While  combining  different  forms  of  EU 
support  is  possible  under  EU  rules,  there  are  still  several  obstacles  to  a  more  systematic 
combination when appropriate.  

One difficulty for pursuing combinations of ESIF resources and the EFSI support is related to the 
fact that the EFSI was established when the other instruments and their legal frameworks were 
already in place, for example with differences as regards timing for investments and eligibility 
criteria, application procedures, and reporting requirements. As regards the combination of ESIF 
FIs  and  the  EFSI,  the  new  Omnibus  Regulation  should  facilitate  such  combinations  by 
introducing simplified rules. For the future programmes it is necessary to better exploit synergies 
between the centrally managed instruments and instruments under shared management as well as 
to ensure and further eliminate any undue obstacles for their combination.  

5.1.4.2 

Internal coherence of EFSI Regulation 

The  EFSI,  the  EIAH  and  the  EIPP  are  independent  initiatives  with  a  similar  aim  to  support 
investment levels in the EU, each in a different way. 

The evaluation found that the EFSI, the EIAH and the EIPP are coherent in their distinct ways of 
supporting investment projects development and mobilisation of financing in the EU. Coherence 
between  these  activities  has  improved  since  their  launch.  However,  there  is  scope  for  further 
improvement in order to fully exploit potential synergies. 

First,  complementarity between the EFSI  and the EIAH was initially hindered by the demand-
driven  nature  of  the  two  activities  whereby  financial  and  advisory  support  was  requested  by 
different projects. EFSI 2.0 foresees however a closer link between the EIAH and the EFSI as 
the EIAH is explicitly requested to contribute to the sectorial and geographical diversification of 
the EFSI portfolio. As a result, the EIB loan officers are currently putting a particular emphasis 
on directing project promoters to the Hub when they perceive that advisory support is needed to 
improve and speed up the development of the project. 

The  complementarity  between  the  EIPP  and  the  EIAH  is  lacking  mainly  due  to  EIPP  projects 
being  too  early  in  their  development  stage  and  not  necessarily  requiring  advisory  support. 
Moreover, there is scope to better exploit the cooperation between the EIPP and the EIB Group 
(and  the  financial  intermediaries  supported  by  them)  in  order  to  increase  the  number  of  viable 
investors looking at the EIPP projects. 

5.1.5  EU Added value 

This  section  analyses  the  evaluation  results  concerning  the  EU  added  value  as  well  as  the 
additionality  criteria  as  defined  by  the  EFSI  Regulation.  It  also  analyses  ways  to  potentially 
improve the additionality criteria for future programmes.  

5.1.5.1  EU Added Value  

The  sources  and  nature  of  the  EU  added  value  varies  for  different  interventions.  It  may  result 
from  delivering  legal  and  market  certainty,  coordination  gains,  economies  of  scale,  multiplier 
effects,  complementarities,  demonstration  and  catalytic  effects,  contribution  to  cross-border 
activities, capacity building and European integration at different levels. 
The Commission report on Examples of EU added value59 recommends that the EU added value 
test is performed on the basis of the following three criteria: 

58 Combining ESIF financial instruments with the EFSI is also possible.  
59 Commission staff working documents (SEC(2011) 867 final and SWD(2015) 124 final 

34 

 
                                                 
  Effectiveness: where EU action is the only way to get results to create missing links, avoid 

fragmentation, and realise the potential of a border-free Europe; 

  Efficiency:  where  the  EU  offers  better  value  for  money,  because  externalities  can  be 
addressed, resources or expertise can be pooled, an action can be better coordinated; and 

  Synergy:  where  EU  action  is  necessary  to  complement,  stimulate,  and  leverage  action  to 

reduce disparities, raise standards, and create synergies.  

Table 11 - Types of added value for the EFSI  

Types of added value  

                                                                      Judgement 

Financial (subsidiarity) 

+ Increasing collaboration with NPBIs 
+ Mobilisation of investments 

- Some potential crowding out of private investors for 
large debt projects under the IIW or regional / national 
promotional structures under the SMEW (to be further 
investigated and addressed for the future programmes)  

Policy added value 

+ Shift in the debate from austerity to investment 

Cross border dimension 

- Lacking some policy dimension given the market-
driven nature of the instrument (e.g. sectoral policies, 
climate, territorial cohesion).  

+ Contribution to development of internal market for 
venture capital  
+ Pan-EU investment platforms 
- Only one cross-border project financed under IIW  

Signalling effect 

+ Strong European seal of approval 

Demonstration effect, 
market development, 
critical mass 

Knowledge sharing, 
standard setting and 
harmonisation  

+ Increasing access to higher risk finance 
+ Adaptation of product mix  

+ Recognised role in diffusion of best practices 
+ Increasing role with development of new 
collaborations 

Source: Adopted based on ICF evaluation report 

Financial added value (subsidiarity) 
Under the IIW, and as also reported by the previous EFSI evaluation60 and some external studies, 
there were some indications of potential crowding out effects, including of NPBIs especially for 
larger projects in the debt segment. However, these do not present conclusive evidence about the 
existence and the extent of this potential crowding out.  

The  share  of  operations  co-financed  with  NPBIs,  as  of  end-2017,  amounts  to  20  per  cent  by 
amount and 23 per cent in terms of number of operations. NPBIs from both EU15 and EU13 are 
involved in this co-financing.  

In  this  context,  there  were  several  calls  for  the  EFSI  to  involve  more  systematically  NPBIs  or 
take  more  subordinated  positions  in  co-investments  with  NPBIs  (which  will  be  possible  only 
within  the  boundaries  set  by  the  EFSI’s  risk  profile).  Some  stakeholders  also  proposed  a 
complaint mechanism to address potential crowding out cases61. 

60  EY  independent  evaluation  in  2016  expressed  concerns  about  potential  crowding  out.  Similar  concerns  were 
expressed also by S&P study of 2017 and Brugel (2016).  
61 The EIB Group already has its complaints mechanism, but this is not EFSI-specific.  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Under  the  SMEW,  instruments  are  typically  implemented  through  implementing  partners  and 
NPBIs are frequently part of the financing chain. The general view from stakeholders is that EU 
level financial instruments add to national resources in key areas where Member States resources 
alone would not be capable of addressing financing gaps.  Participating financial intermediaries 
generally highlight that the EU support is key for them to go ahead with their plans62. 

Certain  areas  for  improvements  were  however  raised  by  the  independent  evaluation.  One  such 
idea was that in the case an NPBI is already running a similar programme (open to all financial 
players), the EU could focus on counter-guarantees of that scheme (instead of providing direct 
guarantees  to  some  financial  players).  Certain  EU  level  associations  and  COSME  LGF 
intermediaries  repeatedly  report  that  acting  otherwise  could  lead  to  a  crowding  out  of  the 
national  promotional  instruments  and  structures63.  Benefits  of  this  approach  are  claimed  to 
include: ensuring a higher leverage effect and lower risk volume for the EU, covering the whole 
market  and  creating  higher  additionality  from  the  support  provided  (through  working  with 
NPBIs which, because of their intrinsic promotional mission, perform better than private players 
when it comes to targeting those in need according to a recent ECA report64). 

Policy added value 

One  main  source  of  EU  added  value  for  the  EFSI  was  mobilisation  of  financing  to  address 
market failures  and sub-optimal investment situations  at  macro and sectoral  level (see sections 
5.1.1  and  5.1.2).  In  relation  to  this,  the  EFSI  also  shifted  debate  from  austerity  to  investment[ 
support measures].  

However,  since  the  EFSI  is  a  market-driven  instrument,  one  issue  that  has  been  raised  in  this 
respect has been  a lack of support  of the EFSI  funded  projects for the EU’s long-term climate 
goals65. This is already addressed by EFSI 2.0 (Article 9) with a target of a minimum 40 per cent 
of the EFSI infrastructure and innovation projects to contribute to climate action in line with the 
Paris  Agreement  (set  as  a  target).  Under  EFSI  2.0,  investment  guidelines  also  explicitly  limit 
support to motorways in specific cases66. In view of the improved economic situation, any future 
EU investment support schemes might need a better and more targeted policy focus.  

Cross-border dimension 

Only a very limited number of supported projects concerned cross-border investments involving 
one or more Member States. This is expected to further improve under EFSI 2.0 which adds in 
the  definition  of  additionality  (Article  5)  that  projects  consisting  of  physical  infrastructure, 
including  e-infrastructure,  linking  two  or  more  Member  States  or  of  the  extension  of  such 
infrastructure  or  services  linked  to  such  infrastructure  from  one  Member  State  to  one  or  more 
Member States are strong indications of additionality. However, the EFSI has been successful in 
supporting  funds  and  platforms  that  target  projects  in  two  or  more  Member  States.  While  the 

Interim  Evaluation  of 

the  Horizon  2020,  Staff  Working  Document,  available  at:  

http://www.eif.org/news_centre/publications/Complaints_Mechanism_Policy.htm  
62  2017,  EC, 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/h2020_evaluations/swd(2017)221-interim_evaluation-
h2020.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none  
63 2017, Technopolis, Interim Evaluation of the COSME Programme, Annex A to the final report, EC, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/28084   
64 Special Report 20/2017 
65 CAN Europe & all, 2016. The best laid plans: Why the Investment Plan for Europe does not drive the sustainable 
energy transition. Available at:  http://www.foeeurope.org/best-laid-plans-investment-europe-sustainable-transition-
280916  and  FT,  2017.  EU  president’s  scheme  to  stimulate  investment  needs  adjustments  before  it  expands. 
Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/90712920-138b-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6c76   
66 Exceptions for EFSI support to motorways would be made “in cohesion countries, in less developed regions or in 
cross-border transport projects or if it is necessary to upgrade, maintain or improve road safety, develop intelligent 
transportation  system  (ITS)  devices,  guarantee  the  integrity  and  standards  of  existing  motorways  on  the  trans-
European transport network, in particular safe parking areas, alternative clean fuels stations and electric charging 
systems, or contribute to the completion of the trans-European transport network by 2030.” 

36 

 
                                                                                                                                                             
sub-projects  supported  under  these  funds  are  usually  implemented  only  in  one  Member  State, 
this supports the creation of a European market for investments in different sectors. 

Another  possibility  for  the  EFSI  to  address  the  cross-border  dimension  is  to  further  encourage 
the  set-up  of  pan-EU  investment  platforms  (as  of  April  2018,  there  are  six  examples  of  EFSI 
investment platforms with coverage of more than two EU MS, including the Connecting Europe 
Facility Broadband Fund and the Marguerite Fund II) and EFSI investment platforms involving 
collaboration among NPBIs from different Member States (two cases so far).  

In  addition, the role  of  the  EFSI  in overcoming  market  fragmentation  in  areas  such  as  venture 
capital  investment  is  well  recognised  and  is  one  of  the  added  value  of  EU  level  equity 
instruments67. For instance, the EFSI contributed to the Pan-European VC funds-of-funds (up to 
EUR  100  million),  together  with  Horizon  2020's  InnovFin  Equity  scheme  (up  to  EUR  200 
million) and COSME EFG (up to EUR 100 million)68. 

Signalling effect 

EU level instruments implemented by the EIB and EIF are considered as a “stamp of approval” 
and  thus  help  attract  other  investors.  In  total,  69%  of  the  IIW  project  promoters  (as  well  as 
interviewees)  who  responded  to  the  ICF  survey  agreed  that  this  signalling  effect  to  other 
potential investors about the attractiveness of the project was a substantial or a very substantial 
comparative  advantage.  In  addition,  there  was  also  evidence  that  the  EFSI  contributed  to 
attracting new types of investors. 

Demonstration effect, market development and critical mass 

The EFSI also plays a role in demonstrating the viability or attractiveness of certain asset classes 
or  sectors.  For  instance,  InnovFin  SMEG  intermediaries  recently  confirm  increasing  loan 
volumes and new riskier market segments being covered69. 

In addition, via investment platforms, the EFSI can help pull in together smaller size projects that 
otherwise  would  have  been  too  small  for  investors70.  Respondents  to  ICF's  NPB  survey 
confirmed that they saw the investment platforms as a flexible tool that allows funding sectors/ 
beneficiaries that would otherwise not have access to similar levels or terms of financing. With 
the  recent  launch  of  new  products  including  social  incubators,  payment-by-result  schemes,  the 
EFSI is also expected to raise the profile of the social and education sectors. 

In  the  survey  addressed  to  NPBs,  several  respondents  –  particularly  NPBs  from  new  Member 
States and crisis affected countries – claimed that the EFSI had made a significant contribution to 
increasing access to higher risk finance in their countries.  

Knowledge sharing, capacity building, standard setting and harmonisation  

The role in the dissemination of best practices and promotion of harmonisation and standards at 
industry  level  of  the  EIB,  and  especially  of  the  EIF  in  relation  to  the  venture  capital  and 
securitisation  market,  is  widely  recognized71.  This  aspect  is  also  supported  by  new  forms  of 
collaboration with the NPBs. 

67 2017, Technopolis, Interim Evaluation of the COSME Programme, Annex A to the final report, EC, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/28084   
68 2017, Technopolis, Interim Evaluation of the COSME Programme, Annex A to the final report, EC, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/28084   
69  2017,  CSES, 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/interim_evaluation_of_
horizon_2020's_financial_instruments.pdf 
70 See for instance ICF study on feasibility of Investment Platforms in Education and Training from 2016 for DG 
EAC, European Commission. 
71 2017, Technopolis, Interim Evaluation of the COSME Programme, Annex A to the final report, EC, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/28084   

Interim  evaluation  of  Horizon  2020’s  Financial 

Instruments,  EC,  available  at 

: 

37 

 
                                                 
5.1.5.2  Additionality 

Article 5.1 of the EFSI 1.0 Regulation defines additionality as: 

  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  EU  financial 
instruments without EFSI support.  

  EFSI financing shall be considered to provide additionality to a project if they carry a risk 
corresponding to the EIB's “Special Activity” (i.e. loan grade of D- or below) and, where 
it is not special activity, the project has to demonstrate additionality otherwise.  

The  original  definition  of  additionality  focused  on  the  capacity  of  EFSI  to  support  the  EIB  in 
undertaking  riskier  activities  compared  to  its  own  standards.  Whether  the  observed  increase  in 
the  EIB's  EFSI  Special  Activities  is  a  sufficient  indication  of  additionality  has  been  covered 
extensively by the previous EFSI evaluations. The independent evaluation of the EFSI concluded 
in  201672  noted  that  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  all  EFSI  operations  were  EIB  Special 
Activities, in some cases stakeholders perceived them not to provide for a higher risk compared 
to what the commercial market could offer. In particular, the evaluation concluded: ”[w]hile the 
design of EFSI was and remains relevant, concerns are expressed regarding additionality [and] 
possible crowding[…].” In  the same context,  the EIB evaluation completed in  2016 pointed to 
the need for a clearer definition of additionality in relation to Special Activities in order to ensure 
higher consistency in project selection while mitigating potential reputational risks to the EFSI. 
Similarly, the 2016 independent evaluation as well as the ECA opinion on the EFSI stressed that 
the fulfilment of the additionality criterion should  go beyond “ticking the box” of EIB Special 
Activities, and that the underlying assessment for additionality should be made more transparent. 

In  response  to  the  points  identified  above,  the  definition  of  additionality  was  enhanced  in  the 
EFSI 2.0 Regulation, to complement the original requirement considering whether the operations 
would  have  been  carried  out  also  in  the  absence  of  the  EFSI  by  the  EIB  or  EIF  to  the  same 
extent. In this context, the risk corresponding to EIB Special Activities is no more a sufficient 
criterion  to  demonstrate  additionality  but  it  only  provides  a  strong  indication  alongside  other 
relevant criteria in  the current context  of low interest  rates and ample liquidity, such as  higher 
risk  coverage  including  through  subordination,  exposure  to  specific  risks  (e.g.  unproven 
technology  and  higher-risk  counterparts)  as  well  as  investments  in  new  cross-border 
infrastructures.  Moreover,  the  EFSI  2.0  Regulation  requires,  as  an  eligibility  criteria,  that 
supported projects must address market failures or sub-optimal investment situations. Neither the 
initial EFSI Regulation nor its extension (EFSI 2.0) defines the concepts and the criteria related 
to “market failures” and “sub-optimal investment situation”.  

The  independent  evaluation  focused  on  the  additionality  criteria  provided  by  the  EFSI  1.0 
Regulation (which was the applicable Regulation during the period under evaluation) to which it 
added considerations relative to additionality that derive from the market failure theory.  

Figure 17 shows that  the  loan grading of an  EFSI operation ranges  between  D+ and  E3+. The 
weighted-average  grading  of  a  standard  EIB  operation  is  C.  This  demonstrates  that  EFSI 
operations  have  a  higher  risk  profile  as  compared  to  non-EFSI  operations.  As  per  data  at 
December  2017,  seven  debt  operations  under  the  IIW  (totalling  EUR  850  million  of  EFSI 
financing signed) were not classified as Special Activities in line with the Regulation. 

72 See Annex 6 for a detailed discussion of the finding of past EFSI evaluations.  

38 

 
                                                 
Figure 17 - Risk profile of the EFSI operations compared to non-EFSI EIB operations 

Source:  ICF,  based  on  data  provided  by  the  EIB.  The  above  figure  shows  the  weighted-average  loan  grading 
equivalent of the EFSI and non-EFSI operations by type of counterpart. Data as of 31 December 2017. There are no 
hybrid non-EFSI operations.  

To  supplement  the  evidence  collected  via  surveys  and  interviews,  the  independent  evaluation 
also conducted in-depth reviews of 60 IIW projects to review mainly the market failure rationale 
for  these  projects.  In  the  judgement  of  ICF  experts,  the  market  failure  rationale  for  EFSI 
investment  was  frequently  (circa  60  per  cent  of  all  IC  documentation  reviewed)  not  well 
established  in  the  project  documentation  presented  to  the  Investment  Committee.  This  was 
particularly the case for infrastructure and utility projects. In addition, for several SME and mid 
cap financing projects reviewed, the existence of market failure was assumed and an analysis of 
specific  characteristics  of  businesses  affected  by  market  failures  was  absent.  The  experts 
expected  to  see  more  detailed  information  and  evidence  from  the  EIB  on  market  failures 
affecting individual projects. Moreover, the independent evaluation considered that it would be 
helpful if the EIB could provide information on whether the project promoter had approached the 
market  for  financing  and  the  outcome  of  their  efforts.  It  would  also  be  important  to  better 
document the efforts made by the EIB to maximise, where possible, the mobilisation of private 
capital. 
The  independent  evaluation  found  that  SME  operations  respected  both  of  the  main  criteria  for 
additionality: 
  Front-loading  –  In  2014,  there  was  unmet  demand  for  SME  financing  as  limited  volumes 
were available under existing mandates (such as COSME and InnovFin guarantee products) 
due  to  the  EU’s  annual  budget  allocations.  With  the  EFSI,  the  EIF  was  able  to  front-load 
these  mandates  which  enabled  them  to  increase  the  annual  budget  for  2015  as  well  as  the 
annual budgets for the years 2016 to 2020.  

  Top-up  (doing  more)  –  It  was  initially  planned  that  the  EFSI  (EU)  guarantee  would  be 
reduced every year from annual budgetary appropriation under COSME and InnovFin. Due 
to high demand, the EFSI (EU) guarantee was not released and instead it was used to top-up 
the mandates. 

Before  the  launch  of  the  EFSI,  the  annual  volume  of  financing  available  via  COSME  and 
InnovFin was around EUR 100 million and EUR 150 million respectively. Front-loading enabled 
the EIF to add EUR 500 million to COSME and EUR 750 million to InnovFin in 2015. Thus, the 
additional  finance  reached  the  real  economy  more  quickly.  Due  to  topping  up,  COSME  was 

39 

Loan gradingA+A-B+B-CD+D-E1+E2+E3+E1-E2-E3-Expected losses<0.10%<0.20%<0.30%<0.50%<1%<2%<3%<5%<7%<10%<15%<20%<25%DebtBanksCommercial companyLeasing companiesOther financial institutionsPublic administrationsPublic sector entityRegional or local authoritiesSpecial purpose vehiclesSpecial purpose vehicle issuing ABSHybridBanksCommercial companyOther financial institutionsRegional or local authoritiesSpecial purpose vehicle issuing ABSSpecial purpose vehiclesNon-EFSI operationsEFSI operationsSpecial activities 
 
increased from EUR 0.9 billion to EUR 1.45 billion whereas the InnovFin guarantee product was 
increased by EUR 880 million.  

As  the  SMEW  helped  increase  the  volume  of  financing  of  existing  EU  financial  instruments, 
other additionality aspects were assessed by relevant evaluations of these respective instruments.  

5.1.5.3  Broader analysis of additionality 
The independent  evaluation and other sources73 consistently found that  the EFSI  has  respected 
the additionality criteria as defined in the EFSI Regulation. However, some stakeholders argue 
that  these  criteria  are  broad  and  that  some  projects  supported  under  the  EFSI  may  potentially 
have been able to secure private sources of financing without the EIB Group support under the 
EFSI. With the adoption of EFSI 2.0, the co-legislators already addressed some of these requests 
and strengthened the additionality criteria.  

The  independent  evaluation  thus  also  analysed  the  question  of  additionality  from  a  broader 
perspective  beyond  the  legal  definition  in  the  EFSI  Regulation.  It  tested  whether  the  EFSI  is 
addressing market failures and sub-optimal investment situation and whether it could potentially 
be crowding out private investors (would the project go ahead without EFSI involvement under 
the same conditions and in the same timeframe).  

The EFSI Regulation does not provide a definition of what constitutes a market failure or a sub-
optimal  investment  situation.  Detailed  descriptions  of  these  two  concepts  were  included,  for 
example,  in  a  manual  on  the  ex-ante  methodology  for  financial  instruments  under  shared 
management produced by the Commission and the EIB74. According to the manual: 

  Market failure refers to non-functioning aspects of the market, which result in an inefficient 
allocation of resources and entail the underproduction or overproduction of certain goods and 
services. The manual also describes the underlying causes of market failure. 

  Sub-optimal investment situations represent a specific type of market failure. In essence, this 
term refers to situations where the existing investment activity is insufficient. According to 
the  manual,  sub-optimal  investment  situations  must  therefore,  be  directly  linked  to  the 
evidence of an investment gap i.e. the difference between existing levels of investment and 
the level required to meet a policy objective (or set of policy objectives).  

The broader definition of additionality considered by ICF and other stakeholders who addressed 
this issue assumes that an “additional project” would not have gone ahead to the same extent and 
within  the  same  timeframe  without  EFSI  support75,  i.e.  would  not  have  been  able  to  secure 
funding from the EIB Group or other public or private investors. 

This definition however presents some limitations and may be difficult to test given the potential 
lack of counterfactuals. Moreover, the fact that the EFSI is a demand-driven initiative adds to the 
complexity  when  assessing  the  additionality  of  the  financing  support  provided.  As  a  matter  of 
fact, economically and technically viable projects, such as those targeted by the EFSI, could in 
principle  secure  funding  from  various  sources,  but  sometimes  at  unfavourable  terms  and 
conditions  (e.g.  high  interest  rate,  short  duration,  security).  This  may  potentially  hinder  the 
deployment  of  the  project  itself  or  have  a  wider  effect  by  limiting  the  interest  of  project 
promoters to further invest in areas presenting sub-optimal investment situations.  

Infrastructure & Innovation Window (IIW) 

73 ICF evaluation, EY Ad-hoc audit of the application of the EFSI Regulation, Bruegel, ECA opinion No 2/2016. 
74  EIB  (2014)  Ex-ante  assessment  methodology  for  financial  instruments  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period, 
General methodology covering all thematic objectives Volume I, Version 1.2 dated April 2014 
75  This  is  different  from  the  EFSI  Regulation  definition  that  links  additionality  to  availability  of  EIB  Group 
financing: “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.” 

40 

 
 
                                                 
Notwithstanding  the  above  mentioned  limitations,  ICF  tested  such  broader  definition  of 
additionality  through  desk  research,  IIW  projects  review,  surveys,  as  well  as  interviews  with 
project promoters.  

Half of the IIW project promoter surveyed (45 out of 90) claim that their project would not have 
gone ahead to the same extent and within the same timeframe without EFSI financing. Of these 
45 respondents, 33 (or 76 per cent) indicated that they could have accessed at least part of their 
financing  needs  from  alternative  sources.  However,  the  vast  majority  (91  per  cent)  of  these 
respondents  indicated  that  these  alternative  sources  could  not  have  fully  met  their  financing 
needs.  Of  this  cohort,  44  per  cent  reported  facing  difficulties  in  obtaining  finance,  mostly  in 
terms  of  the  maturity  of  financing  available  from  alternative  sources  not  being  suitable,  or  the 
volume of available financing being insufficient to meet their needs. Figure 18 shows the access 
to  alternative  financing  for  projects  whose  promoters  claimed  that  without  EFSI  their  project 
would not have gone ahead to the same extent and within the same timeframe. 

Figure 18 - Access to alternative financing 

Source: ICF survey of IIW project promoters (N=45) 

As regards the population of those claiming that they could have obtained financing at the same 
terms  and  conditions,  40%  (19  out  of  45)  responded  that  they  would  have  been  able  to  obtain 
only partial financing from alternative sources. This raises the question as to how these projects 
could  have  gone  ahead  to  the  same  extent  and  within  the  same  timeframe  without  EFSI 
financing.  
The  independent  evaluation  points  to  the  possibility  that  the  survey  results  are  affected  by  an 
element of response bias or that the question was not properly understood. Given the above, the 
external evaluators stress that the above findings need to be treated with caution. 
These survey responses suggest that a significant portion of project promoters consider that they 
could  have  obtained  financing  at  the  same  terms  and  condition  and  in  the  same  timeframe 
without  EFSI  support.  However,  these  results  must  be  interpreted  with  caution.  Figure  20 
demonstrates that these same promoters claiming they could obtain financing elsewhere consider 
that the biggest comparative advantage of EFSI are signalling effect, longer maturities, and lower 
interest rates. This is contradictory to their previous replies claiming that they could have gotten 
financing elsewhere at the same terms and conditions. Careful interpretation of this data suggests 
that  the  proportion  of  project  that  could  have  received  financing  from  other  public  or  private 
sources in the same timeframe and under the same condition is probably lower.  

41 

 
Figure 19 - Would the project have gone ahead to the same extent and timescale without 
EFSI 

Source: ICF survey of IIW project promoters (n= 90) 

Figure  20  analyses  the  responses  of  all  survey  respondents,  including  both  those  that  claimed 
additionality  (in  the  broader  description  considered  by  ICF)  and  those  that  claimed  non-
additionality  in  the  sense  that  they  could  have  obtained  the  same  funding  within  the  same 
timeframe  and to the same extent without EFSI.  The figure shows that signalling effect, lower 
interest rates and longer maturity are regarded as the most significant comparative advantages of 
EIB financing under EFSI. 

Figure 20 - Comparative advantages of EIB financing under EFSI 

Source: ICF survey of IIW project promoters (n= 90) 

Similar questions were asked to the financial intermediaries benefitting from EFSI support under 
the  IIW.  Most  of  the  financial  intermediaries  attached  a  high  importance  to  the  availability  of 
EIB  financing  under  EFSI  in  their  decision  to  go  ahead  with  their  projects.  For  equity 
transactions,  the  participation  of  EIB  contributed  to  accelerate  fund  raising  by  catalysing 
investment from other sources.  

To supplement the evidence collected via surveys, the independent evaluation also conducted in-
depth reviews of 60 IIW projects. In the judgement of ICF experts, the market failure rationale 
for  EFSI  investment  in  the  project documentation  submitted  to  the Investment  Committee  was 
incomplete  or  questionable  in  22%  of  cases.  In  particular,  more  detailed  information  and 

42 

20%29%29%36%42%47%58%62%69%Promoters claiming additionalityLower Interest ratesLower/ no security requirementsAvailability of grace periodEIB's structuring adviceLong-term involvement of EIB as equity investor22%27%16%16%51%31%73%67%53%Signalling effectLonger maturityEIB's due diligenceType of financial productsPromoters claiming no additionality 
 
 
evidence from the EIB on market failures affecting individual projects would have been needed 
in those cases. However, it was recognised that the quality of information included in the project 
documentation has progressively increased since the launch of EFSI.  

In  addition,  Investment  Committee  members  interviewed  in  the  context  of  independent 
evaluation  indicated  that  the  length  of  the  tenor  was  frequently  and,  at  times,  unconvincingly 
provided as a justification for additionality by the EIB (it was argued by the EIB that there was 
additionality  of  EFSI  financing,  since  the  same  tenor  could  not  be  obtained  by  the  project 
promoter from alternative sources).  

The  above  evidence  has  to  be  interpreted  with  caution  due  to  potential  biases  in  replies 
(respondents tend to overstate their capacity to raise funding, in particular after having secured 
such  funding  from  the  EIB),  relatively  low  response  rate  and  due  to  potential  differences  of 
understanding of different terms. However, the evidence suggests that additionality criteria under 
EFSI  1.0  could  have  been  better  defined.  The  reinforcement  of  the  additionality  criteria  under 
EFSI 2.0 should have a positive effect. The Commission has started working on a more detailed 
system  to  analyse  in  a  comprehensive  manner  the  multi-faceted  concept  of  additionality  by 
considering further additionality criteria to enable a more informed (and documented) decision 
by the Investment Committee. However, the actual impact can only be measured in a subsequent 
evaluation or a targeted survey given that operations under EFSI 2.0 started only to be approved 
in  2018.  The  evidence  also  indicates  a  possibility  that  in  certain  cases  the  EFSI  crowded-out 
some other investors. Due to its broad scope and limited timeframe of the evaluation, it was not 
possible to test this in more detail and determine the scale of the potential crowding out effect. 

SME Window 

Under  EFSI  1.0  additionality  was  defined  as  the  support  to  those  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 EU financial instruments without EFSI support. It is widely recognised 
that access to finance is more difficult for smaller companies than for larger ones for structural 
reasons (higher risk, lower survival rates for young and small companies, greater unit costs per 
transaction,  limited  collateral)  which  indicates  the  presence  of  a  market  failure.  The  identified 
market gaps for debt and equity financing are significantly larger than what EU instruments (also 
in combination with national or regional instruments) could address. 

The  SME  Window  support  to  lending  to  SMEs  is  designed  in  such  a  way  that  it  increases  the 
firepower  of  EU  instruments  supporting  SMEs  (loan  guarantees  under  the  COSME,  InnovFin, 
EaSI  and  CCS  instruments),  and  ii)  makes  their  implementation  faster.  As  a  result,  the 
additionality of the SME Window can be regarded as supporting a greater number of SMEs, with 
higher volumes of lending, and supporting them at a faster speed than the EU instruments could 
have done alone.  

In  addition,  all  underlying  instruments  (COSME,  InnovFin,  CCS  and  EaSI)  have  to  respect 
specific  additionality  criteria  as  specified  in  their  respective  legal  bases.  The  scope  of  this 
evaluation does not include an additionality test of these underlying instruments, but builds on 
the  existing  evaluations  and  audits  that  tackled  this  issue  and  on  the  interviews  with  financial 
intermediaries. They offer a mixed picture on additionality, with mid-term reviews of COSME 
and Horizon2020 being more positive in this respect. Overall, there are positive results from the 
underlying financial instruments, but better targeting of beneficiaries is needed.  
The 2017 ECA special report on EU-funded loan guarantee instruments76 recommended a better 
targeting  of  these  instruments  on  viable  businesses  lacking  access  to  finance  and  on  more 

76  ECA  (2017)  EU-funded  loan  guarantee  instruments:  positive  results  but  better  targeting  of  beneficiaries  and 
coordination with national schemes needed. The report covered: InnovFin SME Guarantee Facility for research- and 
innovation-driven companies and the COSME Loan Guarantee Facility 

43 

 
                                                 
innovative businesses. The ECA report states that in general loan guarantees delivered on what 
they were designed to do as they helped beneficiary SMEs grow more in terms of total assets, 
sales,  employee  numbers  and  productivity.  The  effects  were  higher  for  businesses  that  would 
potentially  have  struggled  to  obtain  a  loan  without  the  guarantee.  However,  according  to  the 
ECA,  a  substantial  share  of  beneficiaries  was  composed  of  businesses  having  access  to 
commercial loans. ECA found that only 40 per cent of the loans were provided to businesses that 
would  otherwise  have  struggled  to  obtain  financing  from  a  commercial  lender.  Under  the 
InnovFin  SME  Guarantee  (SMEG)  facility,  the  ECA  observed  that  only  35  per  cent  of  the 
innovative businesses included in the sample would have struggled to obtain a commercial loan 
without the EU Guarantee (a finding partially questioned by the Commission).  

These  results  may  however  not  present  the  entire  picture  of  the  benefits  to  SMEs  from  the 
intervention  through  InnovFin  and  COSME  guarantees.  As  mentioned  by  the  European 
Commission in the same ECA report, the loan guarantee instruments have been designed to also 
support SMEs that do have access to financing, but on stricter conditions in terms of collateral 
required, maturities and/or interest rate. Without the guarantee, the projects would often not have 
been pursued by SMEs or not to the same extent, resulting in a sub-optimal investment situation. 
Therefore,  the  concept  of  additionality  also  needs  to  account  for  the  improvements  in  the 
financing conditions achieved thanks to the EFSI support (i.e. lower interest rates than the ones 
available in the markets and reduced collateral obligations). Also, an increase in the risk appetite 
of  financial  intermediaries  is  an  important  effect.  It  helps  alleviate  information  asymmetries 
between the lender and the borrower that lead innovative businesses not to obtain financing they 
need.  
In this context, a recent evaluation of Horizon 2020 financial instruments77 provides a positive 
assessment  of  additionality  of  its  SMEG  facility.  It  reports  that  InnovFin  SMEG  provides 
additionality of: 

  Scale - with intermediaries under the SMEG increasing loan volumes; and, 
  Scope - new risky market segments are being covered thanks to the SMEG facility.  

The evaluation concludes that “Notwithstanding concerns among some banks, the fact that there 
has  been  such  a  high  take-up  of  the  SMEG  indicates  that  it  is  proving  to  be  a  very  successful 
intervention  in  helping  banks  to  provide  finance  to  riskier  businesses.  From  a  business 
perspective, there is strong evidence that this product largely benefits firms that would otherwise 
not have received the debt finance they require to innovate, or only on a much smaller scale and 
on less favourable conditions. For example, the guarantees free up assets that would otherwise 
have to be used to provide collateral to receive a bank loan.” 

The  results  of  an  online  survey  of  beneficiaries  of  COSME’s  Loan  Guarantee  Facility  (LGF), 
undertaken  in  the  context  of  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  COSME  programme78  show  further 
evidence of additionality. It found that only 37% of the 289 respondents indicated that they had 
access to other (than COSME supported) sources of finance that would cover all or part of their 
required  amount.  In  total,  39%  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  COSME-supported  financing 
was  the  only  option  available  to  them,  while.  24%  of  respondents  indicated  that,  even  though 
they  did  have  other  options  available,  they  preferred  the  option  that  included  the  EU-COSME 
guarantee, as the available options would not have covered the full required amount. 
As  regards  equity  financing,  the  SME  window  improves  access  to  finance  by  (i)  investing  in 
expansion  stage  funds  and  catalysing  other  private  investment,  thereby  increasing  the  overall 
amounts  of  finance  for  this  target  group  and  (ii)  in  case  of  funds  focusing  on  early  stage 
investments,  the  SME  window  catalysed  the  creation  of  a  structured  investment  facility  which 

77 CSES (2017) Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020's Financial Instruments 
78  Technopolis  (2017)  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  COSME  Programme,  Annex  A  to  the  Final  report:  Access  to 
Finance thematic area report 

44 

 
                                                 
brings together resources from InnovFin, EIF own resources and EFSI support, and allows more 
than doubling the volume of investment into early stage funds, compared to what InnovFin could 
have achieved alone. The additionality is therefore demonstrated by larger intervention volumes 
and the ability to support more SMEs than EU instruments alone. 

Moreover,  the  results  of  the  interviews  conducted  by  the  independent  evaluation  point  to 
additionality. The findings indicate that the EFSI has allowed financial intermediaries under the 
SME Window (banks, guarantors, equity funds) to either: 

  Expand  their  current  offer  i.e.  scaling  up  the  level  of  finance  to  SMEs  in  any  given 

sector; 

  Target riskier segments of the SME/ mid-cap sector; or 
  Offer finance on better terms e.g. reduced collateral requirements, better rates. 

Also, in case of equity funds, the EFSI support was claimed critical to secure the first close of 
the fund, helped attract new investors and/or reach the target fund structure.  

5.2 

 The EU Guarantee 

5.2.1  Relevance 

The EU Guarantee, by providing higher risk bearing capacity to the EIB and the EIF, allows for 
additional financing for use under the IIW and SMEW. According to the independent evaluation, 
this  is  captured  by  the  internal  multiplier  comparing  the  amount  of  EU  Guarantee  and  the 
additional EIB riskier financing, and the new volume of investment to be undertaken reflected in 
the external (mobilisation) multipliers, and the risk associated with the investment. According to 
the independent evaluation, the analysis of multipliers confirms this relevance. 

The  relevance  of  the  EU  Guarantee  was  further  enhanced  by  the  change  in  2016  of  the  initial 
allocation between windows and the shift of EUR 500 million from the IIW to the SMEW, shift 
which was done based on the observed market absorption.  

5.2.2  Effectiveness 

The  independent  evaluation  assessed  the  adequacy  of  the  size  of  the  EU  Guarantee  and  the 
provisioning  rate.  The  evaluation  concludes  that  overall  the  approach  to  modelling  the  EFSI 
target  rate  appears  to  be  adequate  and  in  line  with  industry  standards.  It  also  appears  that  all 
model inputs have been chosen in a conservative manner. 

At the same time, the evaluation indicates that certain aspects of the modelling approach have a 
significant sensitivity to some of the model inputs (e.g. correlation). It is therefore important to 
continue  applying  a  conservative  approach  on  defining  the  assumptions  and  choices  of  risk 
parameters and to monitor closely the evolution of the risk profile of the EFSI portfolio.  

5.2.3  Efficiency 

The  independent  evaluation  indicates  that  the  level  of  the  EU  Guarantee  and  the  EIB 
contribution  was  appropriately  sized  for  the  period  2015-2018  as  it  allowed  the  EIB  Group  to 
mobilise  a  level  of  investment  in  line  with  expectations  (EUR  315  billion  by  July  2018).  This 
was also supported by the EC and the EIB decision to reallocate EUR 500 million from IIW to 
the SMEW given the strong demand for financing under the SMEW. 

The proposal made by the Commission in 2016 and approved by the co-legislators to adjust the 
EFSI  provisioning  rate  from  50%  to  35%  resulted  in  a  more  efficient  use  of  the  EU  budget. 
Moreover,  a  large  part  of  the  additional  funds  required  to  provision  the  Guarantee  Fund  as  a 
result of the increase of the EU Guarantee from 16 billion to EUR 26 billion, will originate from 

45 

 
EFSI revenues and reflows from other financial instruments, hence limiting the impact on other 
parts of the EU budget. 

5.2.4  Coherence 

Coherence is evaluated for the EFSI as a whole (see section 5.1.4). 

5.2.5  EU Added Value  

The value added of the EU Guarantee is inter alia demonstrated by its effectiveness in increasing 
the risk bearing capacity of the EIB. The following graph shows that an almost five-fold increase 
in the EIB Special Activities that took place between 2014 and 2017 (from EUR 3.2 billion in 
2014  to  EUR  15.2  billion  in  2017).  In  relative  terms,  the  share  of  Special  Activities  increased 
from  5  per  cent  to  25  per  cent  of  the  EIB’s  total  lending  activities  in  the  EU  over  the  same 
period. 

Figure 21 - EIB Special Activities vs standard EIB operations in 2014-2017 

Source: EIB 

EFSI operations accounted for 95% of EIB Special Activities in 2016 and 2017. 

Figure 22 - Proportion of EFSI in EIB’s Special Activities 

Source: ICF based on data compiled from EIB operational plans for various years (EIB special activities) and EFSI 
operational reports (EFSI signed volumes) 

As  regards  the  SMEW,  the  availability  of  the  EU  Guarantee  allowed  the  EIF  to  considerably 
increase  its  support  to  SMEs  and  mid-caps  through  financial  intermediaries,  which  would  not 
have been possible without the support of the EFSI (EU) guarantee. 

46 

 
 
 
Alternative uses of funding 

The  need  to  provision  the  Guarantee  Fund  (initially  with  a  50  per  cent  target  rate)  implies  an 
opportunity cost. It meant that the budget for Horizon 2020 and CEF, as well as the budgetary 
flexibility in the 2014-2020 MFF, have been reduced: EUR 2.8 billion was redeployed from CEF 
(mostly  reducing  the  envelope  for  financial  instruments),  EUR  2.2  billion  from  Horizon  2020 
and  EUR  3  billion  funding  from  unused  margins.  These  changes  to  the  initial  EU  budget 
allocations were approved by the co-legislators.  

The arguments in support of this redeployment are linked to the fact that the budgetary guarantee 
under  the  EFSI  entails  a  higher  multiplier  effect  than  grants.  The  EFSI  is  meant  to  mobilise 
additional public and private funding in the range of 1:15 while grants are typically not meant to 
do so, except when strategically used for blending purposes. In addition, the use of a budgetary 
guarantee  that  includes  a  contingent  liability  (provisioning  lower  than  100  per  cent)  translates 
into higher volumes of EU support being available for a given budgetary cost.  

The independent evaluation found that the effect of scaling back the CEF financial instruments 
was limited given that CEF debt instrument projects are also eligible for EFSI financing. Energy 
and transport sectors have benefited substantially from EFSI IIW support (41 per cent of EFSI 
IIW signed amount as of end-2017). Still, the nature of the projects supported has been different 
under the EFSI given its larger scope. 

5.3  European Investment Advisory Hub 

5.3.1  Relevance 

Overall, the independent evaluation assesses that the Hub addresses a wide range of needs and its 
activity is broadly relevant to its target groups and legal mandate. The evaluation confirmed that 
the EIAH provides technical assistance for project promoters in cases when such support is not 
available  through  other  existing  TA  offers  at  EU  level  and  thus  the  EIAH  contributes  to 
facilitating the origination of investment projects in the EU. 

However,  according  to  the  evaluation,  more  could  be  done  to  further  improve  awareness  and 
subsequent  take-up  of  the  EIAH  services.  Peer-to-peer  exchanges  could  also  be  enhanced 
through the organisation of more frequent events where networking is facilitated. 

While  the  EIAH  does  not  focus  exclusively  on  the  EFSI,  it  can  provide  advisory  services  to 
projects  eligible  for  the  EFSI.  Following  the  new  requirements  introduced  in  EFSI  2.0,  the 
updated  framework  partnership  agreement  between  the  EU  and  the  EIB  group  underlines  an 
increased  emphasis  on the EIAH to  support  the EFSI  projects pipeline, whenever possible and 
relevant. 

Supporting promoters in developing projects 

The evaluation’s survey sent to the EIAH beneficiaries provided the following findings:  

  The majority of survey respondents contacted the Hub to ask for assistance with a one-off 
project, especially for assistance with project design/preparation, support with structuring 
project(s) to improve their ability to access finance and implementation;  

  Most  EIAH  beneficiary  survey  respondents  stated  that,  among  users  of  technical 

assistance, the services of the EIAH are moderately or well known; and 

  The opinions were almost equally split between respondents who think they could have 
obtained similar support from an organisation in their country and those who disagree; it 
is  hence  impossible  to  draw  a  conclusion  on  the  relevance  of  the  Hub  basing  the 
judgement on the currently data available from the survey. 

Using local knowledge to enable support across the EU 

47 

 
This objective is mainly delivered through enhanced cooperation with NPBIs. In this context, the 
EIAH signed 23 memoranda of understanding with NPBIs across the EU.  

The bulk of the collaboration was in the area of joint awareness raising and events, followed by 
capacity  building  to  provide  local  services.  In  some  cases,  the  EIB  and  NPBIs  undertake  joint 
project  development  and  cross  referrals  of  projects  that  may  require  advisory  support.  The 
survey  suggests  that  this  activity  is  still  in  the  development  phase  and  that  there  is  room  for 
increased  cooperation  between  the  Hub  and  the  NPBIs.  The  interviewees  showed  appreciation 
for  the  call  for  proposals  launched  in  December  2017  for  the  delivery  of  local  investment 
advisory services by NPBs aimed to increase the scope and depth of cooperation with individual 
NPBs. 

Cooperation  between  the  EIAH  and  other  institutions  to  ensure  better  coverage  of  EIAH’s 
services is encouraged by the EFSI Regulation. The current partnership between the EIAH and 
the  European  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development  (EBRD)  is  one  example.  EBRD  has 
been providing SME support for 20 years and in 2017 an agreement was reached with the EIB to 
provide advisory support to SMEs in three countries (Romania, Greece, and Bulgaria) under the 
EIAH  umbrella.  The  cooperation  is  in  its  early  stages,  and  according  to  the  interviewees,  it  is 
progressing smoothly. 

Moreover, the EIB is also ensuring local presence through its staff present in the EIB offices in 
the different MS and through existing advisory mandates. 

Enabling peer-to-peer exchanges as well as knowhow sharing 

The  EIAH  Days  yearly  event  is  the  main  event  that  facilitates  peer-to-peer  exchanges  and 
knowledge  sharing  between  the  EIB  group  and  NPBIs.  In  2017  NPBIs  participated  in  an 
interactive workshop to discuss better forms of cooperation, while leveraging the services of the 
Hub.  Challenges  and  opportunities  were  also  shared  by  participants  in  the  workshop.  EIAH 
roadshow  events  in  individual  countries  also  provide  an  opportunity  for  networking  and 
knowhow sharing79. 

5.3.2  Effectiveness 

The EIAH effectiveness was assessed in terms of the volume of investment activity supported by 
the  EIAH  and  the  associated  take-up  of  services,  supported  by  the  feedback  form  the  relevant 
promoters provided on the content and quality of services.  

The evaluation indicated that the level of investment supported by the Hub so far has been good, 
but can be further improved. The demand-driven nature of EIAH had a bearing on the maturity 
of the projects submitted to it. The market gap analysis for advisory services is helping the Hub 
to focus its proactive efforts in countries, sectors and type of advisory services to rebalance the 
initial state of play. 

The  role  of  investment  platforms  is  also  very  important  to  address  sectoral  and  geographical 
maturity and project size aspects. The Hub is currently providing support to several investment 
platforms  in  more  than  10  MS.  Other  MS  are  interested  in  further  scoping  the  potential  of 
investment platforms in different areas. 

As  regards  the  quality  of  services  provided,  the  majority  of  EIAH  beneficiary  survey 
respondents’  consider  that  the  Hub  fully  met  their  needs  or  met  their  most  important  needs. 
Likewise, they considered that the level of the EIAH expertise is high or very high and expressed 
satisfaction with the services of the Hub. 

With  regard  to  the  relation  with  NPBIs,  while  there  is  general  satisfaction  on  the  efforts 
undertaken by the Hub, some respondents to the survey indicated that it is too early to comment 

79 EIAH, July-December 2017, bi-annual technical report. 

48 

 
                                                 
on  the  success  of  the  cooperation  with  the  Hub  since  no  new  service  offer  by  any  NPBI  has 
materialise  from  this  cooperation.  Overall,  the  evaluation  found  that  there  is  scope  for  further 
and  faster  development  notably  following  the  call  for  proposals  published  in  December  2017. 
This would enable more NPBs to deliver technical assistance on behalf of the Hub.  

Interviews revealed that the level of cooperation between the NPBIs and the EIAH depends on 
individual  demand.  NPBIs  tend  to  be  very  different  in  terms  of  services  they  offer,  sectors 
covered, technical assistance capacity and interest in collaboration with the Hub. 

Since the  NPBIs  are  still  very  different regarding  their  advisory  services  offers,  the  Hub  has  a 
role  to  play  to  help  the  less  developed  organisations  to  get  the  right  tools  to  consolidate  their 
knowledge  and  expertise  and  develop  their  capacity  in  sectors  where  the  Hub  can  provide 
support (training, capacity building, twining with other NPBIs etc.). Hence, it is probable that the 
effectiveness will not be homogeneous amongst all the MS. 

5.3.3  Efficiency 

The Commission closely follows the progress and performance of the EIAH services on a semi-
annual basis through a set of key performance indicators (e.g. number / distribution of requests 
processed, proportion / distribution of requests having triggered TA, average first reaction time, 
number of external partnerships and events organised) and monitoring indicators (e.g. origin of 
the request, volume of investments generated, number of support provided for establishment of 
investment  platforms,  satisfaction  survey,  number  of  external  partnerships  providing  proposals 
and/or  becoming  service  providers).  The  unicity  and  the  non-standardised  offer  of  the  EIAH 
make it difficult to establish ex-ante benchmarks and targets. However, based on the experience 
acquired in the first years of operations and the tracking system put in place, such benchmarks 
should  be  developed  also  in  view  of  the  future  technical  assistance  component  under  the 
InvestEU programme. 

Efficiency of resource used 

During  the  ramp  up  phase  in  2015  and  2016,  the  EIAH  underspent  its  allocated  budget  which 
showed a certain slowness of implementation compared to initial expectations. Even though the 
EIAH was included the well-established advisory department within the EIB, it took some time 
to set up the EIAH team and to make the public aware of the technical assistance offer provided 
by the Hub, which is essential given the demand-driven nature of the EIAH. Since then, there has 
been an effort to increase the services offered (and the budget used). The Commission and the 
EIB should monitor closely the efficiency of the Hub by analysing the deliverables provided by 
the Hub to the beneficiaries against the time and resources deployed to achieve them. 

As  regards  the  use  of  resources  against  the  various  work  streams  of  EIAH,  the  assistance  to 
project promoters is currently taking up around 60% of resources available, whilst local activities 
and local support represent around 20% of resources available.  

Overall,  interviewees  considered  the  level  of  resources  allocated  to  the  EIAH  as  adequate. 
However, this may change if interest in and workload of the EIAH picks up. This will depend on 
the extent that the EIAH needs to build its local presence, the demand for the Hub services and 
the extent to which the EIAH will be asked to create demand opposed to only responding to it. 

The  EIAH  has  a  core  team  and  delegates  most  of  its  advisory  asks  to  experts  in  other  EIB 
departments. This organisation of the work is promoting a flexible way to use expert sources. 

To  improve  cost  efficiency,  a  certain  standardisation  of  advisory  service  products  could  be 
envisaged. Moreover, as highlighted in the independent evaluation, communication to potential 
beneficiaries  should  be  improved  to  further  clarify  the  services  that  could  be  offered  by  the 
EIAH and hence reduce the number of applications that ultimately do not lead to actual advisory 
services. 

49 

 
 
Efficiency of the governance model 

In general, evaluation’s interviewees were of the view that the contractual and governance model 
put  in  place  between  the  Commission  and  the  EIB  is  efficient.  The  framework  partnership 
agreement (FPA) between the EU and the EIB puts in writing the expected activities, the eligible 
costs and payments, the reporting as well as the template for the yearly specific grant agreements 
which  highlight  annual  priority  areas  for  the  EIAH  activity.  The  Coordination  Committee  that 
includes  representatives  from  the  EC  (ECFIN,  REGIO,  RTD),  and  the  EIB  (Advisory  Service 
Department  and  the  EIB  Projects  Directorate)  is  also  facilitating  coordination  aspects. 
Contributing  to  the  overall  efficiency  of  the  governance  model  are  the  fortnightly  meetings 
between  ECFIN  and  the  EIAH  core  team,  which  help  in  discussing  day  to  day  aspects  of  the 
EIAH operation. 

The  results  of  the  beneficiary  survey  showed  that  the  governance  and  delivery  model  of  the 
EIAH is efficient and it does not put any burden on the EIAH's beneficiaries. 

Communication methods 

The  initial  design  of  the  EIAH  with  demands  originating  solely  from  the  website  had  some 
limitations and the Hub reinforced its communication methods in order to better focus the type of 
beneficiaries/partners targeted by the EIAH offer. 

Therefore, the EIB undertook specific communication efforts to better communicate the services 
offered  by  EIAH  and  develop  a  network  of  partner  NPBIs  that  could  serve  as  local  relays  to 
provide  technical  assistance.  Roadshows  in  order  to  present the  Hub’s  activities  and  offers  are 
also ongoing in the regions highlighted as priority regions in the market gap analysis. The EIAH 
also revamped its website to facilitate communication. 

5.3.4  Coherence 

Internal coherence 

The  evaluation  indicates  that  so  far  the  EIAH  has  done  limited  efforts  to  actively  support  the 
identification of projects for the EFSI pipeline. This situation is expected to change following the 
adoption of the EFSI 2.0 Regulation, where emphasis is placed on this objective.  

This could be challenging due to the demand-driven nature of EIAH and the limited control of 
demand  breakdown  by  sectors.  However,  increasing  efforts  are  required  for  the  EIAH  to 
contribute effectively to the sectorial and geographical diversification of the EFSI as requested 
by the EFSI 2.0 Regulation.  

As regards the internal coherence within the EIB advisory services offers, the Hub is allocating 
resources (staffs) or tasks to specialised advisory departments within the EIB such as  ELENA, 
InnovFin  Advisory  or  Decentralised  Financial  Instruments  Advisory  (DFIA).  This  polling 
system of expert resources seems to be an efficient scheme that could be further expanded and 
streamlined in the future. 

External coherence 

The evaluation indicates that there are services provided by other organisations that are similar to 
a certain extent to the ones of the Hub. While positive examples of results of such cooperation 
have  started  to  emerge,  it  is  too  early  to  judge  their  effectiveness.  In  light  of  this,  the  EIAH 
should keep an  eye on ensuring complementarity with similar organisations.  Efforts have  been 
initiated by the Hub to cooperate with NPBs and the Structural Reform Support Service (SRSS). 

The  EIAH  is  currently  collaborating  on  a  regular  basis  with  SRSS.  The  cooperation  started  in 
areas  where  both  entities  were  requested  advisory  support.  In  particular,  the  Romanian 
government  had  asked  both  the  EIAH  and  SRSS  for  support  for  the  creation  of  its  NPB. 
Currently, the SRSS is supporting this initiative with a feasibility study whereas the EIAH may 
provide additional technical assistance support at a later stage. Whilst there is now coordination 

50 

 
in place, the cooperation with SRSS could be further enhanced to reduce potential duplications 
and increase synergies. 

Regarding the cooperation with NPBs, interviewees indicated that when the NPBs work in the 
same  areas  as  the  Hub,  the  latter  makes  active  efforts  to  reduce  duplication  and  find  ways  of 
cooperating.  

Concerning private sector initiatives,  the EIAH is aware that there are consultancies across the 
EU  that  might  be  providing  similar services.  To  avoid  any unintended  crowding-out  effects  of 
the  private  sector,  the  EIAH  is  constantly  monitoring  these  offers  to  reduce  this  risk  by 
substituting other standard services.  

As  regards  the  offer  of  other  international  financial  institutions,  the  EIAH  and  the  EBRD 
established  a  coherent  scheme.  To  avoid  duplication  of  efforts  and  to  develop  an  efficient 
synergy mechanism, the Hub and the EBRD agreed on a funding agreement allowing the EBRD 
to  deploy,  on  the  behalf  of  the  Hub,  its  Small  Business  Support  programme  in  countries 
identified by the Hub as priority regions. 

5.3.5  EU Added Value 

The added value of the EIAH is the contribution it can make to building the capacity of Member 
States  to  develop  TA  services  and  project  pipelines.  In  addition,  it  offers  promoters  with 
technical,  financial  and  legal  services  and  provides  access  to  a  greater  range  of  investment 
sources.  This  in  turn  should  result  in  improved  services  and  investment  capacity  to  support 
investment in EU priority areas.  

The  external  evaluation  indicates  that  the  EIAH  provided  EU  added  value  in  particular  in 
Member States were technical and functional capacity gaps persist and in supporting knowledge 
exchange across such Member States. Therefore, the EU added value will vary according to the 
local TA capacity and the level of cooperation between the EIAH and the local NPBI. 

Potential  examples  of  EU  added  value  provided  include  a  Smart-cities  investment  platform  in 
Slovakia80,  the  EU  "Smart  Finance  for  Smart  Buildings"  (SFSB)  initiative  under  the  "Clean 
Energy for All Europeans" package and the urban investment advisory platform (URBIS). 

5.4  European Investment Project Portal  

5.4.1  Relevance and effectiveness 

The  analysis  indicates  that  due  to  the  high  number  of  visits  (more  than  200,000),  numerous 
contacts  between  promoters  and  investors  and  frequent  events  organised/attended  in  several 
Member  States,  the  Portal  is  answering  in  general  to  the  need  of  more  transparency  of 
investment opportunities in the EU and acts as a platform that increases the visibility of projects 
to investors worldwide and rendered these projects known to a high number of stakeholders. 

However,  evidence  regarding  whether  the  projects  published  on  the  Portal  received  financing 
after being contacted by investors through the portal is mixed. The recent survey of the project 
promoters  indicated  that  the  proportion  of  EIPP  projects  having  received  financing  is  below 
initial  expectations.  Follow-up  interviews  identified  18  published  projects  (8%  of  the  total)  as 
having secured or partly secured financing after being published on the EIPP. It is nevertheless 
difficult to assess whether the financing was the result of investors finding out about the project 
from the Portal or other circumstantial factors. 

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2018/2018-014-the-eib-has-provided-eur-8-2bn-in-lending-to-

80 
slovakia-since-its-establishment.htm  

51 

 
                                                 
Figure 23 - EIPP - State of play (May 2018) 

Source: Commission services 

The geographical spread of the published projects is balanced covering all 28 Member States. 
Regarding  the  sectoral  allocation,  all  the  sectors  are  also  fairly  covered  by  the  EIPP  projects 
(see  Figure  23).  These  sectors  correspond  to  those  under  the  EFSI  mandate,  which  should 
support  projects  with  strategic  investments  completing  the  internal  market  in  transport,  energy 
interconnections and digital infrastructure, underpinning the development of the energy sector in 
line with the Energy Union or fostering investments in the social sector. 

Regarding the contacts between investors and project promoters, they amounted to more than 
1,200  unique  contacts  over  the  analysed  period  with  more  than  80%  of  the  promoters  being 
contacted. The survey of the EIPP project promoters highlighted however some potential issues 
with  the  quality  of  investors,  some  being  perceived  by  the  promoters  as  being  either 
disingenuous or having dishonest intentions. However, this could also be caused by a different 
type of situation, namely the fact that some contacts are also made by people not registered on 
the EIPP as investors. They see the name of the organisation, find the companies’ contact details 
online and contact the promoters outside the Portal and its registration procedures. 

Many  efforts  were  also  channelled  towards  communication  and  promotional  activities.  The 
EIPP  was  present  in  almost  100  events  and  meetings  (i.e.  92)  with  potential  stakeholders 
including at least one event in the majority of the Member States. During the events, promotional 
materials in all EU languages were distributed to participants raising awareness about the Portal 
and providing information on how the Portal could be useful for all stakeholders, on the projects 
eligibility criteria and relevant sectors covered. Moreover, following-up on the feedback received 
from various stakeholders, the Portal is organising more match making and e-pitching events to 
increase the projects' visibility towards investors and their chances of receiving financing.  

Most of the NPBs surveyed stated that they are aware of the opportunities and services provided 
by the Portal. Their high level of awareness constitutes a good starting point for an increase in 
awareness at local level among potential project promoters and investors. Very few NPBs stated 
that they do not consider there is a need for a tool such as the EIPP in facilitating visibility for 
investment projects and/or project development and deal making. NPBs mentioned the following 
limitations of the Portal in its current form: 

52 

 
 
-  Limited awareness of the existence of the tool at local level and 

-  More suitable for smaller projects 

The  limited  awareness  surrounding  the  Portal  was  also  the  outcome  of  the  survey  of  IIW 
financial intermediaries. Most of the latter were not aware or had very limited awareness of the 
Portal. This explains to a certain extent why only very few IIW financial intermediaries had used 
the Portal so far.  

According to the project promoters, the EIPP could be improved by:  

-  Attracting more investors in particular from underrepresented sectors, such as electricity 

and gas transport 

-  Conducting  a  more  in-depth  review  of  the  quality  and  seriousness  of  investors 

registering to the Portal; 

-  Giving the project promoters the option to contact investors; 

-  Organising pro-active matching making events; 

-  Offering advisory on how to structure projects and find investors; and 

-  Providing an easier way of updating the contact or project information. 

5.4.2  Efficiency 

The  Commission  closely  follows  the  progress  and  performance  of  the  EIPP  on  a  semi-annual 
basis  through  a  set  of  key  performance  indicators  and  monitoring  indicators  (e.g.  number  of 
projects received for publication/ published, number of organisations having submitted projects 
for  publication,  average  screening  time,  number  of  events  attended/organised,  number  of 
contacts  between  investors  and  promoters,  number  of  visitors  to  the  EIPP  website).  Since  the 
launch  of  the  EIPP,  the  relevant  progress  and  performance  indicators  have  continuously 
improved compared to previous reporting periods.  

Efficiency of resources used 

Overall, interviewees considered the level of financial resources allocated to the EIPP adequate 
and assessed the usage of the EIPP resources so far as being in line with the initial expectations.  

As regards the use of resources against the various work streams of the EIPP, the screening and 
communication activities are currently taking up around 45% of resources available whilst the IT 
development costs represent around 55% of resources available.  

Moreover  the  EIPP  process  efficiency  has  increased  since  its  launch,  likely  a  function  of  a 
learning  effect  amongst  staff  undertaking  the  EIPP  projects  screening  and  also  due  to  the 
elimination  of  the  project  submission  fee.  Whilst  previously  fees  had  to  be  paid  by  private 
project  promoters,  these  were  removed  in  spring  2017  leading  to  a  reduction  of  the 
administrative burden involved in publishing projects on EIPP and encouraging more potential 
project promoters to use the Portal. 

Communication methods 

To  increase  the  visibility  of  the  Portal,  the  EIPP  team  has  increased  its  communication  efforts 
and promotional activities in particular since 2017 including:  

  Promoting the EIPP in major conferences and events organised within the EU and in the 

social media;  

  Developing  partnerships  and  cooperation  agreements  with  financial  institutions  (IFIs, 

NPBs) and national, regional or international portals; and  

  Organising match-making / e-pitching events in close cooperation with its partners. 

53 

 
The  overall  resource  efficiency  will  depend  on  the  overall  number  of  projects  submitted  and 
published at the end of the five year budget whereby a large number of published projects will 
improve efficiency on a unit cost basis. The number of projects received for publication on the 
EIPP  greatly  increased  in  the  months  of  March  and  April  2018  (where  200  projects  were 
submitted), as a direct result of the above-mentioned communication initiatives. 

The Portal website undergoes a continuous IT development to add new functionalities aimed at 
streamlining the project submission process and the search of investment. This included updates 
to  the  public  portal  (freely  available  on-line  featuring  now  separate  dedicated  project  lists  for 
Infrastructure  &  Innovation  projects  and  for  SMEs  reflecting  the  diversity  of  project  and 
company sizes on the Portal), to the front office (for registered promoters and investor) and the 
back-office (for the Commission services working on the projects screening). 

5.4.3  Coherence 

The  EIPP  coherence  with  the  EFSI  and  the  EIAH  (internal  coherence)  is  covered  in  section 
5.1.4.1  and  points  to  the  need  to  increase  synergies  with  the  EIB,  the  EIF  and  the  financial 
intermediaries supported by them. 

As regards coherence with other EU programmes, the EIPP is already cooperating with several 
relevant actors (including Commission DGs and executive agencies managing EU programmes) 
to encourage project promoters receiving EU grants to also apply to the Portal where they have 
additional financing needs. This activity should be pursued and possibly stepped up to increase 
the complementarity of the Portal and the number of projects presenting an EU dimension. 

As  regards  the  external  coherence,  there  are  a  number  of  similar  initiatives  at  international  or 
MS/regional level such as the Global Infrastructure Hub (GIH), SIF (Sustainable Infrastructure 
Foundation)/  SOURCE,  both  for  infrastructure  projects,  EuroQuity  (a  platform  operated 
managed by Bpifrance mainly for SMEs covering a number of EU and non-EU countries) and a 
number of other national or regional project portals/initiatives.  

To ensure synergies with the existing initiatives and build on the both parties' combined projects, 
out-reach and promotional abilities, the EIPP has already signed Cooperation Agreements with 
all the three portals stated above. The Commission should continue to monitor the development 
of new initiatives and, where appropriate, set up agreements with relevant organisations. 

5.4.4  EU Added Value 

The potential added value of the Portal is to bring together promoters and investors that would 
not otherwise have been aware of their mutual interest and capacities. The assessment indicates 
that the EIPP is still in a premature stage to be able to truly assess its EU added value.  

Currently  sustainable  matches  between  investors  and  investees  do  not  happen  often  enough 
which seems to be a result of two main factors: (i) the Portal having been launched in June 2016 
and hence not  enough time  might have  passed for some projects to  identify investors and vice 
versa,  and  (ii)  the  quality  of  investors  operating  on/through  the  Portal  (ensuring  as  much  as 
possible that the potential for spamming or even scams attempts are restrained). 

To  improve  the  EU  added  value,  the  EIPP  should  undertake  further  efforts  to  screen  investors 
operating on the Portal and engage in outreach activities towards potential investors, an objective 
that could also be achieved by reinforcing links with the EIB, EIF, as well as with NPBIs and 
financial intermediaries supported under EFSI. 

The Portal will also have to keep the inflow of new projects at a reasonable level, to be able to 
attract  larger  numbers  of  potential  investors.  Diversity  in  terms  of  sector  and  scale  of  projects 
was mentioned by some of the interviewees as lacking, hence this aspect could also be improved. 
The cooperation of the EIB and the Commission services in channelling EU-financed projects to 

54 

 
the EIPP would in this regard have a significant impact on the quantity and quality of projects 
published on the EIPP.  

6  CONCLUSIONS  

6.1  European Fund for Strategic Investments 

Relevance  

The  independent  evaluation  concludes  that  the  EFSI  has  been  relevant  both  in  addressing 
investment gaps and market needs in terms of size, sector and geographical coverage, and in its 
ability  to  respond  to  the  needs  of  project  promoters,  financial  intermediaries  and  private 
investors. 

Although the overall picture has improved at a macro level, in terms of the scale of the financing 
gap and of the financing conditions (especially for SMEs), there remain substantial and pressing 
investment  needs.  Evidence  suggests  that  persistent  market  gaps  holding  back  investment  are 
still observed in different policy areas. The recent acceleration of investment in the EU has not 
yet managed to bring investment rates up to historical averages. Ongoing EU investment support 
therefore remains relevant and necessary. Moreover, efforts will need to continue beyond 2020 
to bring investment back to its long-term sustainable trend with particular focus on current and 
emerging EU policy priorities.  

The evaluation notes further that the products and support offered under the EFSI responded to 
the needs of project promoters and financial intermediaries. Moreover, the scoreboard has been a 
relevant tool to assure an independent assessment of the use of the EU Guarantee and its pillars 
and criteria were judged as appropriate. 

Effectiveness  

From the perspective of mobilisation of additional investment, it is estimated that the EFSI will 
come close to the target of EUR 315 billion by mid-2018 in terms of approved operations. The 
external  evaluation  finds  that  through  its  scale,  the  EFSI  has  undoubtedly  contributed  to  the 
observed reduction in the overall investment gap. The evaluation also notes that the multiplier81 
of the EFSI support at the end of 2017 was broadly in line with what had been assumed at the 
outset – aggregate multiplier of 13.5 across both windows, which is close to the target of 15. The 
achieved  multiplier  effect  is  a  function  of  the  risk  profile  of  projects,  the  intensity  of  market 
failures in specific sectors and countries, the risk appetite of other investors, as well as of their 
willingness and capacity to co-invest.  

Overtime and with sustained effort, greater diversification of EFSI financing has been achieved 
in both geographical and sectorial terms. However, support still remains concentrated. At the end 
of 2017, three Member States (representing 34 per cent of EU GDP) accounted for 38 per cent of 
EFSI  financing  signed  (while  this  share  has  declined  from  46  per  cent  at  the  end  of  2016). 
Moreover,  at  the  same  date,  the  energy  sector  accounted  for  33  per  cent  of  the  total  EFSI 
financing under the IIW (as per signed operations) exceeding the indicative concentration limit 
of 30 per cent in a given sector set by the EFSI Steering Board82. 

Based on available evidence, the EFSI has also been effective in contributing to the creation of 
jobs (it created 115,000 permanent jobs, over 0.5 million temporary ones, and supported over 3.5 
million jobs) and contributed to the economic growth (0.67% of GDP by 202083).  

81 It is to be noted that the multiplier can only be measured at the end of the investment period at portfolio level. 
82 EFSI Strategic Orientation: 
http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/efsi_steering_board_efsi_strategic_orientation_en.pdf 
83 Based approved EFSI operations in 2015 and 2016. 

55 

 
                                                 
With respect to the crowding in of private investment, the evaluation finds that the increased risk 
bearing capacity brought by the EFSI enabled the EIB and the EIF to  reach new market areas, 
new client types and develop new ways of engaging with existing clients. Moreover, it notes that 
although  EUR  134  billion  of  private  finance  was  expected  to  be  mobilised  by  the  EFSI 
guaranteed  operations  across  both  windows  at  end  of  2017,  not  the  entire  volume  can  be 
attributed  to  EFSI  support  as  there  are  no  objective  means  to  assess  whether  a  portion  of  this 
financing  could  have  potentially  been  committed  to  projects  by  private  investors  anyways. 
Moreover,  these  figures  do  not  take  into  account  a  potential  crowding-out  effect  of  EFSI 
financing, which was highlighted by the independent evaluation. On the other hand, it is worth 
noting that the target has been set in relation to the overall investment estimated to be mobilised, 
without a necessary link to the catalytic effect of EFSI financing support. 

The scoreboard of indicators has been generally considered as effective to ensure an independent 
and  transparent  assessment  of  the  potential  use  of  the  EU  Guarantee  by  the  Investment 
Committee.  The  Investment  Committee  members  interviewed  consider  however,  that  the 
scoreboard  could  include  more  information  for  some  criteria,  in  particular  about  the  project 
promoter’s efforts to secure alternative sources of finance.  

Efficiency 

Based on the evidence collected, the evaluation notes that the current EFSI governance structure 
works  well.  The  EFSI  governance  structure  builds  on  that  of  the  EIB,  which  is  reported  as  an 
important contributing factor to the efficiency of the initiative. Moreover, the evaluation points 
to  the  key  role  played  by  the  Investment  Committee  for  the  legitimacy  and  credibility  of  the 
EFSI's governance. In the same vein, the evaluation finds that the lean governance structure of 
EFSI has been sufficiently responsive to the periodic changes of the markets as demonstrated in 
the reallocation of the guarantee between the IIW and the SMEW. 

The  evaluation  points  to  some  potential  improvements  in  the  communication  and  information 
flow between the Investment Committee and the EIB, some of which have been at least partially 
addressed under the implementation of EFSI 2.0. 

Furthermore,  the  evaluation  finds  that  the  average  time  between  approval  and  signature  of  a 
project has been falling over time, which is assessed as a positive factor, given the increase in the 
volume of projects being appraised by the EIB, which it interprets as a consequence of efficiency 
gains  following  the  inception  of  the  EFSI  (e.g.  use  of  delegated  approvals)  and  substantial 
increase in the number of EIB staff. 

The  application  and  appraisal  process  under  the  EFSI  were  considered  efficient  by  the  large 
majority of beneficiaries surveyed. The appraisal procedure of projects under the IIW was seen 
by  project  promoters  as  generally  more  difficult  than  the  application  procedure.  The 
administrative part of the process was judged as excessive to a certain extent and dependent on 
the dedication and pragmatism of the EIB staff, which were often acknowledged as excellent. 

Coherence 

Right after the EFSI launch in July 2015, as a result of its broad eligibility criteria, the support 
provided by other EU level instruments, such as the CEF Debt Instrument or EIB's InnovFin debt 
products,  experienced  an  uptake  lower  than  foreseen.  Later  on,  however,  this  was  addressed 
through  a  redesign  of  certain  products  or  a  reorientation  of  the  scope  of  some  of  these 
instruments,  which  improved  the  complementarity  among  these  various  forms  of  EU  budget 
support, as recognised by the independent evaluation.  

Under the SMEW, the EFSI has been coherent with existing financial instruments. This is due to 
the  fact  that  the  EFSI  has  been  used  first  to  frontload  and  then  top-up  the  existing  financial 
instruments  and  the  newly  designed  equity  instrument  already  takes  into  account  the  existing 
interventions. However, for future investment programmes to be designed under the next MFF, it 
is not desirable to have an EU instrument topping up another one as a default solution. This may 

56 

 
lead  to  inefficiencies,  limited  transparency,  and  create  confusion  for  final  beneficiaries  and 
financial intermediaries. 

The  evaluation  highlights  a  risk  of  competition  between  the  ESIF  financial  instruments  and 
COSME LGF (and thus indirectly the EFSI). This is a recognised problem which still needs to be 
addressed. Guidelines have been introduced to help Managing Authorities to combine EFSI with 
ESIF funding. 

Looking into the internal coherence of EFSI with the other IPE pillars, the evaluation highlights 
an improvement since the launch of the IPE. However there is still scope for further improving 
the  complementarity  and  mutual  support  between  the  various  initiatives.  First,  following  the 
entry  into  force  of  the  EFSI  2.0  Regulation,  additional  efforts  should  be  done  by  the  EIAH  to 
actively  support  the  identification  of  projects  for  the  EFSI  pipeline  to  effectively  contribute  to 
the  sectorial  and  geographical  diversification  of  the  EFSI.  Secondly,  in  order  to  reinforce  the 
investors'  participation  in  the  EIPP,  there  is  a  need  to  increase  synergies  of  the  latter  with  the 
EIB, the EIF and the financial intermediaries supported by them. 

EU Added Value  

Evidence  from  the  independent  evaluation  suggests  clear  value  added  in  terms  of  the  EFSI 
responding to unmet investment needs and supporting the need for counter-cyclical investment. 
From a political perspective, the EFSI also shifted debate from austerity to investment support 
measures. 

The EFSI support has been channelled to projects that meet the eligibility criteria set in the EFSI 
Regulation and  brought  its  own  added  value  as  a  market  driven  instrument,  mobilising  private 
capital,  facilitating  an  increased  collaboration  with  NPBIs  both  at  project  and  at  investment 
platform level. The EFSI SMEW products have contributed to financing being made available to 
an additional number of SMEs by topping up existing financial instruments. 

However,  since  the  EFSI  is  a  market-driven  instrument,  one  issue  that  has  been  raised  in  this 
respect is the lack of policy focus and in particular the lack of focus on EU’s long-term climate 
goals84. This is already addressed by EFSI 2.0 with a target of a minimum 40 per cent of EFSI 
infrastructure  and  innovation  projects  to  contribute  to  climate  action  in  line  with  the  Paris 
Agreement.  However,  in  view  of  the  improved  economic  situation,  any  future  EU  investment 
support  schemes  might  need  a  better  and  more  targeted  policy  focus.  In  addition,  the  EFSI 
supported only a limited number of cross-border projects which typically have a high EU value 
added dimension. 

The main benefits indicated by the EFSI beneficiaries were: 

  The  signalling  effect:  the  EIB  and  EIF  interventions  are  considered  as  a  “stamp  of 

approval” and thus help attract other investors; 

  The demonstration effect and market development capacity of the instruments deployed 

under the EFSI by the EIB and the EIF; 

  The knowledge sharing, capacity building, standard setting and harmonisation, achieved 
through new forms of cooperation with NPBIs and by the EIF in respect of guarantee and 
venture capital instruments for SMEs.  

In terms of financial subsidiarity, some criticisms were voiced by NPBIs which expected the EIB 
to take more often subordinated positions in operations benefitting from the EU Guarantee. This 
remark  did  not  concern  the  SMEW,  where  financing  operations  are  typically  implemented 
through implementing partners and NPBIs are frequently part of the financing chain. 

84 CAN Europe & all, 2016. The best laid plans: Why the Investment Plan for Europe does not drive the sustainable 
energy transition. Available at:  http://www.foeeurope.org/best-laid-plans-investment-europe-sustainable-transition-
280916  and  FT,  2017.  EU  president’s  scheme  to  stimulate  investment  needs  adjustments  before  it  expands. 
Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/90712920-138b-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6c76   

57 

 
                                                 
As regards additionality, the independent evaluation finds that the EFSI operations carried out by 
both  the  EIB  and  the  EIF  were  compliant  with  the  (relatively  narrow)  additionality  definition 
included in the EFSI 1.0.  

The  independent  evaluation  also  analysed  the  question  of  additionality  from  a  broader 
perspective  and  tested  whether  the  EFSI  could  potentially  be  crowding  out  private  investors 
(would the project go ahead without EFSI involvement with the same conditions and at the same 
time).  In  this  context,  the  response  was  equally  split  with  half  of  the  IIW  project  promoters 
surveyed indicating that their project would not have gone ahead to the same extent and within 
the same timeframe without the EFSI. However, these results must be interpreted with caution. 
For example, the same promoters claiming that they could obtain financing elsewhere consider 
that the biggest comparative advantages of the EFSI are the signalling effect, longer maturities, 
and  lower  interest  rates,  which  seems  to  contradict  the  indication  that  that  they  could  have 
received financing elsewhere with the same terms and conditions and in the same timeframe. 

Similar  questions  were asked  to  the  financial intermediaries  benefitting from  the  EFSI  support 
under the IIW. Most of the financial intermediaries attached a high importance to the availability 
of EIB and EIF financing under the EFSI in their decision to go ahead with their projects. For 
equity transactions, the participation of the EIB and the EFSI support contributed to accelerated 
fund raising by catalysing investment from other sources.  

Overall, the evidence suggests that additionality criteria under EFSI 1.0 could have been better 
defined.  The  reinforcement  of  the  additionality  criteria  under  EFSI  2.0  should  have  a  positive 
effect. However, the actual impact can only be measured in a subsequent evaluation given that 
operations  under  EFSI  2.0  started  only  to  be  approved  in  2018.  The  evidence  also  indicates  a 
possibility  that  in  certain  cases  the  EFSI  crowded-out  some  other  investors.  Due  to  its  broad 
scope  and  limited  timeframe,  it  was  not  possible  to  test  this  in  more  detail  and  determine  the 
scale of the potential crowding out effect. The independent evaluation concludes that, although 
there is limited evidence under the IIW that some crowding out has occurred as an effect of the 
EFSI intervention, further research is needed to undergo an assessment of such evidence. 

6.2  The EU Guarantee 

By  providing  additional  risk  bearing  capacity  to  the  EIB  and  the  EIF,  the  EU  Guarantee  was 
relevant to the scope of allowing additional higher financing by the EIB Group. 

In  terms  of  effectiveness,  the  independent  evaluation  concludes  that  overall  the  approach  to 
modelling the EFSI target rate appears to be adequate and in line with the industry practice. It 
also  appears  that  all  model  inputs  have  been  chosen  in  a  conservative  manner.  Given  the 
sensitivity  to  certain  assumptions,  the  risk  profile  and  parameters  of  the  EFSI  portfolio  should 
continue to be monitored closely. 

The evaluation indicates that the levels of the EU Guarantee and of the EIB contribution were 
appropriately sized for the period 2015-2018 as it allowed the EIB Group to mobilise a level of 
investment  in  line  with  expectations.  The  adjustment  of  the  EFSI  provisioning  rate  in  2016 
resulted also in a more efficient use of the EU budget. Moreover, a large part of the additional 
funds required to provision the Guarantee Fund will originate from EFSI revenues and reflows 
from other financial instruments, hence limiting the impact on other parts of the EU budget and 
leading to an increased efficiency of EU budget support. 

The value added of the EU Guarantee is inter alia demonstrated by its effectiveness in increasing 
the  risk  bearing  capacity  of  the  EIB.  EIB  Special  Activities  experienced  an  almost  five-fold 
increase  between  2014  and  2017  with  EFSI  accounting  for  95%  of  EIB  Special  Activities  in 
2016 and 2017. 

As  regards  the  SMEW,  the  availability  of  the  EU  Guarantee  allowed  the  EIF  to  increase 
considerably  its  support  to  SMEs  and  mid-caps  through  financial  intermediaries,  which  would 
not have been possible without the support of the EFSI (EU) guarantee. 

58 

 
 
The  opportunity  cost  of  redeploying  resources  from  CEF  and  Horizon  2020  was  offset  by  the 
higher  multiplier  effect  of  the  EFSI  compared  to  grants.  In  addition,  the  use  of  a  budgetary 
guarantee  that  includes  a  contingent  liability  (provisioning  lower  than  100  per  cent)  translates 
into  higher  volumes  of  EU  support  being  available  for  a  given  budgetary  cost.  Moreover,  the 
effect of scaling back the CEF financial instrument was limited given that CEF debt instrument 
projects are also eligible for EFSI financing. 

6.3  European Investment Advisory Hub 

The  Hub  addresses  a  number  of  needs,  and  can therefore  be  considered broadly  relevant  to  its 
target  groups  and  legal  mandate.  The  EIAH  provides  technical  assistance  (TA)  for  projects 
where  such  a  support  is  not  available  through  an  existing  TA  offer  at  EU  level.  Thus,  it 
contributes to the origination and development of investment projects, which is its main aim. 

The level of investment supported by the Hub so far has been good. The demand-driven nature 
of EIAH had however a bearing on the maturity of the projects submitted to it. The market gap 
analysis  for  advisory  services  is  helping  the  Hub  to  focus  its  proactive  efforts  in  countries, 
sectors and type of advisory services to rebalance the initial state of play. 

Moreover, the independent evaluation survey indicated that level of the EIAH expertise is high 
and expressed satisfaction with the content and quality provided by the services of the Hub. The 
governance and the organisation of the work are considered efficient and promote a flexible way 
to  use  expert  sources  within  the  EIB  and  other  partners.  However,  there  is  further  scope  to 
accelerate the deployment of EIAH services. In addition, more should be done to further improve 
awareness and subsequent take-up of the EIAH services. 

As regards the objective to reinforce advisory services at local level, the independent evaluation, 
suggests  that  this  activity  is  still  in  the  development  phase  and  that,  while  recognising  the 
positive efforts done by the EIB, there is room for increased cooperation between the Hub and 
NPBIs. The cooperation with the EBRD shows a coherent approach to provide advisory services 
to  SMEs  while  avoiding  duplications  and  overlaps.  The  cooperation  with  the  SRSS  should  be 
pursued to reinforce complementarity and synergies. 

The  evaluation  indicates  that  so  far  EIAH  has  done  limited  efforts  to  actively  support  the 
identification of projects for the EFSI pipeline. Therefore, EIAH should put a stronger emphasis 
on contributing effectively to contribute to the sectorial and geographical diversification of EFSI 
as requested by the EFSI 2.0 Regulation.  

The  independent  evaluation  indicates  that  the  EIAH  provided  EU  added  value  in  particular  in 
Member States were technical and functional capacity gaps persist and in supporting knowledge 
exchange across such Member States. 

The  network  development  and  the  regular  exchanges  with  the  NPBIs,  the  EIAH  is  actively 
contributing  to,  as  well  as  the  call  for  proposals  for  NPBs  published  in  December  2017,  are 
elements contributing to the harmonisation of the TA offers that could be delivered at regional or 
local  level  by  the  NPBIs  on  the  behalf  of  the  EIAH.  EIAH's  support  for  investment  platforms 
development  as  well  as  dissemination  of  good  practices  programmes  will  also  improve  the 
standardisation of the project investment environment. 

There is a range of existing TA initiatives associated with EU programmes and certain Member 
State activities (often associated with NPBs and with the private sector) which have potential to 
overlap or offer synergies with EIAH’s mandate. The EIAH should be continuously mindful of 
these TA initiatives to avoid overlaps and boost synergies. The way the EIAH is allocating some 
tasks within the EIB’s Advisory Service Department should be further promoted and replicated 
outside the EIB to use the expertise in an efficient manner (e.g. EBRD Small Business Support 
programme performed by the EBRD on the behalf of the Hub). 

59 

 
6.4  European Investment Project Portal 

Due to the high number of visits and contacts between promoters and investors as well as to the 
frequent events organised in several Member States, the Portal answers in general to its mandate: 
provide  more  transparency  of  investment  opportunities  in  the  EU.  These  also  show  that  the 
Portal  has  managed  to  increase  transparency  of  investment  opportunities  and  render  these 
opportunities known to a high number of stakeholders.  

The geographical spread of the published projects is balanced covering all 28 Member States and 
more than 80% of the promoters have already been contacted. The quality of investors operating 
on the Portal can however be improved. The EIPP is in an early stage to be able to truly assess its 
EU  added  value  and  currently  sustainable  matches  between  investors  and  investees  do  not 
happen often enough. Evidence regarding whether the projects published on the Portal received 
financing  after  being  contacted  by  investors  through  the  portal  is  mixed.  Follow-up  interviews 
identified almost 8% of published projects having secured or partly secured financing after being 
published  on the EIPP although it is difficult to assess whether the financing was the result of 
investors finding out about the project from the Portal or other circumstantial factors.  

Overall, it is considered that the level of financial resources allocated to the EIPP is adequate and 
the usage of the EIPP resources so far is assessed as being in line with the initial expectations. 

Finally, coherence between the EIPP and the EFSI and the EIAH is subdued. This is partly due 
to  EIPP  projects  being  too  early  in  their  development.  However,  in  the  future  additional 
measures should be put in place to improve the quality of investors operating on the Portal by 
establishing  synergies  with  the  EIB,  the  EIF  as  well  as  NPBIs  and  financial  intermediaries 
benefitting from the EFSI support. 

6.5  Lessons learned 

This  and  the  previous  evaluations  of  the  EFSI  have  highlighted  some  areas  for  improvement. 
Some of these have either already been partly addressed during the EFSI 1.0 implementation or 
are  expected  to  be  addressed  with  the  changes  proposed  by  EFSI  2.0.  Some  others  are  to  be 
tackled by the post 2020 investment support instrument – the InvestEU Programme.  

The main lessons learned are the following:  

  The  EFSI  has  proven  relevant  for  addressing  investment  market  gaps  and  sub-optimal 
investment  situations  in  the  aftermath  of  the  economic  crisis.  While  investment  market 
gaps  persist,  there  will  progressively  be  a  need  for  a  more  policy  oriented  investment 
support  to  target  specific  sub-optimal  investment  situations.  Moreover,  in  view  of  the 
improved  economic  situation,  any  future  EU  investment  support  schemes  need  a  better 
and more targeted policy focus. 

  The  lack  of  focus  on  climate,  and  more  generally  sustainable,  goals  has  already  been 
partially addressed by EFSI 2.0. The proposed InvestEU Programme should also build on 
this  experience  and  incorporate  where  relevant  a  climate  target  and  a  sustainability 
proofing test.  

  The  evaluation  found  the  budgetary  guarantee  under  the  EFSI  to  be  an  efficient 
mechanism  for  increasing  the  impact  of  limited  budgetary  resources.  The  InvestEU 
Programme  is  thus expected to  be based on a (single) budgetary guarantee. This would 
require a close monitoring of the risk profile and parameters of the products set up under 
the InvestEU Fund.  

  The EFSI support and centrally managed financial instruments are found to overlap over 
a  number  of  areas.  Other  evaluations  found  further  overlaps  between  several  centrally 
managed  financial  instruments.  During  the  current  programming  period,  some  of  these 
overlaps have been addressed through refocusing certain instruments. While topping up 
solutions under EFSI helped ensuring coherence with existing financial instruments, for 

60 

 
future investment programmes to be designed under the next MFF, it is not desirable to 
have  an  EU  instrument  topping-up  another  one  as  a  default  solution.  This  may  lead  to 
inefficiencies,  limited  transparency,  and  create  confusion  for  final  beneficiaries  and 
financial  intermediaries.  The  integration  of  all  future  EU  investment  programmes  in  a 
single  fund,  aims  at  simplification,  increased  flexibility,  and  removal  of  potential 
overlaps between seemingly similar EU investment support instruments. 

  The  evaluation  identified  potential  overlaps  between  EFSI  and  financial  instruments 
under  shared  management.  It  also  identified  a  further  need  for  increasing  synergies 
between  ESIF  and  EFSI  via  combination  of  support  as  the  number  of  operations 
combining  EFSI  with  ESIF  resources  remains  relatively  limited.  For  the  future 
programmes  it  is  thus  necessary  to  better  exploit  synergies  between  the  centrally 
managed instruments and instruments under shared management as well as to ensure and 
further eliminate any undue obstacles for their combination.  

  The  evidence  suggests that  additionality  criteria  under  EFSI  1.0  could  have  been  better 
defined.  Additionality  criteria  have  already  been  reinforced  under  EFSI  2.0  and  should 
have  a  positive  effect  as  of  its  entry  into  force  in  2018.  The  Commission  will  closely 
monitor the implementation of such new requirements in particular to limit the potential 
crowding out effect of EFSI operations.  

  Building on this experience, the InvestEU Programme could further enhance additionality 
criteria. Under the InvestEU Programme, a broader set of criteria could be proposed, for 
example  in  the  scoreboard,  with  the  aim  to  enable  the  programme  to  improve  its 
effectiveness. While in the InvestEU Programme, the ex-ante assessment of additionality 
is  proposed  to  remain  under  the  competence  of  the  Investment  Committee,  the 
transparency  of  such  assessment  process  would be  further  enhanced  by the  presence  of 
additional  indicators.  Moreover,  the  scoreboard  would  be  prepared  by  a  Project  Team 
hosted by the Commission and not by the implementing partner, as it is the case today for 
the EFSI. Furthermore, other monitoring indicators linked to the specific objectives of the 
Fund and to the individual policy windows will be set up in the context of the InvestEU 
Programme. 

  The evaluation finds that EFSI triggered new forms of cooperation between the EIB and 
NPBIs  although  this  has  taken  time  to  develop.  NPBIs  are  important  partners  for  the 
delivery  of  the  EFSI  as  their  local  presence  and  knowledge  have  facilitated  transaction 
investment  platforms)  and  enabled  smaller  deal  sizes. 
origination  (particularly, 
Cooperation and coordination with NPBIs is also an essential element for improving the 
EU  added  value  of  an  instrument  like  the  EFSI  by  reducing  overlaps  between  national 
schemes  and  EU  level  intervention  and  for  improving  complementarity.  In  order  to 
deploy  the  NPBIs’  full  potential  to  address  local  market  failures  or  sub-optimal 
investment situations, EFSI 2.0 and the future InvestEU Programme should allow the EU 
Guarantee  to  take  more  systematically  a  subordinated  position  towards  NPBIs’ 
operations. Additional effort should be undertaken to enhance the EU support to a wider 
range  of  NPBIs  across  the  EU  and  thus  ensuring  a  more  balanced  geographical 
distribution. 

  This and the past EFSI evaluations found that that the current EFSI governance structure 
works  well.  However,  the  2016  ECA  report  called  for  more  transparency  and  some 
streamlining.  Moreover,  in  the  ECA's  opinion,  the  complex  interrelations  between  the 
Commission and the EIB make it difficult to establish for accountability purposes who is 
ultimately responsible to the EU budgetary and legislative authorities for the performance 
and  risk  management  of  EFSI.  Therefore,  the  governance  of  the  InvestEU  Programme 
should  be  maintained  at  the  Commission  level  as  this  will  better  fulfil  the  InvestEU 
Programme’s objectives (i.e. more focused on addressing specific policy objectives) and 

61 

 
accountability,  and  in  terms  of  structure  this  should  ensure  an  adequate  and  coherent 
policy steer.  

  Advisory  services  and  technical  assistance  are  highly  needed  to  improve  the  Member 
States  and  project  promoters’  capacity  to  originate,  develop  and  implement  investment 
projects. There is a range of existing TA initiatives associated with EU programmes and 
activities of NPBIs which have potential to offer synergies with the EIAH’s mandate. For 
the  post-2020  MFF,  it  is  proposed  to  streamline  centrally  managed  technical  assistance 
initiatives for investment support into the InvestEU Programme. 

  As  regards  the  EIPP,  it  is  important  to  continue  increasing  the  number  of  projects 
published  on  the  Portal  and  to  enhance  the  quality  and  quantity  of  registered  investors. 
Therefore,  increased  cooperation  should  be  set  up  with  the  EIB  Group,  NPBIs  and 
financial intermediaries supported by the EFSI or, in the future, by the InvestEU Fund.  

62 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Leading DG: Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN) 
The requirement for the evaluation of the Evaluation of the European Fund for Strategic 
Investments, of the European Investment Advisory Hub, and of the European Investment 
Project Portal derives from the EU Regulation 2015/1017 (EFSI 1.0) amended by the EU 
Regulation  2017/2396  of  13  December  2017  (EFSI  2.0).  The  Regulation  stipulates  in 
Article 18 that the Commission has to submit to the European Parliament and the Council 
an independent evaluation of the application of EFSI Regulation before tabling any new 
proposals for a post-2020 investment support instrument. 
The  independent  external  evaluation  was  performed  by  an  external  contractor,  ICF 
Mostra. It covers the functioning of the European Fund for Strategic Investments, the use 
of the EU Guarantee, the activity of the European Investment Advisory Hub, as well as 
of  the  European  Investment  Project  Portal.  The  evaluation  covered  questions  of 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value.  
An  evaluation  roadmap  summarising  the  design,  purpose  and  scope  of  the  evaluation 
the  Commission's  dedicated  page: 
was  published 
http://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-6318655_en.  

in  December  2017  on 

This  Staff  Working  Document  presents  the  results  of  an  external  evaluation  of  the 
application. The conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation will serve to assess 
the  extent  to  which  the  EFSI,  the  EIAH,  and  the  EIPP  are  achieving  their  objectives. 
They will also inform future Commission legislative proposals related to establishing the 
investment  support  instruments  for  the  period  2021-2027  (the  InvestEU  Programme). 
However,  this  SWD  also  draws  on  previous  EFSI  evaluations85  and  other  relevant 
studies. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

This  evaluation  has  been  steered  by  DG  ECFIN  under  the  scrutiny  of  an  inter-service 
group  (ISG).  The  ISG  was  set  up  in  December  2017  in  order  to  provide  input  for  the 
evaluation and comprised representatives of DG ECFIN, DG REGIO, DG BUDG and the 
Secretariat-General.  The  EIB  was  involved  during  the  course  this  evaluation  and 
participated  at  ISG  meeting  as  observer.  The  group  met  3  times  during  the  evaluation 
process. Two more group meetings are envisaged to finalise the evaluation with the final 
report due in May and a final workshop foreseen in early June.  

The table below summarises the ISG meetings, dates and topics of discussion as well as 
other consultations. 

85 Evaluation of the functioning of the EFSI by the EIB, September 2016. Ad-hoc "audit” of the application 
of the Regulation 2015/1017 published on 14 November 2016 by EY.  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table - Meetings of the ISG 
Date 
Meeting 
20 December 2017  Kick off meeting 

5 Feb 2018 

Inception report 

23 April  

Draft final report 

Topics for discussion 
  Presentation of the evaluation methodology by ICF 
Mostra  (for  IIW,  SMEW,  the  EU  Guarantee,  the 
EIAH, and the EIPP) 

  Overview of main deliverables and timeline  
  Next steps 
  Presentation  of  the  progress  made  by  ICF  Mostra 
(for  IIW,  SMEW,  the  EU  Guarantee,  the  EIAH, 
and the EIPP) 

  Discussion of preliminary results and findings 
  Next steps 
  Presentation  of  the  progress  made  by  ICF  Mostra 
(for  IIW,  SMEW,  the  EU  Guarantee,  the  EIAH, 
and the EIPP) 

  Discussion  of  draft  final  results,  findings,  and 

Early June  

Final workshop 

recommendations  

  Next steps 
Date still to be confirmed 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 
Open Public Consultations (OPC) related to the preparation of the post 2020 MFF were 
organised per group of policy areas. There was thus no specific OPC for this evaluation. 
This  evaluation  will  mainly  consider  the  results  from  the  OPC  on  the  EU  Support  for 
Investment86.  Any  relevant  results  from  OPCs  regarding  different  policy  areas  like 
Cohesion; Security, Migration and Asylum; Strategic Infrastructure; Values and Mobility 
will also be taken into consideration.  
Due  to  considerable  timing  constraints  the  ISG  was  not  consulted  on  the  draft  SWD 
before  its  submission  to  RSB.  The  ISG  however  extensively  discussed  the  draft  final 
evaluation report prepared by ICF that is to a large stent the basis for this SWD.  
This evaluation was prepared in parallel with the work on the Impact Assessment for the 
proposed post 2020 investment support instrument – InvestEU Programme. However, the 
impact assessment could draw on conclusion from past EFSI evaluations, past evaluation 
of other related programmes (COSME, CEF, etc.)87 as well as from preliminary results of 
this independent evaluation. It is considered that the results of the previous evaluations 
combined  with  the  draft  results  from  the  current  one  provide  a  sufficient  feedback  and 
evidence for the preparation of the InvestEU Programme Impact Assessment. 
The current independent evaluation in particular: 

  Confirmed  the  findings  of  previous  evaluations  that  EFSI  has  proven  a  relevant 
and  effective  tool  to  address  investment  gaps  and  sub-optimal  investment 
situations identified in 2014 and 2015.  

  Supported  the  findings  of  previous evaluations that  the  EFSI’s  EU  Guarantee is 
an  efficient  tool  to  address  investment  needs  and  found  that  the  current 

86 This was a subpart of the OPC on Investment, research and innovation, SMEs and single market. 
87  The  InvestEU  Funds  scope  is  broader  than  currently  under  EFSI,  therefore  the  other  evaluations  were 
also reviewed.  

64 

 
 
 
                                                 
provisioning rate is appropriate. The InvestEU Fund thus proposes a systemic use 
of a budgetary guarantee for the future EU investment support.  

  Highlighted  the  fact  that  the  investment  environment  has  progressively  been 
improving.  Consequently,  the  InvestEU  Fund  is  designed  as  a  more  policy 
focused instrument compared to EFSI.  

  Underlined risks related to additionality and particularly crowding out of private 
investors.  The  InvestEU  Fund  will  thus  further  improve  the  checks  related  to 
additionality.  

  Further insights and lessons learned from the independent evaluation will be used 
before the launch of the InvestEU Fund and during its implementation as not all 
issues  will  be  tackled  by  the  InvestEU  Fund  Regulation  (design  of  Key 
Performance Indicators, improvement of the estimation method for provisioning, 
etc.).  

4.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

The RSB consultation took place on 16 May 2018. The board gave a positive opinion.  

The table below summarises the changes introduced to this Evaluation SWD in response 
to the Board’s main comments: 

Main RSB considerations: 

Changes made to the SWD 

The 
report  downplays  critical 
findings of the underlying external 
study and of earlier evaluations or 
reports  from  the  European  Court 
of  Auditors.  In  particular, 
the 
report’s  assessment  of  EFSI’s 
additional  impact  (additionality) 
does not fairly reflect the available 
evidence. 
The  report  does  not  do  enough  to 
identify  areas  for  improvement 
and  draw  operational  conclusions 
for  the  new  EU  investment  fund 
(InvestEU). 

5.  LITERATURE REVIEW 

from 

the  current 

Additional  evidence 
ICF 
independent  evaluation,  as  well  as  from  past 
evaluations,  and  the  ECA  Opinion  No  2/2016  has 
been  included  in  sections  on  Efficiency  (5.2.3),  on 
EU  Added  Value  (5.2.5),  Coherence  (5.1.4.1)  as 
well as in the conclusions and lessons learned(6.5). 

Several sections have been updated and clarified to 
identify  areas  for 
the 
sections  on  Additionality  (5.1.5.2),  Coherence 
(5.1.4),  Relevance  as  well  as  conclusions  and  the 
section on Lessons learned (6.5). 

improvement 

including 

Past evaluations:  
1.  A Commission evaluation on the use of the EU Guarantee and the functioning of the 

EU Guarantee Fund accompanied by an opinion of the Court of Auditors, 

2.  an EIB evaluation on the functioning of EFSI, and  
3.  an independent external evaluation on the application of the EFSI Regulation.  
4.  Main  findings  of 

these  evaluations  were  summarised 

in 

the  Commission 

Communication on the Investment Plan for Europe (COM (2016) 764). 

65 

 
 
 
 
Other relevant documents: 

5.  AFME,  2013.  Unlocking  funding  for  European  investment  and  growth.  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  

6.  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  

7.  Centre  for  European  Policy  Studies,  (2017).  EFSI  as  a  new  type  of  budgetary 

instrument, European Parliament. 

8.  CEPS,  (2016).  Study  on  the  potential  and  limitations  of  reforming  the  financing  of 

the EU budget, June, on behalf of the High Level Group on Own Resources. 

9.  CEPS,  2017.  The  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  as  a  New  Type  of 

Budgetary Instrument 

10. Dauerstadt, M. 2015. How to close the European investment gap? 
11. DG  Regio,  2015:  Complementarities  between  European  Fund  for  Strategic 

Investments (EFSI) and European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) 

12. EC, 2016. Study on impact of CRR on on the access to finance for business and long 

term investment 

13. ECA  reports  i.e.  EU  Court  of  Auditors  Special  Reports:  Ports  (No.  4,  2012)  & 

Airports (No. 21, 2014) 

14. EESC,  (2017).  The  investment  plan  and  the  Social  Pillar:  a  step  towards  a  new 

strategy for Europe 

15. EIB, 2016. Restoring EU Competitiveness.  
16. EIB,  2016.  Working  Paper  2016/01  –  Infrastructure  Investment  in  Europe  and 

International Competiveness  

17. EPSC, (2016). The European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) – Maximising its 

Potential, Strategic Note, I issue 11. 

18. EU Task Force Report, (2014). Special Task Force on Investment in the EU  
19. European Commission, (2012). Ex-ante assessments for InnovFin, COSME and CEF 
20. European  Commission,  (2015).  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  Working  together  for  jobs  and  growth:  The 
role of NPB in supporting the Investment Plan for Europe. 

21. European Commission, (2016). Study on impact of CRR on the access to finance for 

business and long term investment 

22. European Commission, (2017). ECFIN: Bank Lending Constraints in the Euro Area 
23. European  Parliamentary  Research  Service,  (2016),  European  Fund  for  Strategic 

Investments – EFSI 2.0, Briefing – EU Legislation in Progress, 2016. 

24. European Parliamentary Research Service, (2016), Revision of the Regulation on the 

European Fund for Strategic Investments – towards an EFSI 2.0?, Briefing. 

European Semester Reports, including Country Recommendation Reports88 
25. Gros, D. (2014). Investment as the key to recovery in the euro area? 
26. Harald,  2017.  Innovation,  Skills  and  Investment:  A  Digital  Industrial  Policy  for 

Europe 

27. IIGCC:  Achieving  the  Investment  Plan  for  Europe’s  €315  billion  ambition:12 

fixes 

88 https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2017-european-semester-country-reports_en  

66 

 
 
                                                 
28. Lopez  de  Silanes  Molina,  Prof.  Florencio  et  al.  (2015).  The  European  Capital 

Markets Study, Estimating the Financing Gaps of SME. 

29. LSE, 2017. LSE Growth Commission Report.  
30. Myant,  M.  2015.  The  European  Commission's  investment  plan:  a  critical 
appraisal  and  some  alternatives,  Social  Policy  in  the  European  Union:  state  of 
play 2015 

31. Pasimeni,  P.  and  S.  Riso,  (2016).  The  redistributive  function  of  the  EU  budget, 

November, Macroeconomic Policy Institute, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung 

32. Rinaldi,  D.  (2015).  Commission’s  Investment  Plan  Lacks  Human  Capital 

Component, Euro-Insight, 18 November. 

33. Rubio  E.,  D.  Rinaldi  and  T.  Pellerin-Carlin,  (2016).  Investment  in  Europe:  Making 
the  best  of  the  Juncker  Plan  with  case  studies  on  digital  infrastructure  and  energy 
efficiency, Studies & Reports No. 108, Jacques Delors Institute, Paris. 

34. S&P, 2017. Prudential rules for private infrastructure capital take two steps forward 

but have yet to reach the end of the road. 

35. S&P, 2017. Europe's Investment Plan Surges To €500 Billion, But Is It Working?  
36. Whittle,  M.,  J.  Malan  and  D.  Bianchini,  (2016).  New  financial  instruments  and  the 

role of NPB, Study for the European Parliament, Committee on Budgets. 

37. Brugel 2016. Assessing the Juncker Plan after one year 
38. Zuleeg, F. and R. Huguenot-Noël, (2016). Rethinking the EU’s investment strategy: 
EFSI  2.0  needs  a  Social  Pillar  to  address  economic  insecurity,  EPC  Commentary, 
EPC, Brussels, 15 November 2016. 

67 

 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

In  light  of  the  preparation  of  the  post  2020  Multiannual  Financial  Framework,  Open  Public 
Consultations  were  organised  per  group  of  policy  areas.  This  evaluation  mainly  considers  the 
results from the OPC on the EU Support for Investment89.  

In addition to this overall OPC, the independent evaluation included 5 different targeted surveys 
as well as more than 60 interviews with the most relevant stakeholders (see section 4 as well as 
Annex 3 for details on methodology).  

Feedback was also received on the Evaluation Roadmap which was open to the public from 21 
December 2017 to 18 January 201890.  

A.  Results of the targeted consultations 

The  consultation  activities  included  initial  scoping  interviews  and  semi-structured  interviews 
with 71 key stakeholders and 5 targeted online surveys of key stakeholders.  

Table: Targeted surveys conducted and the response rate 

Survey 

Number of responses   Response rate [in %] 

Survey of project promoters under IIW 

Survey of financial intermediaries under 
IIW 

Survey of National Promotional Banks 

Survey of beneficiaries of EIAH assistance 

Survey of project promoters from the EIPP 

Source: Based on ICF Evaluation report.  

90 

20 

12 

20 

61 

45 

26 

37 

17 

31 

The  5  surveys 
intermediaries and NPBIs. The response rates ranged from 17% to 45%.  

targeted  stakeholders 

like  project  promoters,  beneficiaries,  financial 

89 This was a subpart of the OPC on Investment, research and innovation, SMEs and single market. 
90 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-6318655_en 

68 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
A.1 Survey of promoters under the IIW 

In total, 90 project promoters replied, which represents a 45% response rate. In total, 69% of the 
respondents were private companies, 22% public entities, and 9% special purpose vehicles.  

1.  Which challenges with access to finance, if any, did you face when you were seeking 

funding for your project?  

There were other factors that made existing
financing options unfavourable/ unsuitable.

The maturity of the available financing
option(s) was too short

The interest rates of available financing
option(s) were too high

The collateral requirements of the available
financing option(s) were too high

There was no financing available at the
market whatsoever

0

2

4

6

8

10

Source: ICF survey; Replies from those 23 respondents who replied yes to the question “did you face any challenges 
in securing finance for your project?” Respondents could select multiple answers. 

2.  If EIB financing had not been available, were there other similar alternative sources of financing for 

your projects that you could have realistically relied on? 

Yes, from private financing from banks or
other financial intermediaries

Yes, through capital markets (debt and/or
equity)

Yes, from national promotional banks or
institutions

No

I do not know

Yes, from other sources

Source: ICF survey, N=90 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  To  what  extent  did  the  fact  that  you  secured  the  EIB  financing  help  you  in 

attracting other co-investor(s) 

Not at all - other co-investor(s) had been…

To a little extent

To some extent

To a great extent

To a very great extent

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Source: ICF survey; N=45; Answers were provided by those who replied “yes” to the question “Did you attract any 
other co-investor(s) for your project, apart from the EIB?” 

4.  Please give us your assessment of what  would have happened to your project, had 

EFSI funding not been available 

Source: ICF survey of IIW project promoters (N=90);  
*19 out of the 45 respondents (40 per cent) however, would have been able to obtain only partial financing from alternative 
sources of finance 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  What  is  the  comparative  advantage  of  EIB  financing,  if  any,  compared  to  other 

alternative sources of financing you considered? 

Source:  ICF  survey;  N=90.  Promoters  “claiming  no  additionality”  are  those  45  who  answered  that  their  project 
would have been financed to the same extent and within the same time, but from other sources.  

6.  How  do  you  think  the  access  to  higher  risk  financing  in  your  sector  has  changed 

since 2015? 

No response

I do not know

It became much more difficult

It became more difficult

It has not changed

It became easier

It became much easier

Source: ICF survey; N=90. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

7.  How do you think the access to higher risk financing for projects in your sector will 

change during the next 3 years? 

It will not change

It will become more difficult

I do not know

It will become easier

It will become much more difficult

It will become much easier

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

71 

20%29%29%36%42%47%58%62%69%Promoters claiming additionalityLower Interest ratesLower/ no security requirementsAvailability of grace periodEIB's structuring adviceLong-term involvement of EIB as equity investor22%27%16%16%51%31%73%67%53%Signalling effectLonger maturityEIB's due diligenceType of financial productsPromoters claiming no additionality 
 
 
 
Source: ICF survey; N=90. 

8.  How did you find the application procedure for EIB funding? 

No response

Very difficult, please specify

Difficult

Neither easy nor difficult

Easy

Very easy

Source: ICF survey; N=90. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

9.  How did you find the appraisal procedure for EIB funding? 

No response

Very difficult, please specify

Difficult

Neither easy nor difficult

Easy

Very easy

Source: ICF survey; N=90. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A.2 Survey of financial intermediaries under IIW  

In  total,  20 replies  were received from National Promotional Banks (5%), private equity  funds 
(50%), banks (30%), and other intermediaries (15%).  

1.  From the perspective of your organisation, please indicate the importance of each of 
the following characteristics of the EIB financing under EFSI in your decision to use 
it for your project. 

Source: ICF survey 

2.  If  you  had  not  carried  out  the  EIB  supported  project,  would  you  have  committed 
the  financing/guarantees  (if  /  as  applicable)  to  other  non-EIB  supported  projects 
over the same time period and to the same extent? 

No response

I don’t know 

Not likely

Likely

Highly likely

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Source: ICF survey; N=20. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
3.  How was your experience, as financial intermediary, with respect to the process in 

which EIB considered and confirmed the financing for the project? 

5% 

25% 

70% 

Very satisfactory

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Source: ICF survey; N=20. 

4.  How has the demand for the type of financing provided by EIB under EFSI changed 

since 2015? 

I do not know

Remained more or less the same

Increased slightly

Increased considerably

Source: ICF survey; N=20. 

0%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Replies by policy area: 

Human capital, culture and health
Environment and resource efficiency
ICT
SMEs/ Mid-cap companies
Transport
Energy

Research, development and…

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Will increase considerably

Will increase slightly

Will remain more or less the same

I do not know

No response

A.3 Survey of National Promotional Banks 

1.  Has  the  EIB  financing  under  EFSI  encouraged  an  expansion  in  the  capacity  of  your 

organisation to deliver investment in your country in response to market failure? 

8% 

33% 

58% 

Yes

No

No response

Source: ICF survey, number of respondents: 12 

Out of the respondents who answered 'YES' to this question, 57% indicated the number and scale 
of co-investment opportunities that opened up as a result of such expansion. Secondly, the ability 
to  attract  greater  private  sector  interest  with  a  willingness  to  invest  was  quoted  as  another 
important effect of EIB EFSI financing on the capacity of the respective NPBs, followed by the 
development of new products and the assistance with the development of technical expertise.  

75 

 
 
 
 
2.  Overall,  do  you  consider  that  EFSI  has  made  a  significant  contribution  to  increasing 

access to higher risk finance in your country/ region? 

8% 

33% 

58% 

No

Yes

No response

Source: ICF survey, number of respondents: 12 

3.  How  would  you  assess  the  current  financing  gaps  (i.e.  gap  between  investment  needs 
in  the  following  sectors  of  your 

and  financing  available  from  the  market) 
country/region of operation? 

Source: ICF survey, number of respondents: 12 

76 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
A.4 Survey of beneficiaries of EIAH assistance 

In total, 21 replies were received from private companies (29%), financial intermediaries (5%), 
NGOs  (5%),  public  entities  (57%),  and  other  organisations  (5%).  Most  surveyed  beneficiaries 
received EIAH support for project structuring and preparation. A majority of respondents (72%) 
evaluated the provided expertise as high or very high and most of them (86%) would recommend 
the EIAH assistance to other organisations.  

1.  In  your  view  how  widely  known,  among  users  of  technical  assistance,  are  the 

services of the EIAH? 

43% 

24% 

33% 

High

Limited

Moderate

Source: ICF survey; N=21 

2.  What was the type of the assistance that you received from the EIAH? 

Support with structuring project(s) to
improve their ability to access finance

Assistance with project design / preparation

Implementation and management of
Financial Instruments

Assistance with project identification

Assistance with project implementation/
delivery

Assistance with procurement issues

Assistance with State Aid issues

Source: ICF survey (possibility of multiple answers) 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

77 

 
 
 
 
3.  Do  you  think  you  could  have  received  similar  assistance  from  an  organisation  in 
your country (e.g. a national promotional institution or via services provided in the 
marketplace)? 

24% 

29% 

10% 

Does not apply / Don’t know 

38% 

No, not at all

Yes, all services could have been provided

Yes, to some extent

Source: ICF survey; N=21 

4.  How well were your needs met by the information that you received from the EIAH 

(directly or indirectly)? 

14% 

24% 

14% 

48% 

Failed to meet my needs in all key respects

Partially met my needs but important issues went unresolved

Partially met needs in most of the important aspects

Fully met needs

Source: ICF survey; N=21 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
5.  In your view, what was the level of expertise provided by experts from the EIAH? 

14% 

14% 

43% 

29% 

Very high

High

Moderate

Very low

Source: ICF survey; N=21 

6.  Would you recommend the services of EIAH to other organisations? 

14% 

86% 

No

Yes

Source: ICF survey; N=21 

A.5 Survey of project promoters from the EIPP 

The  EIPP  survey  targeted  194  project  promoters  who  published  238  projects.  The  survey 
received a total of 61 responses (31% participation rate). 

1. Type of organisation 

Based on the self-assessment of the promoters, most were private companies (76%). Almost half 
of the private companies were micro companies with less than 10 employees, followed by small 
and medium sized companies. 

Q: What type of organization do you represent? 

Public entity 
Private company 
Financial intermediary   

Answers  Ratio 
9 
47 
0 

14.52% 
75.81% 
0% 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other  
No Answer 

6 
0 

9.68% 
0% 

Q: If private company, which category do you fall in? 

Micro (<10 employees) 
Small (between 11 and 49 employees) 
Medium (between 50 and 249 employees) 
Mid-cap (between 250 and 3000 employees)   
Large (>3000 employees) 
No Answer 

Answers  Ratio 
30 
13 
2 
1 
0 
16 

48.39% 
20.97% 
3.23% 
1.61% 
0% 
25.81% 

2. Project details 
The highest number of responses received belongs to projects planned to be undertaken in Italy, 
followed  by  Spain,  Greece  and  France.  In  terms  of  the  sectors  the  highest  number  of  these 
projects  will  be  implemented  in  the  field  of  environment  and  resource  efficiency  while  the 
lowest  in  social  infrastructure.  The  majority  of  the  projects  are  still  in  the  early  phases  of  the 
project development compared to 3% which are in a late stage. 

Q: What sector(s)/field(s) does your project (or project idea) cover? 

Knowledge and digital economy 
Energy 
Transport 
Social infrastructure 
Financing for SMEs and mid-caps 
Environment and resource efficiency 
No Answer 

Answers  Ratio 
14 
13 
10 
9 
14 
16 
0 

22.58% 
20.97% 
16.13% 
14.52% 
22.58% 
25.81% 
0% 

Q: Please indicate the stage at which you submitted your project to the EIPP: 

Feasibility assessment 
Structuring 
Procurement 
Partial financing secured 
Early construction 
Late construction 
Other (please specify) 
No Answer 

Answers  Ratio 
10 
11 
2 
14 
6 
2 
7 
10 

16.13% 
17.74% 
3.23% 
22.58% 
9.68% 
3.23% 
11.29% 
16.13% 

3. Submission process 
Most of the promoters (more than 90%) found the EIPP registration process easy. 

Q: Was it easy to submit your project(s)?  

Yes 
No 
No Answer   

Answers  Ratio 
56 
6 
0 

90.32% 
9.68% 
0% 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Contacts by investors 
Almost 80 % of the promoters were contacted by potential investors as a result of their project 
publication on the EIPP. Out of these, the majority has received up to 10 contacts. 

Q:  Have  you  been  contacted  by  investors/potential  business  partners  as  a  result  of  your  project(s)' 
publication on the EIPP? 

Yes 
No 
No Answer   

Q: If Yes, by how many? 

1 -9 
10 - 49 
> 50 
No Answer 

Answers  Ratio 
48 
14 
0 

77.42% 
22.58% 
0% 

Answers  Ratio 
52 
3 
0 
7 

83.87% 
4.84% 
0% 
11.29% 

5. Financing from investors 
Two  project  promoters  mentioned  to  having  received  financing  followed  by  the  publication  of 
their project on the EIPP. The data provided by these two promoters was not sufficient enough to 
understand the background of the investment. 

NB:  Follow-up  calls  were  made  to  all  non-respondent  remaining  surveyed  participants  and  18 
projects  were  identified  as  having  fully  or  partially  secured  financing  after  being  published  on 
the EIPP. 

Q: Have you received financing as a result of investor contact(s), following the publication of your project(s) 
on the EIPP? 

Yes 
No 
No Answer   

Answers  Ratio 
3.23% 
2 
96.77% 
  60 
0% 
0 

6. Participation in events 
87% of project promoters declared an interest to participate in future EIPP matchmaking and/or 
pitching events. The high express of interest in such events justifies well their organisation and 
guarantees high attendance.  

Q: Would you be interested in attending EIPP pitching and/or matchmaking events in the future? 

Yes 
No 
No Answer   

Answers  Ratio 
87.1% 
54 
12.9% 
8 
0% 
0 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. User experience and satisfaction 
More than 75% were very satisfied, satisfied or quite satisfied with the EIPP. 

Q:  On  a  scale  from  1  (not  satisfied)  to  5  (very  satisfied),  how  would  you  rate  your  overall  EIPP  user 
experience and satisfaction? 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
No Answer   

Answers  Ratio 
11 
4 
17 
19 
11 
0 

17.74% 
6.45% 
27.42% 
30.65% 
17.74% 
0% 

8. General remarks: Improvement of the EIPP suggested by the promoters 

Investors' profiles should be public 

  Match-making events (matching size and sectors among promoters and investors) 
 
  More serious investors which are capable to invest 
  Possibility for promoters to contact investors 
  EIPP partners should analyse the published projects 
  Focus on investors outside the EU  
  Promotion:  roadshow with  key  projects,  match-making and consultancy services by the 

EIPP 

  Project/website: updates of the projects more frequently 

B.  Feedback received on the Roadmap 

The  feedback  on  the  EFSI  Evaluation  Roadmap91  highlighted stakeholders'  concerns  related  to 
the  balanced  geographical  coverage,  transparency  and  sustainability  of  the  EFSI  financing 
support  in  the  future.  These  are  aspects  which  have  been  assessed  in  this  evaluation  and  have 
also been taken into account in the amendments adopted with the entry into force of the revised 
EFSI Regulation in 2018. 

C.  Results of the Open Public Consultation 

On 10 of January 2018, the European Commission launched an open public consultation (OPC) 
on  EU  funds  in  the  area  of  investment,  research  &  innovation,  SMEs  and  single  market.  The 
survey  was  conducted  on  the  Commission  webpage  through  an  online  survey  consisting 
primarily of multiple-choice questions, with some open-ended questions.  

By  the  end  of  the  consultation  on  9  March  2018,  4052  respondents  provided  valuable 
information to the Commission. All citizens, organisations and stakeholders with an interest in 
issues related to investment, entrepreneurship, research, innovation and SMEs were welcome to 
respond  to  this  consultation.  In  total,  1808  respondents  answered  in  their  personal  capacity, 
while  2244  in  their  professional  capacity  or  on  behalf  of  an  organisation.  Replies  from 
organisations  were  received  from  Think  Tanks  (12),  Academia  (526)  and  Research  Institution 

91 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-6318655_en 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
(347). The respondents had to answer to a specific questionnaire and they also had a possibility 
to attach any relevant document. Graph 1 shows the residence of respondents92 

Graph 1 - County of residence 

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

f
o
o
N

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

r
e
h
t
O

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Graph 2 highlights the awareness of the respondents of the European programmes in connection 
to  the  topic  area  to  which  they  answer.  As  the  graph  shows,  Horizon  2020  is  the  most  known 
programme. In other words, almost 9 out of 10 respondents are aware of the EU R&I programme 
Horizon 2020, which remains by far the most known EU programme among respondents. This is 
followed by ESIF (21.7%), EU Health Programme (9%), COSME (8%), EFSI (6.15%) and EaSI 
(3.15%), which are not recognized as Horizon 2020.  

Graph 2 - Programme Awareness  

3616 
1000   

750 

500 

250 

0 

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
R
f
o
o
N

F
I
S
E

0
2
0
2
n
o
z
i
r
o
H

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
P
h
t
l
a
e
H
U
E

E
M
S
O
C

I
S
F
E

I
S
a
E

S
E
R
U
E

g
r
p
d
e
e
F
d
n
a
d
o
o
F
U
E

…
t
e
k
r
a
M
e
g
n
i
S
l

l

a
t
i
g
D

i

92 1808 respondents out of 4052 answered this question 

F
E
E
E

E
E
4
F
P

g
r
p
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
C

 …
e
h
t

r
o
f

t
r
o
p
p
u
S

g
r
p

l

a
c
i
t
s
i
t
a
t
s
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

83 

…
s
n
o
i
t
u
o
s
y
t
i
l
i

l

b
a
r
e
p
o
r
e
t
n

I

s
i
l

a
c
s
i
F

…
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

I

d
u
a
r
F
-
i
t
n
A

0
2
0
2
s

m
o
t
s
u
C

…
s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
g
n
i
c
n
a
h
n
E

l

…
e
g
n
i
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
p
m

l

I

l

…
f
o
d
e
i
f
e
h
t
n

i

s
d
r
a
d
n
a
t
S

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  EU support for Investment 

4500

4000

3500

94,69% 

Graph 3 - EU support by policy area 

No of Respondent

Percentage on total Respondent

100,00%

90,00%

80,00%

70,00%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
R
f
o
o
N

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

25,52% 

15,84% 

3837 

1034 

642 

7,58% 

307 

EU support for
research and
innovation

EU support for SMEs
and Entrepreneurship

EU support for
investment

EU support for the
single market

As illustrated in Graph 3, due to the structure of this questionnaire, it was possible to extrapolate 
the answers of people whose replies concerned the support for investment at European level. In 
total, 642 out of 4052 replies were dedicated to this topic and, as per Graph 4, the sample covers 
all  the  countries  in  European  Union  and  it  only  shows  those  respondents  that  provided  their 
country of residence. 

Graph 4 - Respondents' country of residence 

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
R
f
o
o
N

y
l
a
t
I

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

n
a
p
S

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

…
d
e
t
i
n
U

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
o
P

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

n
e
d
e
w
S

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

s
u
r
p
y
C

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

a
t
l
a
M

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

Moreover, data on the policies awareness on this specific subgroup are in line with the sample 
presented in Graph 2. The only exception is that more than 20% of the respondents are aware of 
the EFSI, compared to 6.15% in the total sample.  

As far as  the  ability of the European institutions to  intervene, respondents believe that there is 
room  for  improvement.  According  to  their  opinion,  presented  in  Figure  5,  the  majority  of  the 
respondents  believe  that  European  institutions  are  not  sufficiently  addressing  most  of  the 
challenges  listed  above.  In  particular,  they  stress  the  inability  to  address  unemployment  and 
social  disparities,  access  to  finance  especially  for  SMEs  and  social  investment  and  social 
innovation.  

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Graph 5: To what extent do the current policies successful adress these 
challenges 

Ensure smooth circulation of goods both within EU and at…

Foster research and innovation across the EU

Facilitate transition to low carbon and circular economy…

Provide reliable and comparable statistics
Support capital flows and investment
Ensure fair conditions of competition in the EU
Support labour mobility
Promote financial stability
Support education, skills and training
Promote security of citizens
Promote and protect public health
Support industrial development

Ensure a clean and healthy environment and the protection…

Promote a safe and sustainable food chain

Ensure a high level of consumer protection and effective…
Facilitate digital transition of the economy, industry,…

Ensure safe, sustainable transport and mobility
Facilitate access to finance, in particular to SMEs
Ensure that existing rules are applied and enforced…
Support social investment and social innovation
Improve quality of public institutions (including digitalisation)
Reduce unemployment and social disparities

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

EU at least fairly  addressing (fully addressed + fairly addressed)

EU not addressing (addressing at some extent + not at all)

More  interestingly,  the  respondents  on  the  EU  support  for  investments  firmly  believe  that 
currents  actions  at  European  level  bring  added  value  and  that  this  is  complementary  to  what 
Member  States  could  achieve  at  national,  regional  and/or  local  levels.  More  than  70%  of  the 
respondents affirmed that at least to a fairly good extent the EU intervention adds value 

Furthermore,  Graph  7  shows  the  importance  that  respondents  give  to  preliminary  identified 
policy challenges that according to the European Commission should be targeted in the future. 
For instance, research and innovation, the facilitation of the transition to low carbon and circular 
economy,  education,  skill  and  training  or  digitalisation  are  priorities  that  new  programmes 
should clearly address. 

85 

 
 
 
 
Graph 7  - The Commission has preliminarily identified a number of policy 
challenges which programmes/funds in this area of investment, research & 
innovation, SMEs and single market could address. How important are 
these policy challenges in your view 

Foster research and innovation across the EU
Support education, skills and training

Ensure a clean and healthy environment and the protection of…
Facilitate transition to low carbon and circular economy and…

Reduce unemployment and social disparities

Facilitate digital transition of the economy, industry, services…

Promote and protect public health
Promote a safe and sustainable food chain
Ensure fair conditions of competition in the EU
Support industrial development
Facilitate access to finance, in particular to SMEs
Ensure safe, sustainable transport and mobility
Improve quality of public institutions (including digitalisation)

Ensure that existing rules are applied and enforced…
Support social investment and social innovation
Promote security of citizens
Promote financial stability
Ensure a high level of consumer protection and effective redress

Ensure smooth circulation of goods both within EU and at EU…

Support labour mobility
Support capital flows and investment

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Great Importance (Very Important + Rather Important)

No Importance (Neither + Rather not important + not at all)

Finally,  Graph  8  confirms  the  steps  that  should  be  undertaken  in  order  to  simplify  and  reduce 
administrative burden for beneficiaries, according to the importance given by respondents. The 
entirety of challenges listed by the Commission should be addressed in the future. In particular, 
respondents believe that simplification of rules is the most important point that could help solve 
the  administrative  burdens  for  beneficiaries.  Respondents  also  stress  an  alignment  of  rules 
between the EU Funds and a stable but flexible framework between programming periods.  

86 

 
 
Graph 8: The Commission has preliminarily identified a number of steps 
that could help to further simplify and reduce administrative burdens for 
beneficiaries under current programmes/funds. To what extent would these 
steps be helpful in your view? 

Fewer, clearer, shorter rules

Alignment of rules between EU funds

A stable but flexible framework between programming periods

Better feedback to applicants

User-friendly IT tools

Extension of the single audit principle

Adequate administrative capacity

E-governance

More structured reporting

More reliance on national rules

Burden (to a large extent + to a fairly extent)

not a burden (to some extent only + not at all)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

87 

 
 
  
 
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

The  methodological  approach  to  the  evaluation  was  done  in  line  with  the  requirements 
set out in the Better Regulation guidelines.  

The  methodology  included  desk  research,  portfolio  review  and  detailed  analysis  of  60 
IIW projects, targeted interviews, five targeted surveys, as well as review of the EFSI’s 
credit risk modelling by an expert. 

The  stakeholders  identified  through  desk  research  and  exchanges  with  DG  ECFIN 
belonged to four large groups: policy makers and implementing partners at the EU and 
national level, stakeholders from the financial sphere, from the real economy, and from 
the wider society.  

Evaluation questions 

The evaluation has drawn upon a set of evaluation questions (presented below) relating to 
five main criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value.  

88 

 
 
 
 
1. EFSI93 
Relevance of EFSI 

Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

EQ  1:  To  what  extent  has  the 
EFSI  addressed  the  investment 
gaps  and  the  market  needs 
identified  initially  (in  terms  of 
size,  sector,  and  geographical 
coverage)? 

–  To what extent has EFSI 
addressed the investment 
needs  

–  Desk research/ literature review of the evolution of investment gaps 
and market needs with forward looking element (up to end of 2020) 
and some focus on most relevant sectors; 

–  Desk review of relevant literature and 
reports on the existing and prospect 
investment gaps and market needs  

–  Portfolio analysis (size, sector, geographical coverage, including trends 

–  Desk review of the EFSI’s evaluations and 

over time); 

reports  

–  Views expressed by NPBs, investment platforms, financial 

–  Data on EIB/EIF EFSI financed projects 

intermediaries and relevant staff in EIB/EIF regarding changes in 
market needs  

–  Policy makers’ satisfaction with the extent to which EFSI has 

addressed the investment gaps and the market needs. 

– 

(as of 31 December 2017) 
Inputs from the study experts for key 
sectors 

–  Survey and Interviews with selected 
representatives of NPBs/NPIs  
–  Survey of beneficiaries/ financial 

intermediaries involved under IIW and 
SMEW 
Interviews with EIB/EIF staff and 
financial intermediaries; 

– 

–  Review of relevant statistics i.e. on SMEs 
access to finance in particular markets/ 
geo locations 
o 
o 
o 
o 

EIB IS 
ECB SAFE data 
Flash Eurobarometer 
Relevant national data  

EQ  2:  To  what  extent  has  the 
design  of  the  EFSI  responded 
to  the  needs  of  the  project 
financial 
promoters, 
intermediaries, 
and  private 
investors? 

–  To what extent have new 

financial products and new 
delivery models been 
introduced to meet 
investment needs 

–  Description of new debt and equity products and their take-up, by 
window/sub-window and their contribution to addressing the risk 
profile of operations;  

–  Survey and Interviews with selected 
representatives of NPBs/ NPIs  
–  Survey of beneficiaries/ financial 

–  Description of new delivery models (with ref to EIAH) 
–  Views from lenders / investors / beneficiaries on what should have been 

intermediaries involved under IIW and 
SMEW 

93 Source of the table: ICF draft final evaluation report.  

89 

 
                                                 
– 

Interviews with the sample of 
representatives of investors including 
main banks, representatives of SMEs 
sector, other national players as 
appropriate 

–  Desk review of relevant reports and 

documentation Including data on the take-
up of key products including new products 

–  Review of the rules and practice 

surrounding the communication about 
EFSI’s Scoreboard 

–  Review of the findings from past 

Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

–  Have EFSI products 
satisfied promotors, 
intermediaries and investors, 
especially in reducing the 
risk profile 

offered and views on whether any significant improvement in suitability 
of products / delivery models introduced / planned is needed; 
–  What barriers continue to limit investment – could EIB/EFSI have 

better addressed these 

– 

EQ  3:  To  what  extent  has  the 
use  of  the  scoreboard  (Article 
7(4)  and  Annex  II  of  the  EFSI 
Regulation)  been  relevant  to 
independent  and 
assure  an 
transparent  assessment  of  the 
use  of  the  EU  Guarantee?  To 
what  extent  has  each  pillar  of 
been 
scoreboard 
the 
appropriate and relevant? 

Is the scoreboard relevant (do 
pillars focus on the right 
parameters, does scoreboard 
adequately inform decision-
making)? 

–  Has the scoreboard satisfied 
stakeholders in terms of 
transparency and 
independence? 

–  Review of scoreboard design and application (does it establish market 

failure and rationale for EFSI);  

–  Review of actions taken in response to ECA/EIB/E&Y 

recommendations;  

–  Feedback from Investment Committee members on relevance and 

evaluations  

appropriateness of four pillars including: 

○  whether the assessment of any of four pillars has been more 

problematic than others, and if so, why? 

○  whether Scoreboard is suitable for each eligible sector? 

–  Review of the sample of Scoreboard 

– 

assessments as a part of the project review  
Interviews with selected members of the 
Investment Committee 

Effectiveness of EFSI  

Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

EQ 7: To what extent has the 
EFSI been on track to achieve 
its objectives, in particular the 
target of mobilising EUR 315 
billion of total investment by 4 
July 2018?  

–  Has EFSI achieved the target 
multiplier rates and associated 
levels of investment 

–  Portfolio analysis of projects financed via SMEW and IIW including 

analysis of multipliers, volume of approved/signed deals and actual 
disbursements over the time and against the targets. 

–  Data on EFSI financed projects (for 
SMEW and IIW as of 31st December 
2017) 

–  Change in total EIB/EIF lending / investing compared to earlier 

–  Desk review of relevant reports and 

periods 

–  Use of scoreboard scores - Pillar 1 

90 

documentation 

–  Relevant market data on the demand for 
finance (i.e. EIB IS, ECB SAFE, Flash 
Eurobarometer, OECD Scoreboard on 
financing of SMEs, national sources of 
data) 
Interviews with selected members of 
Steering Board and Managing Director’s 

– 

 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

staff 

EQ 8: How likely are the 
expected results of the EFSI to 
be achieved within the newly set 
EFSI 2.0 timeframe, i.e. EUR 
500 billion of investment 
mobilized by 2020?  

EQ 9: To what extent has the 
EFSI increased access to 
financing in the EU policy areas 
in line with the objectives listed 
in Article 9.2?  

EQ 10: To what extent has the 
EFSI mobilised private capital 
and crowded-in private 
investors?  
EQ 34: To what extent have the 
projects for which the EU 
Guarantee was extended proved 
additional? 

– 

Is EFSI likely to achieve EUR 
500 billion of mobilized 
investment by 2020 

–  Portfolio analysis considering EFSI’s multipliers including country 
and sectorial breakdown as well as multipliers for relatively new 
products  

–  Data on EFSI financed projects (for 
SMEW and IIW as of 31st December 
2017) 

–  Portfolio analysis considering the pace of funding from mid-2015/ 

–  Relevant market data on the demand for 

mid-2016 up to December 2017 to establish the minimum rate of 
funding required to hit the target  

○  Portfolio analysis (trends in approvals/ signatures over the 
time and total value of approved/signed projects versus the 
target 

–  Desk research on the prospect demand and persistence of the market 

failures in SMEs & mid-caps funding 

○  Review of available market data (i.e. ECB Survey on SMEs 

access to finance) 

○  Review of current/prospect polices than may affect the 

demand (i.e. QE, expected interest rates level, regulatory 
changes)  

○  Feedback from key market participants i.e. NPBs/NPIs, 

venture capital funds 

finance (i.e. ECB SAFE, Flash 
Eurobarometer, OECD Scoreboard on 
financing of SMEs, national sources of 
data) 

–  Desk review of relevant reports and 

– 
– 

documentation 
Interviews with EIB/EIF staff 
Interviews with selected members of 
NPBs/NPIs 

–  Has access to finance 

–  Portfolio analysis focused on the allocation of EFSI financing into 

–  Survey and follow-up interviews with 

increased in areas defined in 
Article 9.2 and alignment of 
projects with EU policy 

specific sectors/ type of projects listed under Article 9.2  

–  Has EFSI leveraged 

investment into riskier 
operations 

–  Review of IIW operations / loan grading / loan tenor 
–  Review of new SMEW portfolios  
–  Extent of crowding-in of lenders / investors and possible 

–  To what extent has EFSI 
leveraged additional 
investment (as defined by Art. 
5(1)) 

displacement (crowding-out) 

–  Review of the risk profile of selected projects / funds and associated 

additionality 

– 

selected NPBs/NPIs 
Interviews with the sample of 
representatives of investors including 
main banks, representatives of SMEs 
sector, other national players as 
appropriate 

–  Data on EFSI financed projects (for 
SMEW and IIW as of 31st December 
2017) 

–  Desk review of documentation including 
EIB biannual consolidated figures on 
share of private investment  

–  Views from IIW beneficiaries and IEF intermediaries on whether 
alternative financing from other sources to the same extent/ within 

–  Desk review of selected IIW projects 
–  Survey and follow up Interviews with 

91 

 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

the same time would have been available had EFSI been absent 

NPBs/ NPIs  

EQ 11: To what extent have the 
NPBs and the Investment 
Platforms contributed to the 
achievement of the EFSI 
objectives?  

collaborations – especially 
NPBs/NPIs – in stimulating 
project pipelines in target 
sectors and crowding-in of 
private lenders / investors 

–  Effectiveness of new 

–  Establishing the share and value of EFSI’s operations that involved 

NPBs co-financing (as of 31st 2017)  

–  Examination of the nature of NPBs’ contributions (financial/ non-

financial) at the platform and project level 

–  Survey of beneficiaries/ financial 

intermediaries involved under IIW and 
SMEW 

–  Data on EFSI financed projects (for 
SMEW and IIW as of 31st December 
2017) 

–  Desk review of relevant documentation 

–  Effectiveness of new 

–  Establishing the share and value of EFSI’s operations that involved 

EQ 11: To what extent have the 
NPBs and the Investment 
Platforms contributed to the 
achievement of the EFSI 
objectives?  

collaborations – especially 
NPBs/NPIs – in stimulating 
project pipelines in target 
sectors and crowding-in of 
private lenders / investors 

–  Feedback from selected sample of representatives from NPBs 

and reports 

covering, inter alia, (i) the nature of their involvement in the EFSI 
operations, (ii) the extent existing portfolio of EFSI products has been 
adequate, (iii) type of incentives needed to engage in EFSI 
operations, (iv) main barriers to engagement 

–  Survey and follow-up interviews with 

selected NPBs/ NPIs and investment 
platforms 

–  Survey of beneficiaries/ financial 

–  Perceived effectiveness of new collaborations stimulated by EFSI 

NB: Evidences and analysis will distinguish between SMEW and IIW 

intermediaries involved under IIW and 
SMEW 
Interviews with selected Investment 
platforms 
Interviews with selected sample of 
representatives from EIB/EIF 
Interviews/ survey of EFSI’s beneficiaries 
who dealt with NPBs 

– 

– 

– 

–  Review of EIAH requests and the extent 

of involvement of the NPBs 

NPBs co-financing (as of 31st 2017)  

–  Examination of the nature of NPBs’ contributions (financial/ non-

financial) at the platform and project level 

–  Data on EFSI financed projects (for 
SMEW and IIW as of 31st December 
2017) 

–  Desk review of relevant documentation 

–  Feedback from selected sample of representatives from NPBs 

and reports 

covering, inter alia, (i) the nature of their involvement in the EFSI 
operations, (ii) the extent existing portfolio of EFSI products has been 
adequate, (iii) type of incentives needed to engage in EFSI 
operations, (iv) main barriers to engagement 

–  Survey and follow-up interviews with 
selected NPBs/ NPIs and investment 
platforms 

–  Survey of beneficiaries/ financial 

–  Perceived effectiveness of new collaborations stimulated by EFSI 

intermediaries involved under IIW and 
SMEW 

92 

 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

NB: Evidences and analysis will distinguish between SMEW and IIW 

EQ 12: To what extent have the 
projects supported by the EFSI 
contributed to the creation of 
jobs and sustainable economic 
growth?  

– 

(Expected) impact of EFSI 
funded projects on the real 
economy 

–  Review of approvals, signatures, disbursements and expected time of 

actual investment 

–  Review of Effective Rate of Return (ERR) in the scoreboard 
–  Review of employment (KPI)  
–  EIB/Joint Research Centre (JRC) Seville modelling output  

– 

– 

– 

Interviews with selected Investment 
platforms 
Interviews with selected sample of 
representatives from EIB/EIF 
Interviews/ survey of EFSI’s beneficiaries 
who dealt with NPBs 

–  Review of EIAH requests and the extent 

of involvement of the NPBs 

–  Data on EFSI financed projects (for 
SMEW and IIW as of 31st December 
2017), including the data on disbursement 
and KPI 1 

–  Results from the modelling exercise 

performed by EIB/EC (and if relevant, 
external contractors e.g. Rhomolo-EIB 
model developed by Joint Research Centre 
of the EC in Sevilla)  
Interview with the representative of the 
EIB Economic Policy and Strategy 
Division 

– 

–  Review of relevant literature and reports 

–  Effectiveness of the 

scoreboard in aiding project 
design / appraisal and 
decision-making 

EQ 13: To what extent has the 
use of the scoreboard (Article 
7(4) and Annex II of the EFSI 
Regulation) been effective in 
ensuring an independent and 
transparent assessment of the 
possible use of the EU Guarantee 
by the Investment Committee? 
To what extent have the 
individual pillars contributed to 
the scoreboard's effectiveness?  

–  Feedback from IC / project promotors 
–  Extent of implementation of ECA/EIB/E&Y recommendations and 

See EQ 3 

impacts 

–  Feedback from sector experts when using the scoreboard for project 

review 

93 

 
 
Efficiency of EFSI  

Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

EQ  20:  To  what  extent  have  the 
governance  structures  of  the  EFSI 
in 
in 
efficient 
been 
supporting its implementation? 

place 

–  Has the operation of the 

governance structures been 
efficient - enabling 
clear/consistent and timely 
decision-making on 
loans/investments 

–  Descriptive overview of the current governance structure and modus 

–  Data on EFSI financed projects (for SMEW 

operandi of its specific components  

–  Desk review of relevant reports and documentation to explore problematic 

issue around EFSI’s governance 

–  Feedback on the efficiency of the current structure from representatives 
from their main components covering, inter alia, clarity on roles and 
responsibilities, procedures to manage potential conflict of interest/ 
ensuring independence, lines of communication  

–  Feedback on the efficiency of the current structure from relevant external 
stakeholders i.e. European Commission covering, inter alia, clarity on 
roles and responsibilities, procedures to manage potential conflict of 
interest/ ensuring independence, lines of communication  

–  Portfolio analysis (i.e data on time elapsed between approval and 

signature/ number of projects approved per quarter, etc) 

–  Suggestions for improvement i.e. how to speed-up due diligence/ approval 

process.  

NB: Evidences and analysis will distinguish between SMEW and IIW 

– 

and IIW as of 31st December 2017) 
Interviews with the representatives from 
key components of the EFSI governance 
structure: Steering Board, Investment 
Committee, Management team comprising 
Managing Director/ Deputy Managing 
Director 
– 
Interview with DG ECFIN 
–  Review of relevant reports and 

documentation 

NEW  EQ:  To  what  extent  is  new 
staffing under EFSI efficient 

–  Has the increase in staffing 
associated with EFSI been 
efficient 

–  Analysis of staffing numbers, competencies and responsibilities 

–  EIB staffing records 

EQ 21: To what extent have EFSI 
been 
communication  methods 
efficiently 
engage 
stakeholders? 

used 

to 

–  Has the use of EFSI related 
communication methods 
engaged key stakeholders 
efficiently 

–  Desk review of key promotional activities/ outputs undertaken by the 

EIB/EC to promote EFSI 

–  Monitoring data on the promotional 
activities and outputs undertaken 

–  Analysis of any internal analytical data/ analytical materials related to 

○  e.g. special seminars for journalists 

media coverage and consumption of EFSI related content 

–  Data/analytical materials related to media 

–  Feedback from stakeholders on communication aspects  

coverage and consumption on EFSI related 
content 

○  e.g. any press and social media 

analysis provided to DG ECFIN by 
external contractors 

○  e.g. review of web statistics on the 
consumption of key reports related 
to media 

94 

 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

– 

– 

for  economic  and 

Interviews with relevant EC staff 
(e.g.  Spokesperson 
financial affairs at DG Communication) 
Interviews with selected EIB staff including 
representatives from EIAH team (i.e. 
members from local offices) 

Coherence of EFSI  

Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

- 

EQ  29:  To  what  extent  has  EFSI 
been  coherent  with  other  EU 
interventions 
(i.e. 
potential 
complementarity, 
synergies and/ or overlaps with the 
European 
and 
Investment  Funds,  Connecting 
Europe  Facility,  Horizon  2020, 
etc.)  in  terms  of  objectives,  scope 
and activities? 

Structural 

Has the coherence of EFSI 
with other EU Programmes 
been adequate  

–  Review of the focus of EFSI, CEF, H2020 and ESIF and the areas of 

potential coherence (i.e. complementarity/ duplication/ contradiction)  
–  Desk review of relevant reports and documentation discussing the issue of 

coherence between EFSI and other EU interventions 

–  Feedback from desk officers responsible for EU programmes (i.e. CEF, 

COSME, H2020, ESIF) 

–  Legal documentation outlining the scope 
of EFSI and other EU interventions with 
particular focus on the scope of those 
–  Review of relevant evaluations/ reports 

– 

and documentation addressing the issue of 
coherence 
Interviews with relevant desk officers 
responsible  for  the  management  of,  inter 
alia, CEF, Horizon 2020 and ESIF 

- 

EQ  33:  To  what  extent  have  the 
actions  of  the  EFSI  Regulation 
(EFSI,  EIAH,  and  EIPP)  been 
internally  coherent  in  terms  of 
potential  synergies  in  contributing 
to 
the 
achievement 
objectives  of  the  Investment  Plan 
for Europe? 

the 

of 

Has internal coherence of 
EFSI Regulation 
contributed to the 
objectives of Investment 
Plan for Europe 

–  Role of EFSI management in providing guidance to EIAH/EIPP operations 
–  Role of EIAH and EIPP in generating new collaborations and project 

pipelines leading to EFSI investment 

–  Role of EIAH and EIPP in determining the sectoral and geographic 

allocations 

–  Operating guidelines for EIAH and EIPP 
– 

Identification and review of operations and 
portfolios facilitated by EIAH/EIPP 

EU Added Value of EFSI  

Evaluation question 

Judgement crieria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

NEW EQ: To what extent has 
EFSI provided EU added value 

–  Has EFSI provided added 

– 

policy value compared to the 
alternative use of EU funds 

 Review of use of EU programmes (CEF, H2020) since EFSI (examining 
changes in scale and focus) 

–  Views provided by NPBs, project promoters and EIB/EIF 

–  Review of relevant reports and evaluations 

of CEF, H2020 

–  Discussion with relevant EU / EFSI desk 

95 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement crieria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

–  Has EFSI provided added 
value to Member States in 
meeting their investment 
needs (subsidiarity test) 

–  Views of EFSI on scope for EFSI operations to have been supported by 

officers 

MS / private sector 

–  Feedback from NPBs and project 

promotors / intermediaries 

96 

 
2. EU Guarantee 

Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

Relevance 

EQ 4: To what extent has the EU 
Guarantee been used to respond to 
the identified needs? To what 
extent do the identified needs still 
exist? 

Has the EU Guarantee been 
used in the most appropriate 
way in response to investment 
needs – is the allocation 
between windows optimal 

–  Analysis of the levels of investment mobilised and associated provision for 

expected losses by window 

–  Consideration of the use of the Guarantee in meeting investment needs 

under the two windows 

– 

– 

Interviews with selected members of 
Investment Committee  
Interviews with Unit L of DG ECFIN 
and EIB/EIF staff 
–  Desk review of relevant 

Effectiveness 

EQ 14: To what extent has the 
EU Guarantee been effectively 
used to cover the potential losses 
that the EIB Group may suffer 
from its EFSI supported 
investments under the IIW and 
SMEW? 

Efficiency 

EQ  22:  To  what  extent  will  the 
level  of  the  EU  budget  resources 
available  for  the  EU  Guarantee 
(the 
be 
appropriate  in  the  light  of  the 
evolution of the exposures? 

provisioning 

rate) 

EQ  23:  To  what  extent  have  the 
financial  resources  provided 
to 
EFSI,  namely  the  EU  Guarantee 
and the EIB Group resources, been 
appropriately  sized  to  achieve  its 
expected effects? 

rate 
the  provisioning 
Is 
appropriate  for  current  and 
future investment levels 

–  Assessment of the adequacy of the size of the EU Guarantee and the 

provisioning rate 

–  Review of the annual EU budget flows for the EU Guarantee 

Is the estimate and monitoring 
of contingent liabilities at the 
level of the operation adequate 

–  Review of the estimated expected loss provision at operational level (for 

selected projects) 

–  Review of monitoring and reporting of expected loss 

documentation and report especially 
needs appraisals 

Interviews with DG ECFIN / EIB/EIF 

– 
–  Review of risk modelling 
–  Data on calls on the EU Guarantee 

collected by Directorate L of DG 
ECFIN 
Inputs from thematic experts 

– 

–  Review of selected IIW projects 
– 

Interviews with the relevant staff in 
DG ECFIN/EIB/ 

–  Data on annual budget flows/ other 

relevant data related to the usage of the 
EU Guarantee 

–  Discussion with Credit Rating 

Agencies 

Is the EU Guarantee and the 
EIB resources appropriately 
sized 

Assessment  of  capacity  to 
at  higher 
absorb 
volumes  and  at  higher  risk 
from larger Guarantee 

funds 

–  Review of investments needs in light of substantially expanded volume of 

– 

– 

financing 
Impact on project and portfolio risks of extended financing and feasibility 
of expanded investment 

–  Views on the likely reaction of financial markets to a substantial increase 
(say x2 or x10) of the EIB contribution and effect on EIB credit rating 

Interviews with the relevant staff in 
DG ECFIN/EIB/ 

–  Data on annual budget flows/ other 

relevant data related to the usage of the 
EU Guarantee 
Interviews with selected members of 
Steering Board / Investment 

– 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

Assessment of impact on the 
EIB  credit  rating  of  larger 
contribution 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

– 

Committee 
Interview with EFSI Managing 
Director (MD)/ Deputy Managing 
Director/MD’s office 

–  Discussion with Credit Rating 

Agencies 

Not applicable 

Addressed under EFSI  

Addressed under EFSI  

Addressed under EFSI  

Coherence  

[Coherence 

EQ  30:  N/A 
is 
evaluated  for  EFSI  as  a  whole.  It 
cannot  be  evaluated  only  for  the 
EU Guarantee.] 

– 

– 

EQ  33:  To  what  extent  have  the 
actions  of  the  EFSI  Regulation 
(EFSI,  EIAH,  and  EIPP)  been 
internally  coherent  in  terms  of 
potential  synergies  in  contributing 
the 
of 
achievement 
to 
Investment Plan for Europe? 

the 

EU Added Value 

EQ 37: To what extent has the EU 
Guarantee provided added value in 
terms  of  an  increased  risk  bearing 
capacity  of  the  EIB,  and  in  terms 
of  supporting 
investments  and 
access  to  financing  for  SMEs  and 
mid-caps in the Union? 

–  What impact has the EU 
Guarantee had on the risk 
bearing capacity of EIB 

EQ  38:  What  would  be  the  most 
likely 
of 
discontinuing the EU Guarantee on 
the EIB's risk-bearing capacity? 

consequences 

–  What are the potential 

consequences of discontinuing 
the EU Guarantee on the EIB 
risk-bearing capacity 

–  Change in risk bearing capacity as a result of the EU Guarantee – proxied 

by the change in funding of Special Activities 

–  EIB annual reports 
–  EIB interviews 

–  Feedback from EIB/EIF and financial intermediaries on possible change in 

volume and risk of operations (including Special Activities) 

– 
– 

Interviews with DG ECFIN 
Interviews with relevant EIB/EIF staff 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. EIAH 

Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

Relevance 

EQ 5: To what extent have the 
EIAH’s services (Article 14.2) 
been relevant for the 
accomplishment of its mandate 
(Article 14.1 of the EFSI 
Regulation)?  

Effectiveness 

EQ 15: To what extent has 
EIAH deployment fulfilled its 
mandate and activities as listed 
in Art 14 of the EFSI 
Regulation? 

Have EIAH services developed in accordance 
with its mandate (Article 14 of EFSI Regulation) 

Extent to which: 
-  EIAH activities build upon existing EIB and 

Commission advisory services 

-  EIAH services correspond to those required 
by the EFSI regulation (provide a single 
point of entry for TA in the areas listed in 
Article 9(2), assisting project promoters, 
leveraging local knowledge to facilitate EFSI 
support, provide a platform for p2p exchange 
and knowledge sharing regarding project 
development, provide advice on 
establishment of investment platforms) 
-  EIAH beneficiaries are from private and 

public sector 

EIAH assistance is provided across all sectors 
listed in Article 9(2) 

Has EIAH been effective in addressing its 
mandate, with particular respect to sectors that 
received the support and the effectiveness of this 
support 

Extent to which: 
-  EIAH beneficiaries are from private and 

public sector 

-  Review of the activities taken place 
- 

Feedback from EIB/EIF operational teams and beneficiaries 
i.e. NPBs/ NPIs and project promotors 

-  Establishing the share of EFSI related requests in the total 

requests received by EIAH 

-  Review of the origin (private/public investors, country), type 
and nature of EFSI related requests received by EIAH  

-  Breakdown of EFSI related requests by sector coverage origin, 

and type of services provided by EIAH 

Desk research (review of relevant EIAH 
documentation such as bi-annual 
technical reports,  
Survey of EIAH beneficiaries 
Telephone interviews with NPBs  

- 

-  Review of the origin (private/public investors, country), type 
and nature of EFSI related requests received by EIAH  
Share of projects (by sector / MS) that have come through / or 
been advised / benefitted in material way  
Feedback on collaboration from NPBs, promotors 

- 
-  Review of stakeholder awareness of EIAH services 

Desk research (review of relevant EIAH 
documentation such as EIAH bi-annual 
technical report, review of MoU signed 
with NPBs/NPIs),  
Survey of EIAH beneficiaries 
Survey and follow-up interviews with 
NPBs / NPIs 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

EQ 16: Which sectors listed in 
Article 9.2 has EIAH been 
supporting most effectively and 
why? What are the challenges 
for making EIAH effective 
across all eligible sectors and 
areas and how can they be 
overcome? 

-  EIAH provides capacity building and 

support to NPB/NPI from MS with less 
developed markets 

-  EIAH assistance is provided across all 

sectors listed in Article 9(2) 

Stakeholders who are not currently using EIAH 
services are aware of the offer/EIAH support 

Extent to which 
-  EIAH assistance has been provided across 

sectors listed under Article 9(2). 
-  EIAH assistance provided resulted in 

-  Breakdown of all requests by sector 
-  Breakdown of EFSI related requests by sector coverage 
-  Breakdown of requests that were implemented by EFSI, by 

sector 

implementation through EFSI 

-  Breakdown of requests that were implemented using other 

-  EIAH assistance provided resulted in 

EIB/Union mechanisms, by sector 

- 

implementation through other EIB/Union 
mechanisms 
Stakeholders identify challenges that hinder 
the effectiveness of EIAH across 
sectors/areas of activity 

EIAH beneficiary /NPB/ NPI views on: 
-  Whether EIAH has been effective, and why 
-  Challenges that hinder effectiveness of 

EIAH across sectors/areas of activity 
How these challenges could be mitigated? 

Typology of challenges, e.g.: 
-  Lack of capacity building function vis-à-vis NPB 
-  Existence of some constraining issues hampering collaboration 

with NPBs (HUB seen as competition?) 

-  Lack of engagement/local support in countries with less 

capacity, where EIAH may need to develop partnerships with 
NPI / local service providers 

-  Lack of demand from certain sectors 
-  Lack of awareness/ misperception of the role of the HUB  

How such challenges might be mitigated, for instance:  
-  More focussed communication and engagement activities 
towards underrepresented sectors and countries with less 
capacity 

-  Alternatively: focus on dealing with existing demand, and do 

not attempt to achieve geographical/sector spread 

Offer more tailored incentives to strengthen partnerships with NPB 
and improve cooperating beyond informing about EIAH 

Desk research (review of relevant EIAH 
documentation such as EIAH bi-annual 
technical report, review of MoU signed 
with NPBs/NPIs),  
Survey of EIAH beneficiaries 
Survey and follow-up telephone 
interviews with NPBs / NPIs 

EQ 16: Which sectors listed in 
Article 9.2 has EIAH been 

Extent to which 
-  EIAH assistance has been provided across 

-  Breakdown of all requests by sector 
-  Breakdown of EFSI related requests by sector coverage 

Desk research (review of relevant EIAH 
documentation such as EIAH bi-annual 

100 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

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

sectors listed under Article 9(2). 
-  EIAH assistance provided resulted in 

-  Breakdown of requests that were implemented by EFSI, by 

sector 

implementation through EFSI 

-  Breakdown of requests that were implemented using other 

-  EIAH assistance provided resulted in 

EIB/Union mechanisms, by sector 

- 

implementation through other EIB/Union 
mechanisms 
Stakeholders identify challenges that hinder 
the effectiveness of EIAH across 
sectors/areas of activity 

EIAH beneficiary /NPB/ NPI views on: 
-  Whether EIAH has been effective, and why 
-  Challenges that hinder effectiveness of 

EIAH across sectors/areas of activity 
How these challenges could be mitigated? 

technical report, review of MoU signed 
with NPBs/NPIs),  
Survey of EIAH beneficiaries 
Survey and follow-up telephone 
interviews with NPBs / NPIs 

Review of MoU signed with 
NPBs/NPIs,  
Survey of EIAH beneficiaries 
Telephone interviews with EIB staff, 
ESIF managing authorities 

Survey and follow-up interview with 
NPBs  

Typology of challenges, e.g.: 
-  Lack of capacity building function vis-à-vis NPB 
-  Existence of some constraining issues hampering collaboration 

with NPBs (HUB seen as competition?) 

-  Lack of engagement/local support in countries with less 

capacity, where EIAH may need to develop partnerships with 
NPI / local service providers 

-  Lack of demand from certain sectors 
-  Lack of awareness/ misperception of the role of the HUB  

How such challenges might be mitigated, for instance:  
-  More focussed communication and engagement activities 
towards underrepresented sectors and countries with less 
capacity 

-  Alternatively: focus on dealing with existing demand, and do 

not attempt to achieve geographical/sector spread 

Offer more tailored incentives to strengthen partnerships with NPB 
and improve cooperating beyond informing about EIAH 

-  Analysis of expert composition across all projects that were 
assisted by EIAH, across different project stages and EIAH 
services 

-  Analysis of expert composition across all projects that were 
assisted by EIAH and resulted in EFSI supported activities, 
across project stages and EIAH services 

-  Review of beneficiaries’ responses on quality of expertise 

offered 

-  Review of NPB/NPI and ESIF MA views on scale and scope 
of cooperation, and whether this could be organised more 
effectively to ensure complementary expertise is leveraged 

101 

EQ 17: To what extent has 
EIAH effectively used the 
expertise of the EIB, the 
Commission, the National 
Promotional Banks or 
institutions, and the managing 
authorities of the European 
Structural and Investment 
Funds (Article 14.5) to achieve 
its objective? 

Extent to which 
-  NPB/NPI and managing authorities of ESIF 
confirm that they have assisted EIAH 

-  Composition of experts involved in 

individual projects assisted through EIAH 
includes staff from EIB, Commission, 
NPB/NPI and managing authorities 
EIAH beneficiaries are of the view that 
composition of experts was appropriate 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

Efficiency 

EQ 24: 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? 

Extent to which 
-  EIAH activities are considered to be well-

- 

Process mapping of key activities pursued by EIAH and 
processes underlying each activity 

staffed and resourced 

-  Mapping of average hrs/days spent by EIAH staff and other 

-  EIAH spending is in line with EIAH 

EIB staff on each main process  

financial planning 

-  Review of spending trajectory at aggregate level against 

-  Challenges to effectiveness of EIAH 

overall annual budget of EUR 26.6 million 

activities could be overcome with extended 
financial resources 

Any room for improvement that can be identified 
with regards to : 
-  Unit costs for offering individual types of 

assistance/service 

-  Targeting resources towards demand, or 

communication activities towards specific 
underrepresented countries or sectors 

Recovering costs via fees charged by EIAH 

Desk review of key reports and 
documentation (EIAH (2015) Framework 
Partnership Agreement, Annual Grant 
Agreements, Financials of the EIAH, 
Memorandum of Understanding on 
cooperation of EIAH with NPIs 
Agreement on the delivery of the EBRD 
Small Business Support Programme in 
Bulgaria, Greece and Romania under the 
EIAH umbrella) 

Survey and follow-up telephone 
interviews with NPBs / NPIs  

EQ 25: To what extent is the 
EIAH governance model 
efficient in meeting the EIAH 
objectives? 

Is the governance of EIAH considered to be 
efficient in stimulating / generating pipeline  
To what extent does governance model 
- 

- 

- 

Involve the necessary actors to meet all 
EIAH objectives 
Is flexible enough to accommodate evolving 
demand for service provision, such as 
advisory services at local level 
allows for the revised set of EIAH objectives 
as per the proposed EFSI 2.0 regulation to be 
delivered efficiently. 

-  Review of the documentation outlining the mandates of the 

HUB 

-  Review of stakeholder opinions on the governance model and 
its efficiency, in particular stakeholders at a national and local 
level 

-  Analysis of share between EIB staff and external experts used 
by EIAH, and comparison against beneficiary satisfaction and 
evidence collected against the evaluation of EIAH’s 
effectiveness 

Desk review of key reports and 
documentation (EIAH (2015) Framework 
Partnership Agreement, Annual Grant 
Agreements, Financials of the EIAH, 
Memorandum of Understanding on 
cooperation of EIAH with NPBs 
Agreement on the delivery of the EBRD 
Small Business Support Programme in 
Bulgaria, Greece and Romania under the 
EIAH umbrella) 

Telephone interviews with EIAH 
management, NPBs/NPIs, individual 
external consultants who exert a similar 
function at local level 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

Survey of NPBs / NPIs 

EQ 26: To what extent have 
EIAH communication methods 
been efficiently used to 
promote its service to public 
and private project promoters, 
National Promotional Banks or 
institutions, and investment 
platforms? 

Coherence 

EQ 31: To what extent has 
EIAH proved both coherent to 
other existing TA initiatives in 
terms of complementarity, 
potential synergies and/or 
overlaps? 

Extent to which 
-  Communication activities and approach to 

communication activities are targeted at the 
right groups, and designed in a way that 
ensures value for money  

For each promotional activity and communication method, analysis 
of  
-  Type of activity 
-  Type and size of target group 
-  Results, e.g.: unique visitor/reach of online campaign, visitors 

Desk review of EIAH promotional 
activities, including: 
-  Type and number of activities (e.g. 
online campaigns, events, email 
campaigns) 

-  NPBs/NPIs and other 

at events and conferences 

intermediaries/promotors have learned about 
EIAH via the EIAH communication 
activities 

-  Cost per person reached, by target group (project promoters, 

NPBs, investment platform representatives) 

-  Awareness amongst key stakeholders, in particular at national 
and regional level, about the specific products and role of 
EIAH 

1. Is there adequate internal coherence of EIAH 
activity with EFSI – does it drive / advise the 
pipeline in response to EIB/EIF priorities/needs 

2.Is there adequate external coherence of EIAH 
with the existing TA initiatives  

- 

-  Role of EIAH in securing the project pipeline  
- 

Internal management arrangements to align EIAH with EFSI 
priorities 
Identify other existing TA initiatives and review their mission 
statement, service offer and target groups (in terms of targeted 
entities and projects). 
Feedback from managers of such initiatives 

- 
-  Analysis of the extent of overlap and potential displacement 
effect that EIAH might have on such other TA initiatives 
extent of potential / existing synergies and overlaps 

-  Cost breakdown of each campaign 
-  Results of each campaign, e.g. 

individuals reached, new enquiries 
to EIAH facilitated, share of new 
enquiries that led to EFSI projects 

Survey and follow-up telephone 
interviews with NPBs / NPIs and EIAH 
beneficiaries 

Desk research of key EIAH 
documentation, and documentation 
describing the activities, services and 
target groups for similar TA initiatives 
at European or national level (such as 
NPB advisory services, advisory 
services offered by ISIs such as 
JASPERS, ELENA or Horizon 2020 
Innovfin Advisory, FICompass, EIB 
technical assistance within normal 
operations, private sector consultants, 
trade and commercial associations, EC 
funded technical assistance services) 

Interviews with EIAH management, 
management of other TA initiatives at 
European or national level (such as such 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

Addressed under EFSI  

Addressed under EFSI  

Addressed under EFSI  

as NPBs/NPIs advisory services, 
advisory services offered by ISIs such as 
JASPERS, ELENA or Horizon 2020 
Innovfin Advisory, FICompass, EIB 
technical assistance within normal 
operations, private sector consultants, 
trade and commercial associations, EC 
funded technical assistance services) 

– 

EQ  33:  To  what  extent  have  the 
actions  of  the  EFSI  Regulation 
(EFSI,  EIAH,  and  EIPP)  been 
internally  coherent  in  terms  of 
potential 
in 
contributing  to  the  achievement 
of 
for 
the 
Europe? 

Investment  Plan 

synergies 

EU Added Value 

EQ 39: To what extent has the 
EIAH support to project 
promoters and beneficiaries 
provided added value? 

1. Has EIAH helped to develop MS project 
development capacity in terms of bringing in new 
partners and expanding the skills and investment 
capacities of intermediaries 
Extent to which: 
-  EIAH offers support capacity that cannot be 

met by other, similar initiatives 
-  EIAH promotes expansion of (higher 

quality) services than existing offers (for 
instance in countries where financial markets 
might not be well developed) 

- 

-  Review of the evidence on existing market needs 
-  Review of the EIAH services provided 
-  Feedback from the management of the EIAH 
-  Analysis of project promoters and beneficiaries’ alternative use 

of support services (if available) 

-  Ranking of the added value of key type of EIAH services, as 

perceived by beneficiaries  

Desk research of key EIAH 
documentation, and documentation 
describing the activities, services and 
target groups for similar TA initiatives 
at European or national level (such as 
NPB advisory services, advisory 
services offered by such as JASPERS, 
ELENA or Horizon 2020 Innovfin 
Advisory, FICompass, EIB technical 
assistance within normal operations, 
private sector consultants, trade and 
commercial associations, EC funded 
technical assistance services) 

Previous evaluations of similar TA 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

initiatives at European or national level. 

Interviews with EIAH management, 
management of other TA initiatives at 
European or national level (such as such 
as NPB advisory services, advisory 
services such as JASPERS, ELENA or 
Horizon 2020 Innovfin Advisory, 
FICompass, EIB technical assistance 
within normal operations, private sector 
consultants, trade and commercial 
associations, EC funded technical 
assistance services) 

4. EIPP 

Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

Relevance 

EQ 6: To what extent have the 
EIPP’s activities been relevant to 
its mandate (Article 15 of the EFSI 
Regulation)?  

Extent to which: 
- Current and future investment 
projects are presented on the 
portal 
- Various stakeholder groups 
frequent the portal (in particular 
project promoters and 
investors) 
- Projects cover all of the pre-
determined high economic 
value-added sectors 
- Investors and project 
promoters are matched via the 
platform 
- Investors learn about projects 

-  Establishing statistics on unique visitors, as well as registered users and break down 

by: 
Country of origin/registration 
Type of user (investor, project promotor, investee) 

-  Review of projects uploaded by 
country, sector, project stage 

-  Review of feedback from project promoters regarding the judgement criteria listed 

on the left 

Desk research (review of relevant 
EIPP documentation such as user 
statistics, information about projects 
uploaded, and any documentation on 
% of potential projects uploaded that 
have been implemented) 

Telephone interviews with EIPP 
management, investors registered on 
EIPP, project promoters and 
investees registered on EIPP 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

Effectiveness 

EQ 18: To what extent has EIPP 
deployment fulfilled its mandate as 
listed in Article 15 of the EFSI 
Regulation? 

Efficiency 

EQ 27: To what extent have the 
financial resources used for the 
EIPP been appropriately sized to 
meet EIPP's objectives and how 
can they be optimised 

EQ 28: To what extent have EIPP 
communication methods been 
efficiently used to promote the 
Portal? 

via the platform they would not 
have identified otherwise 

Extent to which: 
- Current and future investment 
projects are presented on the 
portal 
- Extent to which various 
stakeholder groups frequent the 
portal (in particular project 
promoters and investors) 
- Extent to which projects cover 
all of the pre-determined high 
economic value-added sectors 
- Extent to which investors and 
project promoters are matched 
via the platform 

Extent to which 
- 

Promotional activities 
around EIPP are targeted at 
the right groups, and 
designed in a way that 
ensures value for money  
-  Operational resources are 
allocated in an efficient 
way 
Promotional/communicatio
n activities would be 
equally effective to what is 
currently undertaken with 
reduced resources 
Promotional activities 

- 

- 

Desk research (review of relevant 
EIPP documentation such as user 
statistics, information about projects 
uploaded, and any documentation on 
% of potential projects uploaded that 
have been implemented) 

Telephone interviews with EIPP 
management, investors registered on 
EIPP, project promoters and 
investees registered on EIPP 

Desk research (review of relevant 
EIPP documentation such as user 
statistics, information about projects 
uploaded, review of EIPP 
operational and resource plan) 

-  Establishing statistics on unique visitors, as well as registered users and break down 

by: 
Country of origin/registration 
Type of user (investor, project promotor, investee) 

-  Review of projects uploaded by 
country, sector, project stage 

-  Review of feedback from investors, project promoters and investees regarding the 

judgement criteria listed on the left 

For each promotional activity, analysis of  
-  Type of activity 
-  Type and size of target group 
-  Results, e.g.: unique visitor/reach of online campaign, visitors at events and 

conferences 

-  Cost per person reached, by target group (project promoters, investees, investors) 
-  Review extent to which synergies are exploited, e.g. promotional activities raise 

- 

visibility of EIAH and EIPP in an integrated way. 
Process mapping of operational activities needed to run the EIPP, and resources 
used against each activity 

-  Value added of each operational activity in terms of reaching EIPP objectives 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

-  Review of target groups and intervention logic for EIPP and other initiatives 
- 
-  Review feedback from EIPP management and managers/staff of similar initiatives 

Identify any overlap or synergies 

regarding the judgment criteria on the left 

Coherence 

EQ 32: To what extent has the 
EIPP proved coherent with other 
existing similar initiatives (in 
terms of complementarity, 
potential synergies and/or 
overlaps)? 

could be optimised 
-  Allocation of operational 
resources could be 
optimised 

Extent to which: 
-  EIPP provides similar 

service or caters to similar 
target group than similar 
initiatives at the national or 
European level 

-  EIPP offers 

complementary service or 
caters to complementary 
target groups compared to 
similar initiative at the 
national or European level 
-  EIPP offers synergies with 
EFSI pipeline and project 
pipeline of other TA 
activities within the EIB 
Group 

Potential synergies with EFSI 
pipeline and project pipeline of 
other TA activities within EIB 
Group are exploited 

with 

Desk review of key documentation 
on EIPP and similar initiatives at 
national or European level 
Interviews 
EIPP 
management and managers/staff 
at 
of 
initiatives 
national94  or  European 
level 
(e.g.  activities  of  the  European 
Investors’ Association). 

similar 

EQ  33:  To  what  extent  have  the 
actions  of  the  EFSI  Regulation 
(EFSI,  EIAH,  and  EIPP)  been 

– 

Addressed under EFSI  

Addressed under EFSI  

Addressed under EFSI  

94  For 
Entwicklungsbank/Projekte/Projektdatenbank/index.jsp  

instance  KfW’s  Projektdatenbank  which  presents  KfW  supported  development  projects:  https://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/Internationale-Finanzierung/KfW-

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Evidence and analysis required 

Source of evidence 

internally  coherent  in  terms  of 
potential  synergies  in  contributing 
to 
the 
of 
achievement 
Investment Plan for Europe? 

the 

EU Added Value 

EQ 40: To what extent has the 
EIPP provided added value for 
enhancing the visibility of 
published investment projects from 
the perspective of project 
promoters and investors? 

Extent to which: 
- 

- 

Investors agree that EIPP 
helped them to identify 
investees/projects that they 
would not have identified 
otherwise 
Project promoters / 
Investees agree that EIPP 
helped them to identify 
investors that they would 
not have identified 
otherwise 

- 

- 

Feedback from investors, investees and project promoters regarding the judgement 
criteria on the left 

-  Unique visitor statistics across EIPP website, and individual sectors, over time 

Desk review of key documentation 
on EIPP and similar initiatives at 
national or European level 
Interviews with investors, investees 
and project promoters registered on 
the EIPP 

Web statistics suggest EIPP 
was conducive in enhancing 
visibility of investment projects 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Desk research 

The desk research was aimed to ensure a complete and comprehensive understanding of 
the EFSI operation since its start in 2015, including  changes since EFSI 2.0, as well as 
key issues related to the EU Guarantee, EIAH and EIPP. As part of it, a systematic and 
thorough  review  involved  both,  publicly  available  information  as  well  as  official 
documentation (>100 stand-alone documents) provided by the Commission, EIB and EIF 
throughout the duration of the project. 

Portfolio analysis 

Descriptive analysis of operations by window. 

The cut-off point for the data was 31st December 2017.  

The data has been used at window level to comment on: 

■  Achieved multipliers and progress to investment targets and at portfolio level 

to analyse by number of operations and levels of investment;  

■  Sectoral distribution;  

■  Geographic distribution; 

■  Use of financial instrument (e.g. loan, equities, hybrid) 

■  Share of private investment mobilised.  

Comparison of risk ratings at the portfolio level 

One  of  the  tests  for  additionally  was  the  comparison  of  the  risk  profile  of  EFSI 
operations with the standard EIB portfolio.  

As  reported  by  the  Commission  in  mid-2016,  EFSI  operations  are  characterized  by  a 
higher level of risk compared to standard EIB operations. For example, the typical rating 
of  an  EFSI  operation  ranges  between  Baa3  (BBB-)  and  B2  (B)  with  an  average  rating 
between  Ba1  (BB+)  and  Ba2  (BB).  The  average  rating  of  a  standard  EIB  operation  is 
BBB+ (Baa1)95. 
The analysis focused on the portfolio of IIW projects that possess loan grading. Special 
Activities dominated the IIW portfolio with 97 per cent of the signed ones having loan 
grading of D- or below, as of 31st December 201796. For standard portfolio, the available 
ratings assigned as per EIB’s appraisal process have been also used.  

95  EC,  2016.  SWD.  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 
96 EIB, 2018. Annual Risk Profile Report IIW 2017. 

109 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Project analysis  

Review of the sample of IIW projects  

A review of 60 EFSI projects was done to assess their additionally, as per the definition 
in  the  EFSI  Regulation,  and  to  confirm,  inter  alia,  whether  the  project  would  not  have 
been funded within the same time period or to the same extent by the EIB without EFSI, 
but it also sought to look at additionally from the broader perspective in the context of 
the EU added value.  

Projects  have  been  selected  with  the  intention  to  reflect  the  key  parameters  of  the  IIW 
portfolio of signed projects and drawn from the 263 signed operations under the IIW, as 
of 31st December 2017. 

Expert review 

As  part  of  the  evaluation,  a  number  of  sectoral  experts  were  hired  for  the  appraisal  of 
project  proposals  and  the  assessment  of  technical  and  financial  viability.  This  was 
supported by the review of relevant background materials including the EFSI Regulation 
and relevant parts of the EIB Credit Risk Policy Guideline. 

The  collated  project  documentation  was  then  reviewed  by  experts  in  the  ‘data  room’ 
located  at  the  EIB  premises.  On  that  basis,  experts  provided  their  assessment  on  the 
viability and additionality of the projects.  

Review of sample of EIAH requests 

All requests received up the cut-off date of 31st December 2017 were reviewed including 
those that led to the specific provision of technical assistance, as well as those that were 
‘rerouted’ by the EIAH to other services for various reasons, often at the early stage of a 
request.  

The analysis aimed to capture the volume and key characteristics of requests  

(including the ones that evolved into TA ) inter alia: 

-  Origin  of  the  requests  (country,  sector,  private/  public,  type  of  organization 

requesting); 

-  Way how they reached the EIAH (i.e via website, expert sources, NPB); 

-  Their most common nature i.e. requests for financing of funding/ request for TA + 

funding, proposed cooperation; 

-  channel through which recipient learnt about the EIAH services 

- 

- 

the degree to which NPBs were involved in those 

type of expertise required degree to which external consultants needed to be involved 
in those requests 

The review focused also on the trends over the time. 

Review of sample of EIPP projects 

An assessment of the market uptake of the EIPP, starting with the number of published 
projects and their sectorial/geographical distribution was provided.  

Information has been provided on the following aspects: 

i. Volume of projects published since January 2016;  

110 

 
 
ii. Number of investors contacting the promoters; 

ii.  Sectorial  distribution  of  the  projects,  highlighting  sectors  with  the  highest  and 
lowest numbers of applications;  

iii. Geographical distribution of the projects.  

Other  qualitative  aspects  were  also  investigated  by  means  of  a  survey  and  interviews, 
such as: 

-  The manner in which the investors and project promoters became familiar with 

EIPP; 

-  The ease of use of the portal. 

The analysis furthermore included the results of a survey of EIPP project promoters 

Targeted surveys 

The study envisaged the following on-line surveys:  

-  Survey of project promoters under IIW (signed deals only) 

-  Survey of financial intermediaries involved under IIW (signed deals only) 

-  Survey of National Promotional Banks; 

-  Survey of beneficiaries of EIAH assistance; 

-  Survey of project promoters from the EIPP. 

Dissemination  of  the  surveys  of  IIW  project  promoters  and  financial  intermediaries 
(signed  deals  only)  and  EIAH  survey  were  facilitated  by  the  EIB.  In  turn,  DG  ECFIN 
supported the dissemination of survey of EIPP beneficiaries while ICF disseminated the 
survey of NPBIs.  

The data collection, including the envisaged on-line surveys, took place shortly after the 
data  collection  conducted  by  the  EIB  and  European  Court  of  Auditors,  as  part  of  their 
evaluations (both mandated by the Regulation as well) that overlap with this study. The 
survey  fatigue  has  been  indicated  by  wide  range  of  stakeholders  involved  in  this 
evaluation as a major risk for the response rate and their quality.  

Targeted interviews 

The focus of interviews varied depending on the stakeholder type. Interviewees received 
a  copy  of  the  semi-structured  questionnaire in  advance  that was  then  used  to  guide  the 
discussion,  and  in  some  cases  to  follow-up  with  additional  written  responses  and 
comments.  In  limited  cases,  where  phone  or  face-to-face  interview  was  not  feasible, 
written feedback was sought. 

111 

 
 
 
 
Review of risk analysis by the expert 

The estimation that resulted in the provisioning rate for the EU Guarantee (50 per cent 
and then reduced recently to 35 per cent) was conducted by the European Commission. 
More specifically, based on the 39 operations for the IIW EIB signed as at 30 June 2016 
and on the historic data for the instruments under the SMEW Enhancement as well as the 
proposed  changes  to  the  SMEW  debt  sub-window,  the  Commission  calculated  an 
average provisioning rate of 33.4 per cent.  

Given the anticipated evolution of EFSI portfolios in terms of the credit risk quality and 
the  possible  increase  in  the  exposure  of  the  EU  Guarantee  driven  by  continuous  EFSI 
financing (i.e. increase in actual amount of monies disbursed/ riskier operations), it was 
important  to  externally  examine  the  risk  analysis  that  was  used  to  derive  the  latest 
provisioning rate of 35 per cent, in order to ensure an integrated and holistic approach to 
financial risk measurement, that takes all types of risk and their interactions into account. 

The  aim  of  this  task  was  to  review  the  risk  analysis  and  related  EC  modelling  of  the 
provisioning rate, with a focus on: 

-  Analysing the validity of the assumptions underlying the mathematical risk 

measurement model; 

-  Assessing the ability of the risk measurement model to capture the key risk drivers of 
the EFSI portfolio risk landscape and the interdependences between different risk 
factors in the portfolio; 

-  Re-evaluating the risk measurement model in light of recent, continuous 

development of quantitative risk management methodology. For instance, the 
importance of extremes and extremal dependence, of systemic risk and model risk, in 
particular in the context of credit models. 

112 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: EIB PRODUCTS UNDER EFSI IIW 

Source: EIB (2016) Evaluation updated and augmented by ICF based on inputs from the EIB equity and debt team provided in April 2018 Note: ‘:’ – missing data 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: POTENTIAL OVERLAPS – DEBT & EQUITY PRODUCTS SUPPORTING LENDING TO SMES, 2014-2020 

Debt products supporting lending to SMEs, 2014-2020 
Product name 

DGs in 
charge 

Manage
r 

Budget 
(EUR 
million) 
840 

COSME LGF (Loan Guarantee 
Facility) 
InnovFin SMEG (SME 
Guarantee) 

GROW 

EIF 

SMEs 

SMEs with a high-risk profile 

Contributing to SMEI 

1.060 

RTD 

EIF 

SMEs and Small 
Mid-Caps 

Innovative and research-
intensive SMEs and Small Mid-
Caps 

Contributing to SMEI 

Target 

Specific focus 

Comment 

EaSI Guarantee Instrument 

96 

EMPL 

EIF 

CCS (Cultural and Creative 
Sectors) Guarantee Facility 
SME Initiative 

121 

1.137 

CNECT  EIF 

Social enterprises, 
micro-enterprises 
and vulnerable 
groups 
SMEs 

Implemented through 
microcredit providers and social 
enterprise investors 

Guarantee  

Cultural and creative sectors 

- 

EIF 

SMEs 

REGIO 
GROW
RTD 

Developed as an anti-crisis 
measure. No specific target 
groups, but focus on 
participating Countries.  

Operational in BG, FI, 
MT, RO, IT and ES. 
InnovFin and COSME 
resources form part of 
SMEI resources. 
Funded product 

EASI Sub-fund (under 
development) 

67 EASI + 
133 from 
EIB/EIF 

EMPL 

EIF 

Social enterprises, 
micro-enterprises 
and vulnerable 
groups 

Implemented through 
microcredit providers and social 
enterprise investors 

  COSME LGF Frontloading 
I
S
F
E

Top-up  
InnovFin SMEG 
Frontloading Top-up  

550 

880 

ECFIN 

ECFIN 

97 In terms of targeted final beneficiaries and expected policy achievements. 

Cfr. COSME LGF 

Cfr. InnovFin SMEG 

114 

Potential 
overlap97 

Joint 
governance and 
loan size 
differentiation 

Possible overlap 
with the SMEI 
EASI Sub-fund 
Possibly with 
COSME LGF 

COSME LGF 
InnovFin SMEG 
InnovFin SMEG 
COSME LGF 

EaSI Guarantee 
Instrument 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EaSI Guarantee Frontloading 
Top-up  
CCS Guarantee 
Top-up  
Securitisation instrument 
(under development) 

100 

60 

100 + 100 
from 
EIB/EIF 

ECFIN 

ECFIN 

ECFIN 

EIF 

SMEs and Mid-
Caps (to be 
finalised) 

Cfr. EaSI Guarantee 

Cfr. CCS Guarantee 

Development of the 
securitisation market 

- 

COSME LGF 
securitisation 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Equity products supporting lending to SMEs, 2014-2020 
Budget 
Product name 
(EUR million) 

DGs in 
charge 

Manager  Target 

Specific focus 

Comment 

COSME EFG (Equity 
Facility for Growth) 

490 (including 
fees) 

GROW 

EIF 

SMEs 

Companies in expansion 
stage 

Contributes to Pan-EU VC 
FoF 

EaSI Capacity Building 
Investments Window 

16 (including 
fees) 

EMPL 

EIF 

ESCALAR (under 
development) 

tbd 

GROW
ECFIN 

tbd 

Micro-credit and 
social finance 
providers 
SMEs and mid-
caps (to be further 
specified) 

Build up of the 
institutional capacity of 
financial intermediaries 
Expansion & growth 
phase, pre IPO 

In exceptional cases 
providing also loans 

Innovative support to VC 
funds through guaranteed 
loans 

RCR 

IFE (InnovFin Equity) 

SMEW Equity 
Instrument 

I
S
F
E

9.500 (of which 
2.500 from EFSI) 

- 

495 (including 
fees) 

1.270 (including 
fees) + 458 from 
IFE + 290 from 
EIF 

RTD 

ECFI
N 
RTD 

EIB 
(mandate 
to EIF) 
EIF 

SMEs and Small 
Mid-Caps 

EIF 

SMEs and Small 
Mid-Caps 

SMEs and mid-
caps 

Companies from pre-seed 
to expansion. 

- 

Companies in their pre-
seed, seed, and start-up 
phases in H2020 sectors 
Companies from pre-seed 
to expansion. Specific 
envelopes foreseen for: 
tech-transfer, business 
angels, social investment 

No longer stand alone, being 
fully integrated with SMEW 
Eq. Instr. (see below) 
EFSI resources are combined 
with IFE and EIF resources 
into a single product 

Potential 
overlap98 
SMEW Eq. 
Instr. 
Pan-EU VC FoF 
ESCALAR 
RCR 

COSME EFG 
SMEW Eq. 
Instr. 
Pan-EU VC FoF 
EIB-EIF MFF 
RCR 
Potentially any 
other product. 

(see SMEW 
Equity Instr.) 

Potentially any 
other product. 

98 In terms of targeted final beneficiaries and expected policy achievements. 

116 

 
 
                                                 
 
Pan-European Venture 
Capital Fund of Funds 

Up to 300 from 
SMEW Equity 
Instr. + up to 100 
from COSME 

EIB-EIF SME FIF 
(Funds Investment 
Facility) (under EFSI 
IIW) 
EIB-EIF MFF (Midcap 
Funds Facility) (under 
EFSI IIW) 

500 

500 

ECFI
N 
RTD 
GRO
W  
- 

- 

EIB-EIF CIF (Co-
investment Facility 
under IIW)  

100 + 100 EIB 

- 

EIF 

SMEs and Small 
Mid-Caps 

Companies from pre-seed 
to expansion 

Falling under the SMEW 
Equity Instrument, it 
combines COSME resources 

COSME EFG 
ESCALAR 
RCR 

EIB 
(mandate 
to EIF) 

EIB 
(mandate 
to EIF) 

EIB 
(mandate 
to E 

SMEs 

Companies from pre-seed 
to expansion 

Co-investment in funds 
where EIF is already present 
with non-EFSI resources 

Mid-caps 

Expansion & growth 
phase 

- 

SMEs and Mid-
Caps 

Companies from pre-seed 
to expansion 

Co-investment alongside 
funds where EIF is already 
present 

COSME EFG 
SMEW Eq. 
Instr. 
RCR 
COSME EFG 
SMEW Eq. 
Instr. 
ESCALAR 
RCR 
COSME EFG 
SMEW Eq. 
Instr. 
ESCALAR 
RCR 

117