Activities of Lena EK related to 2011/2107(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the Green Paper: From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding PDF (424 KB) DOC (294 KB)
Amendments (29)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas spending should be aligned as far as possible with the overarching policy objectives under the Europe 2020 strategy,
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers it necessary to review the criteria for promotion to senior research positions (e.g. professorships) in order to include a strong gender perspective and address the lack of women in these posts;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the European Commission to make a special effort to increase the number of female entrepreneurs in the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and welcomes the Commission's plans to establish a network for female entrepreneurs; underlines the need for adequate financial resources to be assigned for this purpose;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises the importance of promoting non-gender-segregated research areas; calls on universities, EU institutions and Member States to promote science as a field of interest to both sexes from the early stages of education by promoting female researchers as role models. and by conducting information campaigns about the opportunities available in the research field;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Underlines the importance of having women represented in leading positions in research institutions as well as in concrete research projects.
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas FP7 should be modelled on the same general principles as ERA,
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the visibility of the EU added value in research and innovation;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the fact that at the core of the CSF should be the idea that the differing nature and scale of R&D&I projects, together with the multiplicity of funding schemes, must be organised in such a way that coherence, articulation and complementarity are ensured; believes that a moratorium on instruments should be considered until the existing ones have been sufficiently developed and adequately evaluated;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Highlights the pivotal role of Research infrastructures (RIs) for the Knowledge Triangle and calls for coherence between what is funded in different areas; calls for efforts to boost RIs, especially where there is the greatest scope for added value at European level;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Stresses the importance of improving participation from Member States that are underrepresented, such as through using the People programme for developing the potential for scientists from EU12 and by ensuring that education does not become the forgotten side of the Knowledge Triangle by adequately complementing the linkages between research and innovation with research training, including training specifically aimed at women researchers;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11c. Calls on the Commission to integrate the development of the next FP and the process of drawing up a common EU- level strategic framework for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) for the period after 2013 in order to ensure that possible synergies are maximised and that the funds available are used to the greatest extent to enable researchers in Member States that have been underrepresented in the FP7 to achieve excellence;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 d (new)
Paragraph 11 d (new)
11d. Considers that the achievement of scientific excellence should be considered as an impact that in itself motivates drawing on the funds of Structural and Cohesion Funds in Member States that are underrepresented in the FP;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
2nd Layer: PotentialResearch and consolidllaboration
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. This layer is the space for overall research, fundamental and applied, and social sciences and humanities; coordination participants are universities and research centres/institutes, although the industrial sector should be encouraged to participatein close cooperation with the industrial sector;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. The key words here are originality, quality and potential of projects, and not onlybut also the possible marketed results;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that the European Research Council (ERC) has proved to be successful and a strengthening element of the European Research Area (ERA); stresses the need to increase the proportion of the budget dedicated to grants to young researchers, as well to strengthen Marie Curie actions and initiatives, thus reinforcing mobility; calls for the implementation of the necessary measures to cope with the precariousimprove the conditions of scientific workers in the EU as a means to attract and retain researchers, bearing in mind that precarious working conditions (which are still more prevalent for women) constitute a bottleneck on the wayin order to achievinge excellence in Europe;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. This layer is the space for marketing of products and services and generation of public wealth; innovative industry, especially SMEs play a pivotal role here in developing novel products and, services, processes, etc;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that increased participation by SMEs needs appropriate funding instruments that respond to their specificities, including an increased margin of the tolerable risk of error; within this scenario soft loans should be considered, which are reimbursed in the event of success, excluding administrative costs;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Highlights the importance of shorter and predictable time-to-grant periods for SME participation;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Takes the view that not all innovation is research-based and that not all research has innovation as its goal; believes in consequence that the proposed reorganisation should cover the full innovation cycle, from concept to marketspectrum of activities related to innovation, including non-technological, eco- and social innovation, and bearing in mind that innovation is frequently a commercially-driven process;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Strongly encourages the implementation of training programmes for all potential participants, particularly on the application of management rules, and calls on the Commission to develop criteria for the selection, evaluation and assessment of projects, bearing in mind the stairways tocriterion of excellence;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Stresses that simplification of the FP requires a quantum leap and calls for the implementation of all identified simplification measures in the new FP;
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Favours moving towards a ’science- and innovation/result-based’ approach and calls for a trust-based and risk-tolerant attitude towards participants at all stages of the funding system;
Amendment 306 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Proposes that overhead costs for projects under the next FP should be limited to 10%; considers that pre-review levels of 25% of overhead spending in FP7 are intolerable given the overall budget restraints;
Amendment 307 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24b. Stresses that efforts should be made to align spending within the new FP as far as possible with the overarching policy objectives under the Europe 2020 strategy and to integrating the research base;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)
Paragraph 24 c (new)
24c. Calls for measures to decrease time- to-grant targeted at improving the percentage of grants signed in less than six months during the next FP;
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Believes that procedures of competitive calls for additional partners should be based on the basic premise that the business and researchers involved have the deepest knowledge of the project and which partner it needs best and that rather than forcing them to follow the ranking lists of the evaluation experts, the Commission should evaluate a written justification of the consortium's choice;
Amendment 342 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Calls for a continued rigorous implementation of the 40% target for female participation in Programme and Advisory Committees; highlights the importance of boosting female participation throughout project lifecycles with particular attention to overcoming gender-specific obstacles which women face;
Amendment 361 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Believes that the programmes should be opened up to international partners; highlights that the basic principle should be that all programmes should be open for financing also of foreign groupings (given specific competencies); rejects the notion that the Commission would be better placed than researchers to determine the choice of cooperation partners;