Activities of Matthijs van MILTENBURG related to 2016/2147(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation (debate) NL
Amendments (12)
Amendment 16 #
2. Notes the divergences in aims and focus between the Framework Programme and the ESI Funds; takes the view, however, that efforts must be made to maximise synergies at programme level, as research and innovation are substantially supported under the ERDF thematic objectives, especially under thematic objection 1: Strengthening research, technological development and innovation;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes the view that RIS3 is a suitable vehicle for theto reform ofand build regional innovation ecosystems and that ESI Funds mustcan be used for capacity building; enhancing R&I infrastructure and capacities to develop R&I excellence, the promotion of centres of competence and innovation hubs, in particular those of European interest; points out that ESI Funds also can be used for promoting business investment in R&I and developing links and synergies between enterprises, research and development centres and the higher education sector;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Points out that the European Commission, Member States and regions should intensify their efforts to improve the quality of smart specialisation strategies and the effective implementation of their strategies;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the EU Member States to improve the conditions for innovation, research and development, in particular with the aim to increase combined public and private investments in R&D to 3% of GDP by 2020; observes that there is a clear linkage between national investments in R&D and the amount of successful project applications under the Framework Programmes;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the principle and the potential of the Seal of Excellence, but notes that it is insufficiently applied in practice; expresses that projects that have been submitted for funding under Horizon 2020, passed stringent selection and award criteria but could not be funded due to budget constraints should be financed by ESI Funds resources, if these resources are available for that purpose;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Regrets that the budget of Horizon 2020 has been cut to finance EFSI’s guarantee fund; is of the opinion that the EU must stay internationally competitive and should not lose its R&I potential; proposes therefore to increase the budget for FP9 towards a total amount of 100 billion euro, which should be secured for the whole duration of the programme;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission, in drawing up the 9th Framework Programme and the ESI Funds regulations, to ensure that framework conditions are improved so as to boost synergies and complementarity between sector-specific R&I policyies, the Structural Funds, and R&I funds and programmes.; calls in particular for a review of the relevant state aid rules, especially regarding Seal of Excellence projects;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Underlines that several Member States are not respecting their national R&D investment commitments; calls for the earmarking of Structural Funds for R&D activities, especially investments in capacity building, and infrastructure and salaries, asks that the 3% of GDP target be met, and hopes that this can be raised to 4%the level of our largest global competitors in the not too distant future;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Confirms that ‘excellence’ should remain the key criterion across the three pillars, while noting that it is only one of the three evaluation criteria, alongside ‘impact’ and ‘quality and efficiency of the implementation’; calls for the reweightingcontinuation of these criteria and invites the Commission to set out additional sub- criteria by adding ‘SSH integration and geographical balance’ under ‘impact’ and ‘project size’ under ‘efficiency of the implementation’find alternative ways to ensure SSH integration and geographical balance, for instance through capacity building and better synergies with other EU funding programmes;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that the R&I capabilities of North/South and West/East Member States are very different; recognises the European dimension to the problem of the participation gap, which must be addressed by the FPoth at EU and national level, including through ESIF, if the EU is to exploit its full potential; welcomes, in this respect, the Widening Programme; calls on the Commission to assess whether the three Widening instruments have achieved their specific objectives and to clarify the rational and general goal of the Programme, to review the indicator used to define ‘underrepresented’ countries, and to keep a dynamic list that allows Member States to be in or out depending on how their capabilities evolve; calls on the Commission and Member States to adapt or adopt new measures with ESIF to bridge this gap;
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to look for a solution to the research deficiencies facing convergence regions in some Member States, in application of the principle of additionality; regrets that financial allocations from the Structural and Investment Funds can lead to a reduction in national R&D expenditure in regions where they apply, but insists that these must be additional to national public expenditure; calls also on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that investment in R&D is not accounted for as investment in relation to deficit objectivR&I programmes are seen as investments rather than purely funding programmes;
Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Underlines the need for more synergies with Structural Funds to build new higher excellence centres and regions and the importance of continuing to develop the ERA; calls for policies to remove barriers such as lower salaries that are faced by Eastern and Southern countries in order to avoid brain drain, and for the excellence of the project to be prioritised over the excellence of ‘elite’leading science centres;