14 Amendments of Massimiliano SALINI related to 2016/2147(INI)
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. NoteConsiders that Pillars 2 and 3 arcould be too focused on higher Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), which limitscould bring to a limitation of the future absorption of disruptive innovations that are still in the pipeline of research projects with lower TRLs; considers that TRLs exclude non-technological forms of innovation generated by fundamental or applied research, particularly from SSH;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to offer a balanced mix of small, medium and large- sized projects; notes that the average budget for projects has increased under H2020 and that larger projects requirefavour participants with large financial and staff capabilities; notes that this favours large institutions, creating a problem for smaller Member States and for small participants from larger Member States; regrets that this poses obstacles for newcomers and concentrates funding in elite institutiongreater experience in the Framework Programmes projects, creating some barriers for newcomers;
Amendment 98 #
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 reweighting of these criteria and invites the Commission to set out additional sub- criteria by adding ‘SSH integration and geographical balance’ under ‘core and undisputed evaluation criterion across all the three pillars of the FP, but stresses as well existing 'impact’' and ‘project size’ under ‘'quality and efficiency of the implementation’' criteria;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to better define ‘'impact’'; stresses that the assessment of the impact of fundamental research projects should remain flexible and its relative weight in the evaluation procedure should be decreased; asks the Commission to check that the balance between bottom-up and top-down calls is maintained and to analyse which procedure (one or two stage) is more useful to avoid oversubscription;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to continue to enhance the societal challenges approach and emphasises the importance of collaborative research; underlines the need to reinforce somimportance of regular revision of the adequacy of the sSocietal cChallenges such as innovation in agriculture and health, especially cancer and antimicrobial resistance research planslist as well as flexibility of the budget dedicated to each of them;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Underlines that Horizon 2020 is not focused on the ‘'valley of death’' that constitutes the main barrier to converting prototypes into mass production, and that H2020 is the first FP to put research and innovation together; welcomes the creation of an EIC20 , but insists that this should not lead again to the separation of research from innovation; _________________ 20Commission Communication entitled ‘Europe’s next leaders: the Start-up and Scale-up Initiative’ (COM/2016/0733).
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Welcomes the success of H2020 and the 1:11 leverage factor; notes the oversubscription and the challenges that lie ahead, and calls for a budgetary increase of EUR 100 billion for FP9calls on the Commission to increase the budget of FP9 to EUR 120 billion and insists on avoiding fragmentation and dispersing of this budget;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Stresses that the main goals of FP9 programme should remain strengthening of the EU competitiveness, creating growth and jobs, bringing new knowledge and innovations in order to tackle the crucial challenges faced by Europe as well as the further progress towards developing sustainable European Research Era; welcomes in this respect the current pillar structure of the FP and calls on the Commission to retain this structure for the sake of continuity and predictability.
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 c (new)
Paragraph 26 c (new)
26c. Encourages the Commission to continue its efforts on enhancing synergies between FP9, ESIF and EFSI and providing fewer instruments with harmonised rules (State Aid); askes Commission therefore to continue work on the coherence, simplification, transparency and clarity of the programme, on improving the evaluation process and on reducing fragmentation;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 f (new)
Paragraph 26 f (new)
26f. Underlines the need of strengthening the international cooperation within FP9 and spreading science diplomacy.
Amendment 284 #
26h. Calls on the Commission to improve transparency and clarity of rules for public-private cooperation within FP9 projects following the results and recommendations stemming from the evaluation; asks the Commission to verify and assess the existing instruments for public-private partnerships;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Welcomes the current pillar structure of the programme, and calls on the Commission to retain this structure for the sake of continuity and predictability, to improve the interaction among all funding instruments/programmes and to study the possibility of having fewer instruments with harmonised rules; highlights, in particular, the need to increase flexibility and to reduce administrative burdens for JTIs, in order to speed up the delivery of innovations; asks the Commission therefore to continue work on the coherence, simplification, transparency and clarity of the programme, on improving the evaluation process and on reducing fragmentation;
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Notes that R&D investment by industry has not significantly increased; in view of the generally scarce resources for public R&D spending, calls for industrial competitiveness to be supported by differentiating between mature and emerging sectors, thus allowing larger or more mature industries to participate in projects more at their own cost or through loans;