12 Amendments of Lambert van NISTELROOIJ related to 2010/2079(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is of the opinion that the EU’s various instruments for cohesion, research and innovation should be implemented in an integrated manner with a view to ensuring their effectiveness; emphasises, therefore, the need to seek synergies between these instruments and to eliminate obstacles to such synergies;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas result-based funding might limit the scope of the research projects to less risky projects and research orientated towards the markettrict their flexibility to adapt to new developments, something that would hamper the EU in pursuing excellence andin frontier research and success in innovation,
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that research and innovation can best be fostered at regional levelgional level is an excellent level at which to foster research and innovation, thanks to the proximity between universities, public research bodies, large companies, SMEs and regional public authorities, for example within clusters;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that the EU’s instruments for encouraging research and development focus on large-scale projects of excellence likely to have a tangible impact on economic activity and job creation; points out that the momentum generated by projects of excellence benefits all the Member States and is an effective adjunct to the territorial dimension of cohesion policy instrumentshas a greater territorial impact on all the Member States if synergy is achieved with regional policy funds; observes, in particular, that obstacles to such synergy should be eliminated.
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Supports the reduction in combinations of funding rates and methods for defining indirect costs across the different instruments; acknowledges that neither the current differentiation between universities/research centres, industry and SMEs nor the differentiation between activities (management, research, demonstration and dissemination) should be abolished and that all organisations should retain the possibility to use real costs;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Favours the introduction of lump sums covering ‘other direct costs’ as long as their use remains optional; calls on the Commission rigorously to assess the use of lump sums for personnel costs; highlights that lump sums are the most effective alternative for International Cooperation Partner Countries within the FP;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Urges the Commission to implement the ‘single audit approach’ and to switch to real-time auditing performed by a single entity, thereby allowing beneficiaries to correct any systemic errors and hand in improved cost statements the following year; believes that such a single audit approach should further ensure that finished projects will not be audited more than once by various auditors, so that the opinion of the first appointed (independent) auditor is trusted by the Commission;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission to provide legal certainty by refraining from applying any stricter definition of the rules for participation retroactively and by refraining from recalculating financial statements already approved by Commission services, hence reducing the need for ex-post audits and retroactive corrections;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Regards as inadequate the general use of lump sums such as negotiated project- specific lump sums or pre-defined lump sums per project; favours instead the ‘high- trust’ approach tailor-made for frontier research; recommends launching pilot tests of the ‘result-based funding’ with project- specific lump sums paid against agreed output/results for research and demonstration projects in specifically challenging areas;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Favours instead a ‘science-based’ funding system, with emphasis on scientific/technical criteria and pexpert review based on excellence, relevance and impact, with simplified and efficient financial control; believes that this science- based approach will entail a major shift from the financial to the scientific/technical side with regard to control mechanisms; considers that this approach allows stakeholders to focus their efforts on their core competences, on scientific/technical matters and on the construction of the ERA;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Recommends establishing mechanisms to provide common guidance within the Commission, and launching training for project officers and internal auditors; urges the creation of an appeal mechanism such as an ‘FP mediator’ for participants in cases of incoherent and inconsistent interpretation of rules and procedures; believes that decisions taken by this mediator should become binding;