Activities of Christian EHLER related to 2022/2063(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Implementation report on the European Innovation Council (short presentation)
Reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the European Innovation Council
Amendments (94)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)
Citation 10 a (new)
— having regard to the Statement from the EIC Board for the discussion in the European Parliament ITRE committee on EIC implementation1a _________________ 1a https://eic.ec.europa.eu/news/statement- eic-board-discussion-european- parliament-itre-committee-eic- implementation-2022-08-16_en
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 b (new)
Citation 10 b (new)
— having regard to the Statement by the EIC Board on the EIC Work Programme for 2022 and future of the EIC Fund1a _________________ 1a https://eic.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022- 02/Statement%20by%20the%20EIC%20B oard%20on%20the%20EIC%20Work%20 Programme%20for%202022%20and%20f uture%20of%20the%20EIC%20Fund.pdf
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 c (new)
Citation 10 c (new)
— having regard to the Commission Press Release of 5 August 2022 entitled 'EIC Accelerator implementation update'1a _________________ 1a https://eic.ec.europa.eu/news/eic- accelerator-implementation-update-2022- 08-05_en
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas Regulation (EU) 2021/695 identifies the European Innovation Council (EIC) as “a centrally managed one-stop shop” which “shall focus mainly on breakthrough and disruptive innovation, targeting especially market-creating innovation, while also supporting all types of innovation, including incremental”;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
A b. whereas Regulation (EU) 2021/695 stipulates that the EIC shall operate in accordance with the following principles: (a) clear Union added value; (b) autonomy; (c) ability to take risk; (d) efficiency; (e) effectiveness; (f) transparency; (g) accountability;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
A c. whereas Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 stipulates that the EIC has two objectives. Firstly, to identify, develop and deploy high-risk innovations of all kinds, including incremental, with a strong focus on breakthrough, disruptive and deep-tech innovations that have the potential to become market-creating innovations. Secondly, to support the rapid scale-up of innovative companies (meaning mainly SMEs, including start- ups, and, in exceptional cases, small mid- caps) at Union and international levels along the pathway from ideas to market;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)
Recital A d (new)
A d. whereas Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 sets out that the EIC shall 1) support high-risk innovations where the risks,whether financial, technological/scientific, market and/or regulatory, cannot be born by the market alone or yet supported by financial instruments under the Invest EU Programme; 2) focus mainly on high-risk breakthrough and/or deep-tech innovations, while also supporting other forms of innovation, including incremental, that have the potential to create new markets or contribute to resolving global challenges; 3) be mainly bottom-up, open to innovations from all fields of science, technology and applications in any sector, while also enabling targeted support for emerging breakthrough, market-creating and/or deep-tech technologies of potential strategic significance in terms of economic or social impact. The Commission services will evaluate this potential strategic impact on the basis of recommendations from the independent external experts, from the EIC programme managers and, where appropriate, from the EIC Advisory Board; 4) encourage innovations that cut across different scientific and technological (for example combining physical and digital) fields and sectors; 5) be centred on innovators, simplifying procedures and administrative requirements, making use of interviews to help assess applications, and ensuring fast decision-making; 6) implemented with the aim of significantly enhancing the European innovation ecosystem. Be managed pro-actively with milestones or other predefined criteria to gauge progress and the possibility to, after a thorough assessment with the possible use of independent external experts, reorient, reschedule or terminate the projects where needed;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A e (new)
Recital A e (new)
A e. whereas the EIC should offer business advisory services, which include coaching and mentoring;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas the Pathfinder provides grants to high-risk cutting-edge projects that explore new and deep-tech areas with the aim of developing potentially radical innovative technologies of the future and new market opportunities. The Pathfinder is supporting primarily collaborative projects in the range of TRL 1 to 4 and selected through bottom-up calls;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas the Accelerator will provide financial support to: a. SMEs including start-ups and, in exceptional cases, small mid-caps that have the ambition to develop and deploy in Union and international markets their breakthrough innovations and to scale-up rapidly b. any type of high-risk innovation, including in particular breakthrough and deep-tech innovations that are key to Europe's future growth;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the Accelerator is implemented by mainly usesing EIC blended finance of EIC loans and grants awarded through a single process and with a single decision, providing the supported innovator with a single global commitment to financial resources covering the various stages of innovation until market deployment, including pre- mass commercialisation. The support will be provided through one continuously open and bottom-up call;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas the Horizon legislation allows for the Union to bear alone the initial risk of selected innovation and market deployment actions, while the aim is to de-risk these as well as to stimulate, from the outset and during the development of the action, co-investments from alternative sources and even substitute investors allowing the Union to exit the investment;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
C b. whereas Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 requires the Commission to establish a special purpose vehicle for the implementation of EIC blended finance and for the Commission to manage all operational elements of Accelerator projects, including the grant or other non- repayable forms of support;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the EIC Pilot and EIC Enhanced Pilot successfully demonstrated the feasibility of the EIC; as a fully-fledged programme as outlined in the general conclusions of the 2022 Evaluation Study published by the European Commission1a _________________ 1a “Evaluation study on the European Innovation Council (EIC) Pilot” (European Commission, 2022)
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas the Pathfinder during the EIC Pilot constituted a rebranding of the FET Open and FET Launchpad programmes and generally, the novelties of the EIC Pathfinder, most notably portfolio management and Programme Managers, were introduced only late in the pilot. Under the pilot the implementation modalities of the Pathfinder were therefore largely the same as the general implementation modalities of Horizon 2020;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
D b. whereas between 2018 and 2020, the EIC Pilot funded 330 Pathfinder projects. Furthermore, applications for the Pathfinder were numerous, with variable success rates (between 6 and 50%) depending on the different types of actions;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)
Recital D c (new)
D c. whereas the geographical spread of participation and particularly coordination of the Pathfinder Pilot was concentrated in the EU15 and Associated Countries. Furthermore, a country’s position in the European Innovation Scoreboard seemed to be reflected in the success of its innovators in the Pathfinder Pilot - the Innovation Leaders had the highest success rate and Emerging Innovators had the lowest success rates;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)
Recital D d (new)
D d. whereas blended finance was introduced successfully and the EIC Fund was incorporated during the Pilot. The effectiveness of the Accelerator Pilot was under pressure due to low success rates;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D e (new)
Recital D e (new)
D e. whereas the Pathfinder under Horizon Europe largely has the same structure and features as under the Pilot, except that the Transition Activities are identified as a separate programme part under Horizon Europe;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the EIC Fund under its original structure, as put in place in 2020 under the EIC Pilot, was functioning appropriately: 140 equity investment decisions were taken and these had a leverage of a factor 2.7, showing that the EIC Fund in its original structure was capable of establishing significant co- investment;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas more than 50% of the blended finance investments under the pilot included a convertible loan as a way for the Union to take on the earliest initial risks;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Recital F b (new)
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F c (new)
Recital F c (new)
F c. whereas the due diligence procedure as established under the pilot has been particularly successful as it delivers high quality due diligence assessments as confirmed by the fact that several of these assessments were used to attract external investors, indicating that investors regard the due diligence of enough quality to base their investment decisions on;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F d (new)
Recital F d (new)
F d. whereas the structured professional investment advice delivered by the Investment Committee and the EIB team embedded in the European Innovation Council and SMEs ExecutiveAgency (EISMEA) was able to deliver the high quality due diligence due to the unique cooperation between the EISMEA and the EIB in combination with investment expertise brought in by the external experts, including serial investors and VCs, on the Investment Committee;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F e (new)
Recital F e (new)
F e. whereas the EIC Work Programme for 2021 was adopted already in March 2021, which enabled the EIC to start the implementation significantly earlier than Horizon Europe in general;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F f (new)
Recital F f (new)
F f. whereas the Annotated Model Grant Agreement for Horizon Europe was published extremely late, which created significant uncertainty among applicants, including potential applicants under the EIC;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F g (new)
Recital F g (new)
F g. whereas the introduction of Programme Managers has the potential to increase the effectiveness of the EIC in stimulating more strategic and break through innovation in Europe;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F h (new)
Recital F h (new)
F h. whereas eight Programme Managers have been appointed, covering expertise in a wide range of fields and their role is to proactively review projects (and where necessary amend the direction of those projects) and built EIC Portfolios;
Amendment 35 #
F i. whereas the work of the Programme Managers still lacks visibility and is experienced as lacking transparency by stakeholders;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F j (new)
Recital F j (new)
F j. whereas the EIC is a new type of Programme which carries more financial risk than normal Union spending, which requires a dedicated auditing strategy;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F k (new)
Recital F k (new)
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F l (new)
Recital F l (new)
F l. whereas under the 2021 and 2022 Work Programmes 13 calls topics were opened under the Pathfinder, of which 11 call topics for Challenges and 2 calls for Open;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F m (new)
Recital F m (new)
F m. whereas under the Pathfinder Open Call of 2021, 868 proposals were submitted and 56 proposals were awarded, which means the success rate was 6.45%;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F n (new)
Recital F n (new)
F n. whereas that under the Pathfinder Open Call of 2022, 863 proposals were submitted and it is expect that around 60 proposals will be awarded, which means the success rate will be around 7%;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F o (new)
Recital F o (new)
F o. whereas under the Pathfinder Challenges Call of 2021, 403 proposals were submitted and 39 proposals were awarded, which means the success rate was 9.7%;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F p (new)
Recital F p (new)
F p. whereas for the Accelerator there were two cut-off dates in 2021 and 2022 respectively;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F q (new)
Recital F q (new)
F q. whereas the only funding transfered to Accelerator beneficiaries has been grant pre-payments and no funds have been transferred as part of (quazi) equity support with only one Investment Decision having been taken so far;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F r (new)
Recital F r (new)
F r. whereas for EIC Blended Finance projects the time-to-grant has been 12 months under Horizon Europe;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a. Reminds that the EIC Fund is set up to support startups and SMEs developing deeptech innovations. Highlights that cash flows are crucial for startups and SMEs, and that long delays in receiving expected funding can bankrupt these kinds of companies. Emphasises therefore the importance of the EIC Fund being able to invest within market conform timeframes. Deplores the examples where the EIC Fund failed to achieve this objective and where the original investment decision of the EIC Fund was rendered irrelevant, due to the long time lag and the company’s development during that time;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)
Paragraph -1 b (new)
-1 b. Notes that under the EIC Pilot with the structure of the Fund in place at the time, the EIC managed to deliver professional investment decisions largely conforming to market norms. Stresses that this structure was at the time accepted by all services of the European Commission;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)
Paragraph -1 c (new)
-1 c. Recalls that EIC Blended Finance should be awarded through a single process and through a single decision covering both the grant and the financial instruments. Reminds that Commission should manage all operational elements of Accelerator projects;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Recognises that the Commission expressed concerns about the management of EIC Fund regarding the staffing implications as well as the potential Commission reputational liability for the investments;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Acknowledges the staffing concerns raised by the Commission regarding the management of the EIC Fund investment portfolio. Appreciates that the representation of the EIC Fund needs to be appropriate and that this requires a significant number of persons with significant experience to represent the EIC Fund. Considers, however, that directly employing these persons is not the only solution. Points out that the original Investment Committee together with the EIB had developed an alternative plan to solve the staffing issue. Concludes therefore that the staffing challenge is not a reason for restructuring the Fund;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes the importance of professional preparation of an investment decision and therefore highlights the role of the EIC Fund Investment Committee as well as the support for the due diligence provided by the EIB. Commends, in this context, the valuable work performed by the EIB team embedded in the EISMEA. Notes that the due diligence performed by the EIB leading to the first investment decision is broadly considered to be of high quality, which creates trust among investors. Regrets, however, that for further decisions of the EIC Fund, like joining an investment round after the initial investment decision or establishing a rationale for an investment, seem to take too long in part due to the time it takes the EIB to provide its input for that decision. Believes in this regard that the rationale and accompanying processes for these decisions need to reflect the nature of the EIC Fund as risk investor more strongly;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Recalls that the EIC Fund under its original structure, as put in place in 2020 under the EIC Pilot, was functioning appropriately;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Notes that the Commission has developed a 'transition arrangement' under which the EIC Fund remains in the ownership of the Commission while an external fund manager will take the Investment Decisions of the Fund; hihglights that the external fund manager will also staff the Investment Committee and that this means that there will no longer be independent experts on the Committee who delivered invaluable expertise nor will there be any representative of the Commission to ensure policy coherence; takes note of the description of this arrangement in the 2022 EIC Work Programme;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with concern that undertil the transitional arrangement announced in the EIC 2022 work programme, substantia is in place, all Single Award Decisions and all iInvestment dDecisions need to be approved by the College of Commissioners and are thereby accompanied by another level of scrutiny; regards this as an unacceptable situationis dismayed by the prospect that, even when the external fund manager is responsible for Investment Decisions, the College will still need to approve the Single Award Decisions; regards this as an unacceptable situation because this makes the decision taking process even longer, complex and with more uncertainty for the applicants while the EIC investment decisions even without this extra layer fail to meet industry standards in terms of time or agility. Notes that this additional step also consolidates the direct involvement of the Commission rather than creating distance from the Commission in order to manage liability;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Highlights that Article 216(1) of the Financial Regulation expressly empowers the Commission to apply direct management of investments either by the Commission directly (Article 216(1b)) or through “a dedicated investment vehicle” (Article 216(1a)). Stresses that this form of implementation allows for more flexibility and more strategic consideration in the investment decisions as well as portfolio management than indirect management. Rejects the notion that transferring the management of the Fund to the EIB and an external fund manager will allow for the flexibility and strategic consideration needed to make the EIC a success;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Is deeply concerned about the apparent policy for the EIC Fund to never to be the lead investor in an equity round, in particular in combination with the requirement for companies to bring in matching co-investment from external investors; b. Believes this goes against the objective of the EIC. Highlights the fact that this was not the policy at the beginning of the EIC pilot and that this policy change was introduced with retroactive effect to applications submitted before the policy change. Is deeply concerned about the fact that this created cash flow problems for many applicants as well as to only a third of the committed equity investments actually taking place;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Recalls that the EIC can be the sole investor, taking on all the risk of an investment, in line with Regulation (EU) 2021/695. Notes that this role seems to be implemented only by providing convertible loans, while requiring matching co-investment for any equity investments;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8 c. Highlights that one of the reasons for establishing the EIC was that Europe lacks risk capital investors and particularly risk capital investors with expertise in deeptech markets. Notes in that regard that a dysfunctional market cannot be fully relied on as an effective mechanism to steer EIC investment and exit decisions;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8 d. Notes that risk investment comes in several forms and that all could potentially be of added value for deeptech companies. Recognises the specific benefits of venture capital funds as investors as well as highlights the potential of business angle investors. Considers both types of investors could be qualified investors and should be able to lead or be part of an investment round in which the EIC Fund is involved. Warns, in this regard, that a requirement of qualified co-investment could exacerbate the market failure the EIC was set up to address;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8 e. Is alarmed by the practice of converting convertible loans for companies that did not manage to attract additional investment to equity based on a valuation established at the time of granting the loan rather than on a valuation at the time of converting the loan. Points out in this regard that the EIC was set up to facilitate development and scaling of startups exactly in the phase where valuations can go up at a high pace because the risk of a technology is brought down rapidly and market entry comes closer. Concludes, therefore, that relying on an old valuation goes squarely against the objectives of the EIC. Furthermore, points out that the EIC Fund is supposed to take risk but by using convertible loans, most of the risk is essentially moved to the applicant;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recognises that an external lead investor brings added value because this lead investor maycan have highly specialised knowledge of the market segment relevant for a specific investment, and that the EIC Fund, owingdue to its size ands well as general nature, may not be able to match this specialised knowledgecannot match this specialised knowledge. Therefore, the specialised lead investor will be of more added value to the company’s development than the EIC Fund would be. Further recognises that having an external lead investor guarantees that the valuation as well as other terms of investment are set by the market;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. 1. Firmly rejects the notion that the EIC Fund cannot be the sole investor or the lead investor; e. Emphasises that the ability to invest even when the market is not ready to do so is one of the key justifications for the existence of the EIC; c. Concludes that the investment policy of the EIC Fund should reflect thisexplicitly allow for the possibility that: a. the EIC Fund is the sole investor through convertible loans or, in specific cases, through equity investments b. the EIC Fund can lead an investment round c. the EIC Fund can be the biggest investor while not being the lead investor;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Notes that point 1.2.3 of Annex I of Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 requires the EIC Fund to define and implement an exit strategy for its investments. Observes that no such strategy seems to be in place;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4 a (new)
Subheading 4 a (new)
Pathfinder
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. 1. Is concerned about the apparent lack oftransparency in the management of the programme as reported by stakeholders.Highlights two main concerns of the stakeholders: a. Lack of transparency on how the topics forPathfinder Challenges are selected b. Lack of transparency on howthe Programme Managers implement the portfolio management, in particular in theproposal selection phase;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11 b. Stresses the importance of a reliable time-to-grant promise. Highlights in this regard that for the evaluation of the 2021 Pathfinder Open call took more than 5 months, while Article 31 of Regulation (EU) 2021/695 requires that applicantsare informed within 5 months about the outcome of the evaluation process;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11 c. Expresses its deep disappointment that the Commission limits the use of the Fast Track to Research and Innovation (FTRI) to the Transition Activities. Calls on the Commission to widen the use of FTRI as much as possible;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 d (new)
Paragraph 11 d (new)
11 d. Regrets that the low success rates of the programme (6-10%) leads to too many highquality proposals not being funded. Highlights that low success rates represent a loss in terms of potentially deeply transformative innovations not being developed further as well as in lost time and money invested in preparation of proposals. In this regard calls for the use, where appropriate, of two-step applications to limit the loss of time and money invested in proposal preparation;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 e (new)
Paragraph 11 e (new)
11 e. Emphasises the importance of an accessible and effective application procedure for a Programme that aims to attract the most ambitious innovators. Notes that the procedure can still be approved along the following lines: a. Both mono- and multi-beneficiary proposals should be facilitated in the application procedure - this requires a dedicated proposal template for both types of application. b. All information needed for a successful application should be available in a coherent manner. Currently, the information is spread across several documents which makes preparing the application unnecessarily cumbersome;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 f (new)
Paragraph 11 f (new)
11 f. Appreciates, together with most stakeholders, the introduction of the rebuttal procedure as it potentially contributes to ensuring a better evaluation procedure. Notes however that improvements are needed as many stakeholders report that it is unclear what happens with rebuttal remarks provided by applicants as well as that applicants have very little time to prepare their rebuttal. Stresses that the introduction of the rebuttal procedure has been noted as one of the causes for the longer time-to- grant. Calls on the Commission to improve the rebuttal procedure to become more meaningful and to be completed in a shorter timeframe to maintain the time-to- grant while allowing sufficient time to prepare the rebuttal;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 g (new)
Paragraph 11 g (new)
11 g. Recognises that in order to facilitate the agility and pace of the EIC and deeptech startup development, individuals employed by research organisations should be able to use the results of research projects to create startups. Welcomes in this regard the introduction of the concept of ‘EIC Inventor’ in the Model Grant Agreement and 2022 Work Programme. Regrets that this introduction is accompanied by uncertainty about the legal consequences of this concept for the research organisations;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 h (new)
Paragraph 11 h (new)
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 i (new)
Paragraph 11 i (new)
11 i. Believes that broad access rights, without time limitation, for EIC Inventors is justified only in cases where the research organisations do not provide the support needed for individual researchers to use the results to develop economic activity. Therefore, these access rights should be granted to EIC Inventors on a case-by-case basis when it is evident that the Inventor lacks the support needed within the research organisation;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 j (new)
Paragraph 11 j (new)
11 j. Notes that the EIC Transition is formally part of the EIC Pathfinder, while it is implemented as a separate programme part. Considers that the Transition calls represent less than 10% of the EIC budgets under the 2021 and 2022 Work Programmes. Points out that the Transition calls are the only ones to which the FTRI procedure is applied. Endorses the use of this procedure for the Transition call. Calls on the Commission to widen the use to more Pathfinder calls;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4 b (new)
Subheading 4 b (new)
Accelerator
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 k (new)
Paragraph 11 k (new)
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 l (new)
Paragraph 11 l (new)
11 l. Is deeply concerned about the functioning of the AI Platform. Notes in this regard that both applicants and evaluators voice concerns about the Platform;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 m (new)
Paragraph 11 m (new)
11 m. Highlights that the online form is time consuming, has no flexibility in terms of presenting the information (no formatting or images possible) and uses jargon needlessly. Notes that the resulting ‘Business Plan’ does not seem to be according to industry standards nor is it a format which is user friendly for evaluators or project managers;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 n (new)
Paragraph 11 n (new)
11 n. Draws particular attention to the increased number of pages, 120-200 pages, compared to the EIC Pilot, 50 pages, while considering that evaluators have 36 minutes to evaluate a full (second stage) proposal. Is concerned that this is one of the causes for dissatisfaction of stakeholders regarding the quality of evaluation;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 o (new)
Paragraph 11 o (new)
11 o. Is concerned about the increasing need for applicants to hire consultants to manage the application procedure due to complexity;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 p (new)
Paragraph 11 p (new)
11 p. Notes with concern that a single No-Go in the second stage of the evaluation process is sufficient for an application to fail. Regards this disproportional, considering that three evaluators assessing the proposal and all give a Go/No-Go on three separate evaluation criteria. Notes that it seems unreasonable that the assessment of one evaluator on one criterion outweighs eight other assessments. Highlights that this makes the system extremely vulnerable because a single mismatch between evaluator and project is sufficient to undermine a potential innovation for Europe. Additionally notes that this makes the system also extremely vulnerable for a corrupted procedure considering that a single conflict of interest can cause the unjustifiable failure of a project. Is particularly concerned about this system in conjuction with the flawed AI system and the very tight time limit for evaluators to consider a proposal. Notes in this regards several concrete examples received where the No-Go of an evaluator was clearly grounded in misreading of a proposal or overlooking information which was included in the proposal - in spite of the rebuttal comments made by the applicants highlighting the flawed assessment;
Amendment 104 #
Miscellaneous
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 q (new)
Paragraph 11 q (new)
11 q. Points to the importance of the EIC Board as principle advisor to the European Commission regarding the implementation of the EIC as well as the development of broader innovation policy, particular with regards to improving the innovation ecosystem in Europe as well as identifying strategically relevant technologies. Stresses that the EIC Board should be fully and timely informed, both by the EISMEA and other Commission services involved, on all developments in the implementation of the EIC, as well as be presented with any and all information regarding the EIC it requests;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 r (new)
Paragraph 11 r (new)
11 r. Emphasises that the Europe’s innovative capacity, economic growth and resilience is undermined because of the low participation of women in the startup and VC scene. Welcomes in this regard the efforts made by the EIC to promote woman leadership and participation in startups and VC. Regrets that this has not yet resulted in sufficient change. Points in this regard to the fact that of investments raised by European startups in 2021 only 1.8% was raised by all-women-founded startups and merely 9.3% was raised by mixed-gender founding teams1a _________________ 1a https://europeanwomeninvc.idcinteractive .net/
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 s (new)
Paragraph 11 s (new)
11 s. Is alarmed by the fact that the EIC Work Programme requires any project to comply with the Do No Significant Harm principle as enshrined in Regulation (EU) 2020/852, known as the EU Taxonomy. Highlights that the 2022 Work Programme refers to the principle both as an evaluation criterion for the EIC Accelerator and as an eligibility criterion for the EIC in general. Recalls that the scope of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 is limited to financial markets. Recalls that the Horizon Europe legislation in no way requires compliance with the DNSH principle. Concludes therefore that there is no legal base for this additional eligibility criterion;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 t (new)
Paragraph 11 t (new)
11 t. Welcomes the efforts within the EIC to develop a suitable framework for the evaluation of the EIC’s performance. Highlights that the unique nature of the EIC requires a tailor-made approach to monitoring the performance as well as the use of the outcome of the monitoring in order to ensure the EIC is a top performer in the market;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point a a (new)
Paragraph 12 – point a a (new)
(a a) Making full use of the added value of co-investment by external investors, while maintaining the possibility of the EIC Fund: 1. being the sole investor, including through taking equity without co- investment from external investors being required 2. being the major investor without leading the investment round 3. leading an investment round;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point b
Paragraph 12 – point b
(b) aAn investment strategy for equity investments based on milestones reflectingbased on the merits of the innovation as well as the strategic objectives of the Union; rather than solely on the willingness of other investors to join the investment round;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point c a (new)
Paragraph 12 – point c a (new)
(c a) maintain the construction that allows the EIB team to be embedded in the Agency to deliver the high quality due diligence. Requests the Commission to build on this successful collaboration and agree on an arrangement with the EIB to have the embedded EIB team represent the EIC Fund in board meetings of investees
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Calls on the Commission to refrain from the use of the DNSH principle as additional eligibility criterion for EIC projects;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12 b. Calls on the Commission to adept the Model Grant Agreement to include a clear definition of ‘EIC Inventor’ and to stipulate a clear policy on access rights for EIC Inventors which only provides broad access rights to EIC Inventors when a research organisation does not have an active policy and structure in place to support the use of research results for economic activities;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)
Paragraph 12 c (new)
12 c. Calls on the Commission to instate a system of continuous and agile evaluation of the performance of the EIC and particularly the Accelerator;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 d (new)
Paragraph 12 d (new)
12 d. Calls on the Commission to include a rigorous and continuous assessment of the evaluation procedure, taking into serious account complaints raised by applicants that can show clear inconsistencies in the evaluation of their proposal. Invites the Commission to inform the Parliament on how it handles individual complaints that demonstrate a clear failure by the evaluators;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 e (new)
Paragraph 12 e (new)
12 e. Calls on the relevant Union bodies, including the European Court of Auditors and the EIC Board, to develop a dedicated auditing strategy for the EIC which reflects the particular nature of the EIC;