24 Amendments of Jorgo CHATZIMARKAKIS related to 2011/2107(INI)
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Draws attention to the importance of maintaining convergence policies, and asks the Commission to build stairways to excellence for those MS and regions that are underrepresented in the FP by developing appropriate instruments to intensify cooperation between MS with a strong participation and those with a weaker participation, and to substantially increase human capacity building and infrastructure in the latter; takes the view that Structural Funds should be deployed to their full extent to support capacity building in the regions through dedicated activities aimed at founding centres of excellences, modernising universities, purchase of scientific equipment, local technology transfer, support to start-ups and spin-offs, and local interaction between industry and academia; believes that this will allow a stairway of excellence to be developed, leading these regions to fully participate in the Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation, based on quality and excellence;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that although excellence is considered the main general criterion for funding, it must be borne in mind that the nature of excellence differs with the type of participant or the very nature of the research and innovation project (the excellence criterion for a research institution is not the same as for an individual researcher or for an SME, and also differs between fundamental and applied projects)Is convinced that the principle of excellence within the European research area remains the basis for the future competitiveness of Europe; recalls that the nature of excellence differs with the type of participant or the very nature of the research and innovation project; is convinced that cohesion instruments, such as structural funds, should strengthen the development of excellence and capacity building by a better compatibility with research and innovation at regional level;
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 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is convinced that different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close articulationrelationship with each other: the European Institute of Technology (EIT) to operate mainly as a network of Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) to concentrate on its strength in supporting innovative SMEs and therefore not necessarily to be included in the next FP; the next FP to embrace research as a whole; and the structural/cohesion funds to be used in closer cooperation but kept separate; takes the view that collaborative projects should remain the backbone of the CSF;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for clarification, simplification and reorganisation of the different EU programmes and instruments in existence, for a clear definition of the overall funding system, and for the EU research and innovation programmes budget for the next financial period to be doubled as of 2014 (excluding the budget devoted to Structural Funds and the EIB) as the appropriate response to the current economic crisis and to the great shared challenges; suggests, therefore, a new organisational model based on three different layers of funding aimed at stability and convergence:; recalls that standardization should be taken into account in addressing grand challenges and shaping priority areas of the CSF, but should not be a new separate instrument or activity;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for clarification, simplification and reorganisation of the different EU programmes and instruments in existence, for a clear definition of the overall funding system, and for the EU research and innovation programmes budgetto be prioritised for the next financial period to be doubled as of 2014 (excluding the budget devoted to Structural Funds and the EIB) as the appropriate response to the current economic crisis and to the great shared challenges; suggests, therefore, a new organisational model based on three different layers of funding aimed at stability and convergence:
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls for a clarification, simplification and reorganisation of the different EU programmes and instruments in existence; believes that a radical overhaul of the administration of the FP is one of the highest priorities to be tackled in designing the forthcoming CSF; invites the Commission to assess the effectiveness of each individual instrument, within each programme, towards the achievement of specific policy goals; calls for a reduction in the diversity of instruments whenever effectiveness or distinctive contribution is not clearly demonstrated;
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 229 #
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 SMEs play a pivotal role here in developing and bringing to market novel products and services;
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recognises that particular attention should be devoted to SMEs’ involvement, in order to enable the exploitation of new ideas and opportunities in a flexible and effective way as they emerge, opening new avenues for innovation; stresses that a sector-specific definition of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) is a prerequisite for their successful participation in the CSF; recalls that heavy administrative burdens lead to a decrease in participation of SME;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. The funding scheme within this layer is covered by EU funding associated with CIP, access to credit enhancement by the EIF and specific loans from the EIB (mainly covering projects under EUR 50 million), and cooperation with the Structural Funds associated with entrepreneurship; additionally, suggests the creation of a new funding instrument – the EU SME Bank – which should act in articulation with national contact points and financial institutions designated by the MSrecalls that the Risk Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) has proven itself successfully as an instrument for innovation financing; believes that the RSFF should further be applied in such a way that a granting of funds at a small level is possible via national intermediates;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
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 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 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 352 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls for a balance to be kept between bottom-up (cooperative) and top-down projects (’great societal challenges’), as well as for smaller bottom-up projects to be facilitatedand bottom-up collaborative research to be facilitated; takes the view that lower entry barriers for cooperation projects would lead to a reinforcement of scientific capacity;
Amendment 369 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls for an intensification of international cooperation through effective reinforcement of capacity building and the establishment of fair partnerships with developing countries in order better to tackle global challengeswith the strategic partners of the European Union in order better to tackle global challenges; recalls that an intensification of international cooperation is only effective when procedures are simplified and lead times for permit applications are significantly shortened;