9 Amendments of Jan BŘEZINA 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 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 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 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 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;