Activities of Judith A. MERKIES related to 2011/2107(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
EU research and innovation funding (debate)
Amendments (13)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, based on the budget review, the European Commission has decided to launch a debate to improvmaximise the efficiency of research and innovation funding at national and EU levels and to handle the allocation of financial resources for EU research and innovation programs as a top-priority of the EU,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas we are currently experiencing an economic and social crisis (which is affecting EU Member States in very different ways), and whereas research, education and innovation are crucial instruments for both economic recovery and job creation, as well as for the definition of a sustainable and inclusive growth model; whereas the main EU priority should be to maximise the growth and jobs potential of the EU by achieving the aims of the EU 2020 flagship initiatives,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas other regions and countries of the world are increasingly investing in R&D&I, and whereas EU investment in this domain should therefore be oriented towards a reinforcement of scientific capacity and an improvement in overall EU competitive capacity; whereas the creation of a consistent set of support tools along the whole “innovation chain" is needed, ensuring proper balance between the academically oriented research, the applied scientific research and innovation,
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the great importance of SMEs for the EU economy and employment is not mirrored in their level of access to EU R&D&I funds; whereas the participation of SMEs in R&D&I projects should reach the level of 15%, thus promoting Europe's competitive base,
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that EU research and innovation funds and programmes and the Structural and Cohesion Funds have different aims and, as such, should be kept separate, although on a complementary basi, however creating synergies between them directed towards reaching our common grand societal challenges (being demographic changes, sustainable management of resources, and a stable and equitable economic base) must be a requirement for all EU funding and programmes;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission to set up a simple and accessible system to accelerate innovation, invest in R&D&I project on fighting the grand societal challenges and have a truly holistic approach; simultaneously urges to maintain a strong base of excellence in basic research, building on the success of the European Research Council;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the Commissions' adoption of the Parliaments' proposal to set up a ‘one-stop shop’, an easily accessible single entry point where all stakeholders, especially SMEs can apply for advice, financial support or be linked up with potential partners;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the fact that at the core of the CSFthe differing nature and scale of R&D&I projects should be at the idea that the differing nature and scale of R&D&I projects, together with the multiplicity of funding schemes, mustcore of the CSF and calls for simplification by preventing fragmentation and bureaucracy; in order to ensure coherence, articulation and complementarity, believes it is paramount that the CSF for research and innovation funding should be organised ion such a way that coherence, articulation and complementarity are ensured; the basis of one single integrated strategic framework for research, innovation and entrepreneurship as a necessity to connect EU's excellence in research with the market;
Amendment 247 #
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 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Favours moving towards a ’'science- valorisation and innovation based’ approach and calls for a trust-based and risk-tolerant attitude towards participants at all stages of the funding system;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Calls for consolidation of multidisciplinary research and recognition of the social dimension of research; in this context, recalls that greatand societal challenges (such as climate change, demographic ageing and resources sustainabilitybeing demographic changes, sustainable management of resources, and a stable and equitable economic base) cannot be dealt with only through technological responses and that therefore European research in social sciences and humanities is a pivotal asset in successfully addressing themstresses that social innovation is an important angle that should be included in the conditions for funding in support programmes such as the European Social Fund, the Framework Programmes (FPs) and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP);
Amendment 351 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls for a balance to be kept between bottom-up (cooperative) and top-down projects (’greatand societal challenges’), as well as for smaller bottom-up projects to be facilitated; asks the Commission to prepare a study on the ideal ratio between these two kinds of projects from a social responsibility and from a financial feasibility point of view;