12 Amendments of Milan ZVER related to 2016/2147(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes the view that excellence and competitiveness should remain the underlying principles of the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, while the ESI Funds should target regional growth and cohesion; is therefore opposed to any criteria or quotas in the new Framework Programme which aim to influence geographic distribution or cohesion; calls, however, on the Commission to retain the successful Horizon 2020 support instrument called “Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation” also within the 9th Framework Programme;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the divergencat there are both divergences as well as similarities in aims and focus between the Framework Programme and the ESI Funds; takes the view, however, thatNotes that the introduction in the Common Provisions Regulation of thematic objective 1 on Strengthening research, technical development and innovation strongly increased the uptake of the research results in the real economy and shows the partial similarities between the aims and focus; takes the view that further efforts must be made to maximise synergies at programme level;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the divergences in aims and focus between the Framework Programme and the ESI Funds; takes the view, however, that efforts must be made to maximise synergies at programme level; points out that the 9th Framework Programme should continue to primarily focus its support for TRL 1-3 and TRL 3- 6, while the actual development on higher TRL levels (7-9) ought to remain in the domain of ESI funds;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – point a (new)
Paragraph 2 – point a (new)
(a) Notes that state aid rules apply to the ESI Funds, but not to Horizon 2020, while they can both fund similar projects with similar objectives regarding research infrastructure, applied science and innovation; stresses that this causes unnecessary problems regarding the synergy between these funds; urges the Commission to come forward with common rules state aid;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls the Stairway to Excellence (S2E) EU budget pilot project, which continues to support regions of 13 Member States in developing and exploiting the synergies between the ESI Funds, Horizon 2020 and other EU funding programmes;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes the view that RIS3, the development of which is supported by the Joint Research Centre in Seville, is a suitable vehicle for the reform ofto strengthen the regional innovation ecosystems and that ESI Funds must be used fordeliver an essential contribution to the innovation infrastructure and needed capacity building;
Amendment 34 #
3a. Asks the Commission to strengthen the further development of the EIT KICs with the RIS3 hubs as formulated in article 5 and annex I of the Horizon 2020 Regulation;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that effective investments in R&I from the ESI Funds can only take place if Member States have their framework conditions in order; calls, therefore, for a closerbalanced linkage between country-specific recommendations for structural reforms and investments in R&I;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that there is a need to include stronger incentives to use ESI funds for R&I investments where there are country-specific recommendations to that effect; therefore proposesConcludes that the ESI funds for R&I investments deliver 65 billion Euro in the period 2014-2020; proposes, therefore, that the establishment of a ped Performance rReserve forin the Member States if theys used to invest a substantial proportion of their revenue from the Structural Funds in R&I;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the principle and the potential of the Seal of Excellence, but notes that it is insufficiently applied in practice; points out that a similar mechanism should also be defined for collaborative research projects;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the principle and the potential of the Seal of Excellence, but notes that it is insufficiently applied in practice, caused by the lack of finance in the Member States;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission, in drawing up the 9th Framework Programme and the ESI Funds regulations, to ensure that framework conditions are improved so as to boost synergies and complementarity between sector-specific R&I policy, the Structural Funds, and R&I funds and programmes; underlines that an ‘equal treatment’ approach in relation to procedures, e.g. on state aid rules, should become the leading principle.