Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | ITRE | EHLER Christian ( PPE), HERCZOG Edit ( S&D), EK Lena ( ALDE), LAMBERTS Philippe ( Verts/ALE), FORD Vicky ( ECR) | |
Committee Opinion | FEMM | THOMSEN Britta ( S&D) | |
Committee Opinion | CULT | ||
Committee Opinion | AFET | ||
Committee Opinion | PECH | WAŁĘSA Jarosław ( PPE) | |
Committee Opinion | AGRI | LA VIA Giovanni ( PPE) | |
Committee Opinion | ENVI | ||
Committee Opinion | REGI | WINKLER Hermann ( PPE) | |
Committee Opinion | BUDG | HAGLUND Carl ( ALDE) | |
Committee Opinion | JURI | ||
Committee Opinion | LIBE | ||
Committee Opinion | IMCO | COMI Lara ( PPE) | Ashley FOX ( ECR), Matteo SALVINI ( ENF) |
Committee Opinion | EMPL |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Events
The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Green Paper: From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding.
In its resolution, Parliament recalls that the EU has established the objective of increasing spending on R&D to 3% of EU GDP by 2020, and whereas, given that many countries are still a long way from achieving this goal, increased public and private investment in R&D is particularly important .
The current trends show strong pressure to freeze or even reduce the European budget associated with a period of severe constraints on national public budgets, and whereas R&D&I is one of the areas where European cooperation has been shown to have real added value in contrast to certain other budget posts , showing the need to reallocate the EU's available resources.
Research (in its fundamental and applied dimensions), education and innovation are crucial instruments for both economic recovery and job creation.
In this context, Members welcome the European Commission Green Paper defining a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for funding in research and innovation, and consider that the new CSF core should be the articulation of the EU research programmes and funding schemes , based on the Community research and innovation policies and the Member States’ research programmes. The CSF should follow an integrated approach, which aims to become more attractive and easy to access for all participants.
Maximise all relevant synergies : the resolution acknowledges the relatively low participation in FP7 of certain Member States, as well as the persistence of a research and innovation performance gap between European regions. New approaches are necessary to assist underperforming regions and Member States to achieve excellence and smart regional specialisation. Therefore, Members call on the Commission to maximise all relevant synergies between the CSF, the Structural Funds, the European Fund for Agriculture and Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund and to develop a multi-fund approach, while respecting their different objectives.
Members believe that local and regional authorities should be encouraged to innovate. They take the view that announcing a competition for the foundation of cutting-edge research centres in disadvantaged regions is a suitable instrument for developing the European Research Area.
Responding to the global societal challenges : Parliament is c onvinced that Europe should contribute to solutions to the global societal challenges , namely: the demographic changes; the transition to sustainable management of scarce resources; a strong, stable and equitable economic base, including economic recovery. It believes that the CSF should focus on addressing those societal challenges in a comprehensive way through a balanced set of instruments covering the whole spectrum of education and training, research and innovation activities.
The resolution recommends that the Commission analyse the possibility of setting up an all-European common fund financed by the Structural Funds to promote collaborative European research.
Towards a new Common Strategic Framework (CSF) : Parliament is convinced that different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close articulation and partnership with each other: the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) to operate mainly as a network of Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs); the innovation-related parts of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) to concentrate on its strength in supporting innovative SMEs; the next FP to embrace research as a whole; and the structural/cohesion funds to be used in closer cooperation and in a more targeted way, but kept separate. It takes the view that collaborative projects should remain the backbone of the CSF.
The resolution stresses the need to enhance the flexibility of the common strategic framework, not only so that appropriations can be moved between the individual chapters and calls, but also so that the CSF is flexible enough to allow appropriations to be allocated to meet major societal challenges that arise during the budget period. It calls for a clear definition of the overall funding system and for a tighter integration of research, education and innovation.
A new organisational model based on three different layers of funding aimed at stability and convergence has been presented:
- 1st Layer: Capacity building and infrastructure : this layer should cover the EU funds associated with infrastructure (in the wider sense, including the institutional one) and capacity building. The funding scheme within this layer includes the part of the FP concerned with the Capacities Programme and Marie Curie initiatives, the European funding components of research infrastructures and projects, access to loans by the EIB (covering projects over EUR 50 million and RSFF), grants associated with the abovementioned components of the FP, and cooperation with Structural Funds associated with infrastructure.
The resolution highlights the pivotal role of large-scale research infrastructures for the development of the ERA and calls for the overall EU funding available for research infrastructures to be raised, especially where there is the greatest scope for European added value, for the funding to be extended after the preparatory phase and for open and excellence-based access to them to be guaranteed.
- 2nd Layer: Research, Potential, Collaboration and Consolidation : this layer should be the space for overall research, both fundamental and applied, including the social sciences and humanities. The key words here are originality and relevance of the idea, quality and potential for scientific excellence and added-value of projects, including high-risk research and projects concerning “non-technological innovation and social innovation”.
Coordination participants are mainly universities and research centres/institutes. The industrial sector, in particular SMEs, and innovative non-profit organisations should be encouraged to participate and cooperate with academia and public research centres and to act as coordinators, if appropriate.
This layer represents the largest share of the FP and should be aimed at developing the strong scientific basis in both basic and applied research that is needed for innovation to spur. In this context, the resolution underlines that the mobility of researchers in Europe should be given priority and calls for a strengthening of measures (such as pension portability and social security provisions, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, measures to reconcile family and work life, and research vouchers following researchers moving to another Member State) that will contribute to the mobility of European researchers, help stem the 'brain drain' and make the prospect of a research career in the EU more attractive.
- 3rd Layer: Market and innovation towards common goals : this layer should be the space for developing and fostering market uptake of innovative products and services and generation of public benefits. Industry, especially innovative SMEs, plays a pivotal role here in developing novel products, services and processes.
In order further to increase the participation of SMEs in the programmes, Members believe that some funding instruments and actions should be considered such as: soft loans, which are reimbursed in the event of success, excluding administrative costs; efforts to provide comprehensive funding for SMEs (particularly in the seed and start-up phase) that will cover the full innovation cycle; easier access to risk and venture capital; and greater participation of SMEs in the setting of the research agendas.
Members call on the Commission and the Member States to continue with the Erasmus programme for young entrepreneurs, also in the context of the future multiannual financing framework, and to increase the funding allocated to that programme.
The resolution also underlines the need to:
establish a strong, efficient regulatory framework for the protection of intellectual property rights at an early stage in the research process; simplify the management of European research funding by shifting from the current control-based to a more trust-based and risk-tolerant approach, which is of particular benefit for SMEs; define a limited set of common (administrative, financial and organisational) rules and principles that are easy to interpret and that would apply to all EU R&D&I programmes and instruments; make access to European research programmes easier, for example by setting up a single contact point, establishing a principle of ‘one project, one document’ and setting up a forum for exchange of good practice.
Some guidelines for the next Framework Programme : Parliament suggests the following:
the introduction of an appropriate funding model for academic research in the next Framework Programming; more support to different sources of innovation - especially SMEs – and use other sources of innovation such as clients, markets, users and, not least, employees; collaborative research (the current Cooperation Programme) to be kept at the heart of the FP, reinforcing synergies to increase and accelerate the impact and dissemination of research projects performed in cooperation with partners of excellent global standing, both from within and from outside the EU; research priorities and objectives to be set in a more transparent and participatory way, through the balanced involvement of players, including the scientific community, researchers (also from smaller research organisations), the public sector, CSO organisations and SMEs;
the creation of a specific platform for dialogue between CSOs and researchers for discussing research priorities areas in specific sectors; an intensification of international cooperation, where appropriate, with the strategic partners of the European Union, including fast growing countries such as the BRICS countries, on a reciprocal basis, in order to better tackle global challenges.
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy adopted the own-initiative report drafted by Marisa MATIAS (GUE/NGL, PT) on the Green Paper: From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding.
Members welcome the European Commission Green Paper defining a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for funding in research and innovation, and consider that the new CSF core should be the articulation of the EU research programmes and funding schemes , based on the Community research and innovation policies and the Member States’ research programmes. The CSF should follow an integrated approach, which aims to become more attractive and easy to access for all participants.
The report acknowledges the relatively low participation in FP7 of certain Member States, as well as the persistence of a research and innovation performance gap between European regions. New approaches are necessary to assist underperforming regions and Member States to achieve excellence and smart regional specialisation. Therefore, Members call on the Commission to maximise all relevant synergies between the CSF, the Structural Funds, the European Fund for Agriculture and Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund and to develop a multi-fund approach, while respecting their different objectives.
Members believe that local and regional authorities should be encouraged to innovate. They take the view that announcing a competition for the foundation of cutting-edge research centres in disadvantaged regions is a suitable instrument for developing the European Research Area.
The committee is c onvinced that Europe should contribute to solutions to the global societal challenges , namely: the demographic changes; the transition to sustainable management of scarce resources; a strong, stable and equitable economic base, including economic recovery. It believes that the CSF should focus on addressing those societal challenges in a comprehensive way through a balanced set of instruments covering the whole spectrum of education and training, research and innovation activities.
The report recommends that the Commission analyse the possibility of setting up an all-European common fund financed by the Structural Funds to promote collaborative European research.
Towards a new Common Strategic Framework (CSF) : Members are convinced that different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close articulation and partnership with each other: the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) to operate mainly as a network of Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs); the innovation-related parts of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) to concentrate on its strength in supporting innovative SMEs; the next FP to embrace research as a whole; and the structural/cohesion funds to be used in closer cooperation and in a more targeted way, but kept separate. They take the view that collaborative projects should remain the backbone of the CSF.
The report stresses the need to enhance the flexibility of the common strategic framework, not only so that appropriations can be moved between the individual chapters and calls, but also so that the CSF is flexible enough to allow appropriations to be allocated to meet major societal challenges that arise during the budget period. It calls for a clear definition of the overall funding system and for a tighter integration of research, education and innovation.
A new organisational model based on three different layers of funding aimed at stability and convergence has been presented:
- 1st Layer: Capacity building and infrastructure : this layer should cover the EU funds associated with infrastructure (in the wider sense, including the institutional one) and capacity building. The funding scheme within this layer includes the part of the FP concerned with the Capacities Programme and Marie Curie initiatives, the European funding components of research infrastructures and projects, access to loans by the EIB (covering projects over EUR 50 million and RSFF), grants associated with the abovementioned components of the FP, and cooperation with Structural Funds associated with infrastructure.
The report highlights the pivotal role of large-scale research infrastructures for the development of the ERA and calls for the overall EU funding available for research infrastructures to be raised, especially where there is the greatest scope for European added value, for the funding to be extended after the preparatory phase and for open and excellence-based access to them to be guaranteed.
- 2nd Layer: Research, Potential, Collaboration and Consolidation : this layer should be the space for overall research, both fundamental and applied, including the social sciences and humanities. The key words here are originality and relevance of the idea, quality and potential for scientific excellence and added-value of projects, including high-risk research and projects concerning “non-technological innovation and social innovation”.
Coordination participants are mainly universities and research centres/institutes. The industrial sector, in particular SMEs, and innovative non-profit organisations should be encouraged to participate and cooperate with academia and public research centres and to act as coordinators, if appropriate.
This layer represents the largest share of the FP and should be aimed at developing the strong scientific basis in both basic and applied research that is needed for innovation to spur. In this context, the report underlines that the mobility of researchers in Europe should be given priority and calls for a strengthening of measures (such as pension portability and social security provisions, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, measures to reconcile family and work life, and research vouchers following researchers moving to another Member State) that will contribute to the mobility of European researchers, help stem the 'brain drain' and make the prospect of a research career in the EU more attractive.
- 3rd Layer: Market and innovation towards common goals : this layer should be the space for developing and fostering market uptake of innovative products and services and generation of public benefits. Industry, especially innovative SMEs, plays a pivotal role here in developing novel products, services and processes.
In order further to increase the participation of SMEs in the programmes, Members believe that some funding instruments and actions should be considered such as: soft loans, which are reimbursed in the event of success, excluding administrative costs; efforts to provide comprehensive funding for SMEs (particularly in the seed and start-up phase) that will cover the full innovation cycle; easier access to risk and venture capital; and greater participation of SMEs in the setting of the research agendas.
Members call on the Commission and the Member States to continue with the Erasmus programme for young entrepreneurs, also in the context of the future multiannual financing framework, and to increase the funding allocated to that programme.
The report also underlines the need to:
establish a strong, efficient regulatory framework for the protection of intellectual property rights at an early stage in the research process; simplify the management of European research funding by shifting from the current control-based to a more trust-based and risk-tolerant approach, which is of particular benefit for SMEs; define a limited set of common (administrative, financial and organisational) rules and principles that are easy to interpret and that would apply to all EU R&D&I programmes and instruments; make access to European research programmes easier, for example by setting up a single contact point, establishing a principle of ‘one project, one document’ and setting up a forum for exchange of good practice.
Some guidelines for the next Framework Programme : the report suggests the following:
the introduction of an appropriate funding model for academic research in the next Framework Programming; more support to different sources of innovation - especially SMEs – and use other sources of innovation such as clients, markets, users and, not least, employees; collaborative research (the current Cooperation Programme) to be kept at the heart of the FP, reinforcing synergies to increase and accelerate the impact and dissemination of research projects performed in cooperation with partners of excellent global standing, both from within and from outside the EU; research priorities and objectives to be set in a more transparent and participatory way, through the balanced involvement of players, including the scientific community, researchers (also from smaller research organisations), the public sector, CSO organisations and SMEs; the creation of a specific platform for dialogue between CSOs and researchers for discussing research priorities areas in specific sectors; an intensification of international cooperation, where appropriate, with the strategic partners of the European Union, including fast growing countries such as the BRICS countries, on a reciprocal basis, in order to better tackle global challenges.
PURPOSE: to launch a public debate on the key issues to be taken into account for future EU research and innovation funding programmes. (Commission Green Paper)
BACKGROUND: the budget review has proposed that the full range of EU instruments for research and innovation work together in a Common Strategic Framework. At its meeting on 4 February 2011, the European Council discussed innovation and supported the concept of the Common Strategic Framework to improve the efficiency of research and innovation funding at national and EU levels.
The Innovation Union flagship initiative advocates a strategic and integrated approach to research and innovation. Currently EU research and innovation funding and initiatives in the current programming period (2007-2013) are as follows:
the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) with its budget of EUR 53.3 billion supports research, technological development and demonstration activities across the EU ; the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) has a budget of EUR 3.6 billion and aims to encourage the competitiveness of European industry, with SMEs as its main target; the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) is an autonomous EU body bringing together the higher education, research and business sectors to stimulate innovation. A contribution of EUR 309 million was provided to the EIT from the EU budget; through the Cohesion policy, about EUR 86 billion (almost 25% of the total Structural Funds budget) is allocated to enhancing the capacity of regional economies.
The landscape of EU research and innovation programmes has developed over recent decades and now constitutes a significant share of the EU budget. However, various evaluations have also identified a number of shortcomings and deficiencies, in particular the lack of a whole chain approach to research and innovation, the complexity of instruments, over-bureaucratic rules and procedures and a lack of transparency. Improvements for future programmes should focus on:
clarifying objectives and how they are translated into the supported activities, while maintaining flexibility to respond to emerging policy needs; reducing complexity : lack of coordination between EU and Member State funding adds to the complexity and leaves a potential for overlap and duplication, for instance as regards State Aid measures to support SMEs or to provide risk capital; increasing added value and leverage and avoiding duplication and fragmentation : EU research and innovation funding should provide more added value, increase its leverage effect on other public and private resources and be used more effectively to support the strategic alignment and pooling of national and regional funds to avoid duplication and achieve scope and critical mass; simplifying participation by lowering administrative burdens, reducing time to grant and time to payment and achieving a better balance between cost and trust based approaches; broadening participation in EU programmes : while there is s SME participation in the CIP, the FP7 interim evaluation highlighted the need to stimulate industry and SME involvement. It also pointed at the need to boost participation of female researchers and participants from newer Member States; increasing competitiveness and societal impact from EU support: this would require better uptake and use of results by companies, investors, public authorities, other researchers and policy makers. It also involves supporting broader innovations (including non-technological and social innovation) which are not the result of research activities. The ultimate users of innovations (be they citizens, businesses or the public sector) should be involved much earlier in our actions to accelerate and broaden the exploitation of results and to encourage greater public acceptance in sensitive fields such as security or nanotechnology.
CONTENT: this Green Paper launches a public debate on the key issues to be taken into account for future EU research and innovation funding programmes. In line with the priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy and, the Common Strategic Framework will focus on addressing societal challenges, encouraging the competitiveness of Europe's industries and the excellence of its scientific and technological base.
1) Working together to deliver on Europe 2020 : the Common Strategic Framework will cover all relevant EU research and innovation funding currently provided through FP7 and CIP and EU innovation initiatives such as the EIT on the basis of coherent goals and shared strategic objectives. It offers great potential for making EU funding more attractive and easy to access for participants. It will also allow:
the development of a single entry point with common IT tools or a one stop shop for providing advice and support to participants; the development of a simpler and more efficient structure and a streamlined set of funding instruments covering the full innovation chain in a seamless manner; clear possibilities for administrative simplification through the development of a more standardised set of rules covering all participants in EU research and innovation programmes. Allowing for flexibility will be necessary to cater for the diversity of funding needed to cover the full innovation cycle or for requirements linked to specific conditions.
2) Tackling societal challenges : the Innovation Union called for linking future EU funding programmes more closely to ambitious policy objectives in areas such as climate change, energy security, demographic ageing or resource efficiency by putting a stronger focus on tackling societal challenges. However, careful consideration is needed to identify those challenges where EU level interventions can truly make a difference, while avoiding overly prescriptive scientific and technological choices.
Current EU funding programmes have put considerable effort in tackling societal challenges, predominately through a thematic technology push. Bringing researchers from across Europe together in collaborative networks has been at the heart of this approach and will continue to be vital in sustaining a European research fabric. Experience has shown, however, the limitations of this approach in achieving the necessary flexibility, creativity and cross-disciplinary research needed. The Innovation Union introduced the concept of European Innovation Partnerships to bring together supply and demand side measures in addressing societal challenges. They have an important role to play in coordinating efforts and focusing activities across the innovation cycle.
3) Strengthening competitiveness : obstacles remain in transferring research outcomes from the laboratory through to the development, commercialisation and application phases. To remove these obstacles involves broadening support across the full innovation cycle (including proof of concept, testing, piloting and demonstration), including covering issues such as post-project follow-up, pre-normative research for standard setting, support to patenting and to non-technological innovation.
Within the framework of its Strategic Innovation Agenda, the EIT will continue to strengthen its business-driven approach through a focus on generating results and impact but also on leveraging substantial funds from the private sector.
Open, light and fast implementation schemes would enable SMEs and other stakeholders from industry and academia to explore new ideas and opportunities as they emerge, in a flexible way, thereby opening new avenues for innovation.
Intellectual property rights governing EU research and innovation funding are decisive for efficient exploitation and technology transfer, while at the same time they need to ensure access to and rapid dissemination of scientific results. They are also of relevance for international cooperation in areas of strategic interest.
New approaches could also be considered, particularly those stimulating the demand side and aiming to involve public and private end users earlier and more closely in the innovation process. Inducement prizes incentivise researchers to achieve stretching targets through the prospect of obtaining a financial award.
4) Strengthening Europe's science base and the European Research Area : Europe's science base is among the most productive in the world, yet it does not contain sufficient pockets of world class excellence where ground-breaking research results are generated which are able to drive structural change.
The Green Paper asks certain questions, such as : (i) how should the role of the European Research Council be strengthened in
supporting world class excellence; (ii) how should EU support assist Member States in building up excellence; (iii) how should the role of Marie Curie Actions be strengthened in promoting researcher mobility and developing attractive careers; (iv) what actions should be taken at EU level to further strengthen the role of women in science and innovation; (v) how should international cooperation with non-EU countries be supported e.g. in terms of priority areas of strategic interest, instruments, reciprocity (including on IPR aspects) or cooperation with Member States.
The consultation will close on 20 May 2011. The broad debate on this Green Paper will be complemented by targeted consultations, such as on the ERA framework and the EIT's strategic innovation agenda. On 10 June 2011, an event will be organised to wrap up the public consultation and discuss the results with the stakeholder community.
The Commission plans to put forward its formal legislative proposals for a Common Strategic Framework for EU research and innovation funding by the end of 2011. These proposals will be accompanied by ex-ante impact assessments, providing the necessary evidence base for the proposed options.
PURPOSE: to launch a public debate on the key issues to be taken into account for future EU research and innovation funding programmes. (Commission Green Paper)
BACKGROUND: the budget review has proposed that the full range of EU instruments for research and innovation work together in a Common Strategic Framework. At its meeting on 4 February 2011, the European Council discussed innovation and supported the concept of the Common Strategic Framework to improve the efficiency of research and innovation funding at national and EU levels.
The Innovation Union flagship initiative advocates a strategic and integrated approach to research and innovation. Currently EU research and innovation funding and initiatives in the current programming period (2007-2013) are as follows:
the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) with its budget of EUR 53.3 billion supports research, technological development and demonstration activities across the EU ; the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) has a budget of EUR 3.6 billion and aims to encourage the competitiveness of European industry, with SMEs as its main target; the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) is an autonomous EU body bringing together the higher education, research and business sectors to stimulate innovation. A contribution of EUR 309 million was provided to the EIT from the EU budget; through the Cohesion policy, about EUR 86 billion (almost 25% of the total Structural Funds budget) is allocated to enhancing the capacity of regional economies.
The landscape of EU research and innovation programmes has developed over recent decades and now constitutes a significant share of the EU budget. However, various evaluations have also identified a number of shortcomings and deficiencies, in particular the lack of a whole chain approach to research and innovation, the complexity of instruments, over-bureaucratic rules and procedures and a lack of transparency. Improvements for future programmes should focus on:
clarifying objectives and how they are translated into the supported activities, while maintaining flexibility to respond to emerging policy needs; reducing complexity : lack of coordination between EU and Member State funding adds to the complexity and leaves a potential for overlap and duplication, for instance as regards State Aid measures to support SMEs or to provide risk capital; increasing added value and leverage and avoiding duplication and fragmentation : EU research and innovation funding should provide more added value, increase its leverage effect on other public and private resources and be used more effectively to support the strategic alignment and pooling of national and regional funds to avoid duplication and achieve scope and critical mass; simplifying participation by lowering administrative burdens, reducing time to grant and time to payment and achieving a better balance between cost and trust based approaches; broadening participation in EU programmes : while there is s SME participation in the CIP, the FP7 interim evaluation highlighted the need to stimulate industry and SME involvement. It also pointed at the need to boost participation of female researchers and participants from newer Member States; increasing competitiveness and societal impact from EU support: this would require better uptake and use of results by companies, investors, public authorities, other researchers and policy makers. It also involves supporting broader innovations (including non-technological and social innovation) which are not the result of research activities. The ultimate users of innovations (be they citizens, businesses or the public sector) should be involved much earlier in our actions to accelerate and broaden the exploitation of results and to encourage greater public acceptance in sensitive fields such as security or nanotechnology.
CONTENT: this Green Paper launches a public debate on the key issues to be taken into account for future EU research and innovation funding programmes. In line with the priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy and, the Common Strategic Framework will focus on addressing societal challenges, encouraging the competitiveness of Europe's industries and the excellence of its scientific and technological base.
1) Working together to deliver on Europe 2020 : the Common Strategic Framework will cover all relevant EU research and innovation funding currently provided through FP7 and CIP and EU innovation initiatives such as the EIT on the basis of coherent goals and shared strategic objectives. It offers great potential for making EU funding more attractive and easy to access for participants. It will also allow:
the development of a single entry point with common IT tools or a one stop shop for providing advice and support to participants; the development of a simpler and more efficient structure and a streamlined set of funding instruments covering the full innovation chain in a seamless manner; clear possibilities for administrative simplification through the development of a more standardised set of rules covering all participants in EU research and innovation programmes. Allowing for flexibility will be necessary to cater for the diversity of funding needed to cover the full innovation cycle or for requirements linked to specific conditions.
2) Tackling societal challenges : the Innovation Union called for linking future EU funding programmes more closely to ambitious policy objectives in areas such as climate change, energy security, demographic ageing or resource efficiency by putting a stronger focus on tackling societal challenges. However, careful consideration is needed to identify those challenges where EU level interventions can truly make a difference, while avoiding overly prescriptive scientific and technological choices.
Current EU funding programmes have put considerable effort in tackling societal challenges, predominately through a thematic technology push. Bringing researchers from across Europe together in collaborative networks has been at the heart of this approach and will continue to be vital in sustaining a European research fabric. Experience has shown, however, the limitations of this approach in achieving the necessary flexibility, creativity and cross-disciplinary research needed. The Innovation Union introduced the concept of European Innovation Partnerships to bring together supply and demand side measures in addressing societal challenges. They have an important role to play in coordinating efforts and focusing activities across the innovation cycle.
3) Strengthening competitiveness : obstacles remain in transferring research outcomes from the laboratory through to the development, commercialisation and application phases. To remove these obstacles involves broadening support across the full innovation cycle (including proof of concept, testing, piloting and demonstration), including covering issues such as post-project follow-up, pre-normative research for standard setting, support to patenting and to non-technological innovation.
Within the framework of its Strategic Innovation Agenda, the EIT will continue to strengthen its business-driven approach through a focus on generating results and impact but also on leveraging substantial funds from the private sector.
Open, light and fast implementation schemes would enable SMEs and other stakeholders from industry and academia to explore new ideas and opportunities as they emerge, in a flexible way, thereby opening new avenues for innovation.
Intellectual property rights governing EU research and innovation funding are decisive for efficient exploitation and technology transfer, while at the same time they need to ensure access to and rapid dissemination of scientific results. They are also of relevance for international cooperation in areas of strategic interest.
New approaches could also be considered, particularly those stimulating the demand side and aiming to involve public and private end users earlier and more closely in the innovation process. Inducement prizes incentivise researchers to achieve stretching targets through the prospect of obtaining a financial award.
4) Strengthening Europe's science base and the European Research Area : Europe's science base is among the most productive in the world, yet it does not contain sufficient pockets of world class excellence where ground-breaking research results are generated which are able to drive structural change.
The Green Paper asks certain questions, such as : (i) how should the role of the European Research Council be strengthened in
supporting world class excellence; (ii) how should EU support assist Member States in building up excellence; (iii) how should the role of Marie Curie Actions be strengthened in promoting researcher mobility and developing attractive careers; (iv) what actions should be taken at EU level to further strengthen the role of women in science and innovation; (v) how should international cooperation with non-EU countries be supported e.g. in terms of priority areas of strategic interest, instruments, reciprocity (including on IPR aspects) or cooperation with Member States.
The consultation will close on 20 May 2011. The broad debate on this Green Paper will be complemented by targeted consultations, such as on the ERA framework and the EIT's strategic innovation agenda. On 10 June 2011, an event will be organised to wrap up the public consultation and discuss the results with the stakeholder community.
The Commission plans to put forward its formal legislative proposals for a Common Strategic Framework for EU research and innovation funding by the end of 2011. These proposals will be accompanied by ex-ante impact assessments, providing the necessary evidence base for the proposed options.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2011)8719/2
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T7-0401/2011
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0302/2011
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0302/2011
- Committee opinion: PE464.899
- Committee opinion: PE465.037
- Committee opinion: PE464.822
- Committee opinion: PE467.030
- Committee opinion: PE464.738
- Committee opinion: PE465.040
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE467.207
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE467.208
- Contribution: COM(2011)0048
- Committee draft report: PE464.836
- Contribution: COM(2011)0048
- Contribution: COM(2011)0048
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2011)0048
- Non-legislative basic document: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2011)0048
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2011)0048 EUR-Lex
- Committee draft report: PE464.836
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE467.207
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE467.208
- Committee opinion: PE465.040
- Committee opinion: PE464.738
- Committee opinion: PE467.030
- Committee opinion: PE464.822
- Committee opinion: PE465.037
- Committee opinion: PE464.899
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0302/2011
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2011)8719/2
- Contribution: COM(2011)0048
- Contribution: COM(2011)0048
- Contribution: COM(2011)0048
Activities
- Franz OBERMAYR
Plenary Speeches (2)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Elena Oana ANTONESCU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Roberta ANGELILLI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Raffaele BALDASSARRE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Elena BĂSESCU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Andrew Henry William BRONS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- António Fernando CORREIA DE CAMPOS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Viorica DĂNCILĂ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Ioan ENCIU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Vicky FORD
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Cristina GUTIÉRREZ-CORTINES
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Carl HAGLUND
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Jacky HÉNIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Edit HERCZOG
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Filiz HYUSMENOVA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Romana JORDAN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Giovanni LA VIA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Bogdan Kazimierz MARCINKIEWICZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Iosif MATULA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Judith A. MERKIES
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Rareș-Lucian NICULESCU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Riikka PAKARINEN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Antigoni PAPADOPOULOU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Jaroslav PAŠKA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Mario PIRILLO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Herbert REUL
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Paul RÜBIG
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Amalia SARTORI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Ivo STREJČEK
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Kay SWINBURNE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Sampo TERHO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Silvia-Adriana ȚICĂU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Ioannis A. TSOUKALAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
- Angelika WERTHMANN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 EU research and innovation funding (debate)
Amendments | Dossier |
635 |
2011/2107(INI)
2011/06/14
AGRI
30 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the role of research and development for competitive sustainable growth in Europe, with a view to strengthening territorial cohesion; considers that the financing of research and technological development should be made more effective at national and EU level; stresses that the current EU budget for research, which amounts to only 4% of that of research funded by the public sector in Europe, is inadequate; considers it essential to increase this budget and to integrate national programmes and the Europan framework programme more effectively;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new) (1) Stress the importance of research and ecoinnovation in order to make agriculture more sustainable, ecofriendly and competitive on a worldwide scale
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for more research to enhance the smart use of biological (animal and plant production and health and their inputs,
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for more research to enhance the smart use of biological (animal and plant production and health and their inputs, biomass availability, forestry management, waste) and physical (land use, soil integrity, water availability, climate change) resources, and the development of economically and environmentally sustainable economic activities;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Member States to make better use of the support for applied research and investment in innovation and modernisation beneficial to animal welfare which is available from EU rural development funds and the EU Research Framework Programmes, and calls on the Commission to ensure appropriate focus and financing on this matter in the future;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. To meet the challenge of global food security, calls on the Member States and the Commission to step up financial investments in independent biotechnical and biotechnological research;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that the research and innovation should
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that the research and innovation should focus on, in particular, crop productivity, as well as on growth- inhibiting factors stemming from the changing climate, including the possible proliferation of plant and animal diseases. The advancement of knowledge in the sustainable management, production and use of biological resources (microbial, plant and animal) will provide the basis for safer, more eco-efficient and competitive products and services for agriculture and related industries; stresses the importance of new technologies for boosting agricultural production, and points out that the EU needs to take advantage of all available innovations if it is to remain competitive on the world market;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Notes with concern the falling growth rhythm of agricultural production, against a backdrop of slower progress in research and innovation in agriculture;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Recognises the crucial role of research and innovation, both for the objective of reducing CO2 emissions in agriculture and for developing renewable energies and increasing the efficiency of bioenergy production with a view to reducing the effects on the agri-food sector;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the role of research and development for sustainable growth in Europe, particularly in the farming sector, which is of strategic importance in socio- economic, environmental and food security terms;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers it crucial that the investment in science should be coupled with investment in the skills of people. Education, training and advisory services are essential components driving knowledge-based growth of rural businesses. It is therefore necessary to focus advisory and training services on the drive for innovation at every level (product innovation, process innovation and
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers it crucial that the investment in science should be coupled with investment in the skills of people
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that agriculture is a cross- disciplinary activity and is best served by multidisciplinary research. Agricultural activity combines the research
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that agriculture is a cross- disciplinary activity and is best served by multidisciplinary research. Agricultural activity combines the research achievements of several research fields, e.g. technology and life sciences, and depends largely on public policies; believes, further, that it is essential to prioritise transfers of knowledge and experience among European farmers by financing study visit programmes for young farmers;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Reiterates its call for more coordinated research to be performed on new antimicrobials as well as other alternatives (vaccination, bio security etc) and evidence based strategies to avoid and control infectious diseases in animals; underlines the importance of the EU's Research Framework Programmes in this respect; stresses in this context the importance of developing systems for animal husbandry which reduce the need for antimicrobials to be used;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Points out that the development of sustainable, climate-friendly agriculture requires substantial research into effective pesticides that revert to non- hazardous components and do not pollute the groundwater, which should enable no- tillage agriculture;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Emphasises that the establishment of a vital lifecycle for nutrients, specifically phosphates, between town and country requires well-funded research into innovative systems to clean urban sewage sludge of pharmacological and toxic substances so that the sludge can be reused in fields as a nutrient;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Recommends, in order to improve agri- sector competitiveness, identifying and removing obstacles to transferring research outcomes from the laboratory through to the development, commercialisation and application phases in agri-food and agro- industrial chains;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Believes that research and technological innovation need to aim at achieving balanced forms of supporting all participants in the agri-food production chain;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the role of research and development
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Recalls that existing and prospective public policies should contribute to innovation. A bolder approach with emphasis on critical goals and a considerable simplification of administration should be adopted. Possible changes in the administrative and financial system should support multidisciplinary cross-policy and -fund financing of innovation; considers that steps should be taken to establish uniform and non- discriminatory economic and competition conditions with a view to ensuring that all farmers in EU Member States receive aid for agricultural research and innovation; .
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Shares, in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the objective of increasing spending on R&D to reach 3 % GDP by 2020; notes that the EU’s overall strategic policy on research and technological development should be based on coherent strategic objectives, clearly supported by all stakeholders;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Shares, in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy, belief in the need to fulfil its objectives of intelligent and sustainable growth in this connection, as well as the objective of increasing spending on R&D to reach 3 % GDP by
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that agriculture will need to respond to specific challenges in the coming decades: catering for the food needs of a growing population, with more resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable practices in response to growing scarcities (water, energy, soil depletion, etc.), taking into account the need to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change; points out that the local and regional level is the appropriate one for developing synergy between research and technological development policies and cohesion policy, which will have an impact on economic and industrial activities and social practices;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that agriculture will need to respond to specific challenges in the coming decades: catering for the food needs of a growing population, with more
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that agriculture will need to respond to specific challenges in the coming decades to ensure food security and sustainability: catering for the food needs of a growing population, with more resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable practices in response to growing scarcities (water, energy, soil depletion, etc.), taking into account the need to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change and to provide full and adequate information to consumers;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that agriculture will need to respond to specific challenges in the coming decades: catering for the food needs of a growing population, with more resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable practices in response to growing scarcities (water, energy, soil depletion, etc.), taking into account the need to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change; calls for the use of biotechnologies and genetic engineering to be restricted in agriculture;
source: PE-467.136
2011/06/20
BUDG
31 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph - 1 (new) -1. Underlines that the aim of the Common Strategic Framework is to cover all relevant EU research and innovation funding currently provided through FP7, CIP and EU initiatives such as EIT on the basis of coherent goals and shared strategic objectives;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses that a risk-averse culture of EU research funding would prevent financing of high-risk research ideas with the greatest potential for breakthroughs, and therefore
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses that a risk-averse culture of EU research funding would prevent financing of high-risk research ideas with the greatest potential for breakthroughs, and therefore
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses that a risk-averse culture of EU research funding would prevent financing of high-risk research ideas with the greatest potential for breakthroughs, and therefore advocates a trust-based approach with higher tolerance for risk and failure – involving
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is convinced that horizontal simplification activities throughout all research and innovation programmes
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is convinced that horizontal simplification activities throughout all research and innovation programmes should be one of the highest priorities for the new programme period together with measures to ensure flexibility, and draws attention to the important decisions on simplification to be taken in the ongoing procedure of revising the Financial Regulation, on issues including simplifying the rules on pre-financing and on eligibility of costs and increasing the scope for awarding research prizes; emphasises the need for further simplification of application procedures and control mechanisms, for the benefit of applicants to European research and innovation programmes;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to build ‘stairways to excellence’ for all potential research and innovation players in those Member States with a low rate of participation in FP 7, including by encouraging more effective and flexible use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds in this respect, including ways of maximising synergies between funds;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to build ‘stairways to excellence’ for all potential research and innovation players in those Member States with a low rate of participation in FP 7,
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Asks the Commission to build ‘stairways to excellence’ for all potential research and innovation players in those Member States with a low rate of participation in FP 7, including by encouraging more effective use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds in this respect; underlines the importance of trans-national cooperation through collaborative projects and stresses the need to develop dedicated actions to foster excellence across Europe;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Reiterates its position that, with regard to the MFF post-2013, the financial resources dedicated to large-scale projects such as ITER and Galileo should be fixed for the whole programming period and ring-fenced
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Structural and Cohesion Funds can complement EU research and innovation funds but cannot replace them, and, because the principal aims of the respective funds differ, they should continue to be separate during the future multi-annual financial framework (MFF); further, synergies between these funds are a vital way of ensuring European added value;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Reiterates its position that, with regard to the MFF post-2013, the financial resources dedicated to large-scale projects such as ITER and Galileo should be fixed for the whole programming period and ring-fenced so that any cost overrun must be financed with fresh money through employing budgetary flexibility, as opposed to the redeployment of funds at the expense of other programmes such as research and innovation, and Structural and Cohesion funds;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Reiterates its position that, with regard to the MFF post-2013, the financial resources dedicated to large-scale projects such as ITER and Galileo should be fixed for the whole programming period and ring-fenced so that any cost overrun must be financed with fresh money through employing budgetary flexibility, as opposed to the redeployment of funds at the expense of other programmes such as research and innovation; considers that the funding of major strategic EU projects should take account of technical constraints and of the timetable for such projects, so as to help ensure that they are relevant and feasible; proposes that every major EU project should set up a reserve fund to compensate for unforeseen expenditure, without compromising other existing programmes;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Strongly supports a further substantial increase in the EU's annual budgets for research and innovation, as these have been proven to deliver excellent European added value and to aid recovery from the economic crisis; emphasises that the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, adopted by the
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Strongly supports a further increase in the EU's annual budgets for research and innovation, as these have been proven to deliver excellent European added value and to aid recovery from the economic crisis and competitiveness; emphasises that the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, adopted by the Council, clearly states the need for additional funds for research and innovation.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Strongly supports a further increase in the EU's annual budgets for research and innovation, as these have been proven to deliver excellent European added value and to aid recovery from the economic crisis; emphasises that the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, adopted by the Council, clearly states the need for additional funds for research and
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Strongly supports a further
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Strongly supports – while still concentrating on three interdependent objectives, namely creating the world’s best scientific basis within the European Union, promoting global competitiveness and responding to major challenges such as climate change, the effective use of resources, security of energy supplies and food security, health and the ageing of the population – a further increase in the EU’s annual budgets for research and innovation, as these have been proven to deliver excellent European added value and to aid recovery from the economic crisis; emphasises that the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, adopted by the
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Strongly supports – while still concentrating on three interdependent objectives, namely creating the world’s best scientific basis within the European Union, promoting global competitiveness and responding to major challenges such as climate change, the effective use of resources, security of energy supplies and food security, health and the ageing of the population – a further increase in the EU’s annual budgets for research and innovation, as these have been proven to deliver excellent European added value and to aid recovery from the economic crisis; emphasises that the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, adopted by the Council, clearly states the need for additional funds for research and innovation.
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses the importance of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme continuing to have its own budget heading in the forthcoming Multi-Annual Financial Framework;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Structural and Cohesion Funds
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. stresses the importance to further promote the complementarity between EU and national R&D funding; in this regard, calls for greater coordination at EU and the national level, through enhanced joint programming efforts, agreed common standards, and faster, more flexible and simpler instruments to allow co-funding;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the Commission's proposals on extending the use of innovative financial instruments to strengthen the leverage of the EU budget while fully respecting the rights of the budgetary and discharge authorities; asks the Commission to improve
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the Commission's proposals on extending the use of innovative financial instruments to strengthen the leverage of the EU budget while fully respecting the rights of the budgetary and discharge authorities; asks the Commission to improve access for primary target groups such as SMEs; demands that any SME-specific bank should function under the umbrella of the EIB
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the Commission’s proposals on extending the use of innovative financial instruments to strengthen the leverage of the EU budget while fully respecting the rights of the budgetary and discharge authorities; asks the Commission to improve access for primary target groups such as SMEs; demands that any SME-specific bank should f
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the Commission's proposals on extending the use of innovative financial instruments to strengthen the leverage of the EU budget while fully respecting the rights of the budgetary and discharge authorities; asks the Commission to improve access for primary target groups such as SMEs; demands that any SME-specific
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the Commission’s proposals on extending the use of innovative financial instruments to strengthen the leverage of the EU budget while fully respecting the rights of the budgetary and discharge authorities; asks the Commission to
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the Commission's proposals on extending the use of innovative financial instruments to strengthen the leverage of the EU budget while fully respecting the rights of the budgetary and discharge authorities; asks the Commission to improve access for primary target groups such as SMEs
source: PE-467.184
2011/06/21
ITRE
417 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 2 a (new) - having regard to the EU 2020 flagship initiative a Resource-efficient Europe (COM(2011)0021),
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A a (new) Aa. whereas since the start of the European Research Council (ERC) in 2007, 1700 projects have been selected to receive funding from the ERC, representing some 2.5 Billion Euro in grants, whereas almost 90% of these grants went to male candidates,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas spending should be aligned as far as possible with the overarching policy objectives under the Europe 2020 strategy,
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote merit-based criteria that help women to pursue a successful career in the R&D&I field on an equal footing with men;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation between
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation between local and regional, national and European cross-boarder research and innovation strategies, respecting the specificities of the different contexts and, at the same time, reinforcing the possibilities for complementarity and cooperation between them; believes that sharing information and results is of key importance here; emphasises at the same time the paramount importance of collaboration with other research entities and innovation clusters outside the EU;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation between local and regional, national and European research and innovation strategies, respecting the specificities of the different contexts and, at the same time, reinforcing the possibilities for complementarity and cooperation between them; calls for faster, more flexible and simpler instruments to allow co-funding of projects by the Commission and Member States; believes that sharing information and results is of key importance here;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation between local and regional, national and European research and innovation strategies, respecting the specificities of the different contexts and, at the same time, reinforcing the possibilities for complementarity
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation between local and regional, national and European research and innovation strategies, respecting the specificities of the different contexts and, at the same time, reinforcing the possibilities for complementarity and cooperation between them; believes that sharing information and results, simplifying rules and, where possible, ensuring their convergence, is of key importance here;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation between local and regional, national and European research and innovation strategies, respecting the specificities of the different contexts and, at the same time, reinforcing the possibilities for complementarity and cooperation between them; believes that cooperation and sharing of information and results
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation between
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation between local and regional, national and European research and innovation strategies, respecting the specificities of the different contexts and, at the same time, reinforcing the possibilities for complementarity and cooperation between them while avoiding unnecessary duplication and errors; believes that sharing information and results is of key importance here;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation between local and regional, national and European research and innovation strategies, addressing the problem of under- representation and respecting the specificities of the different contexts and, at the same time, reinforcing the possibilities for complementarity and cooperation between them; believes that sharing information and results is of key importance here;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas the current trends show strong pressure to freeze or even reduce the European budget associated with a period of severe constraints on national public budgets, and whereas R&D&I is one of the areas where European cooperation has been shown to have real added value in contrast to certain other budget posts, showing the need to reallocate the EU's available resources,
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes that in the educational systems of many Member States, gender stereotypes are still prevailing in research areas such as the natural sciences1;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation and co- ordination between local and regional, national and European research and innovation strategies, respecting the specificities of the different contexts and, at the same time, reinforcing the possibilities for complementarity and cooperation between them; believes that sharing information and results is of key importance here;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation and coordination between local and regional, national and European research and innovation strategies, respecting the specificities of the different contexts and, at the same time, reinforcing the possibilities for complementarity and cooperation between them; believes that sharing information and results is of key importance here;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls for a better articulation and more synergy between local and regional, national and European research and innovation strategies, respecting the specificities of the different contexts and, at the same time, reinforcing the possibilities for complementarity and cooperation between them; believes that sharing information and results is of key importance here;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that, with a view to improving and boosting European competitiveness, the natural potential of all regions needs to be harnessed; draws attention to the excellent opportunity to do so – of which we should take full advantage – that we now have in view of the need to make improvements to the next framework programme and amend the rules governing the operation of cohesion policy; considers that, to this end, synergies between the EU’s various financial resources need to be exploited and smart regional specialisation supported;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Recalls the importance of assuring continuity of successful instruments (including JTIs) between the 7th Framework Programme and the next Common Strategic Framework in particular in the cooperation programmes that have proven their value; believes that the need of specific sectors must be taken into account in order to meet the European long term objectives and that enough room and opportunity should be left also for new players;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls for an independent audit to be carried out, for example by the European Court of Auditors together with national courts of auditors, on the effectiveness of public expenditure on research undertaken by the Member States, the EU and local authorities;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution 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 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the visibility of the EU added value in research and innovation;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Underlines the fact that
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution 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 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Considers it necessary to review the criteria for promotion to senior research positions (e.g. professorships) in order to include a strong gender perspective and address the lack of women in these posts;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution 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 121 #
Motion for a resolution 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, broad representativeness and articulation and complementarity are ensured;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution 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, while at the same time cutting the red tape which confronts applicants for such funding;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution 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 and duplication avoided;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Believes that the CSF should focus primarily in addressing in a comprehensive way a number of targeted European level grand societal challenges through a balanced set of instruments covering the whole spectrum of activities from education and training, to basic and applied research, demonstration and commercialisation activities; is convinced that the three main societal challenges that Europe will face in the coming decades on which the CSF should put its main focus are: - making the economic development model fit within the physical limits of the planet, - ensuring social cohesion at the EU, regional and local level, - improving health, disease prevention, nutrition and well-being;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Proposes making access to European funding easier, for example by: - setting up a single contact point, - establishing a principle of ‘one project, one document’, - creating an internet site for partner- seeking, - mapping the entities working towards the same objective, - setting up a forum for exchanges of good practice;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls for a CSF that goes beyond a better articulation of the existing various financial instruments and underpins a new political approach and governance system that simultaneously incentivises innovation and cooperation at various crucial stages of the value chain (from material provider to end-user product) throughout Europe;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recommends that national and regional funds should contribute to the funding of ERC, Marie Curie or collaborative projects that meet the criteria of excellence but cannot be funded due to lack of European funds;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution 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 (in its fundamental and applied dimensions), 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,
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the European Commission to establish clear links between the CSF and the Gender Equality Institute in Vilnius in order to create a knowledge base for gender mainstreaming and ensure strong participation by female researchers in the
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Recommends that the Commission analyses the possibility of setting up an all-European common fund financed by the Structural Funds to promote collaborative European research;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is convinced that different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close articulation: the European Institute of Technology (EIT) to operate mainly as a network of Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), the innovation related parts of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) to concentrate on its strength in supporting innovative SMEs
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is convinced that different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close articulation: 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
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is convinced that different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close articulation: the European Institute of Innovation and 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
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is convinced that different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is convinced that the Framework Programme is at the heart of the CSF and yet different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close part
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is convinced that different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close articulation: 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 fundamental and applied research as a whole; and the structural/cohesion funds to be used in closer cooperation but kept separate;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is convinced that different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close articulation: 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 and innovation as a whole; and the structural/cohesion funds to be used in closer cooperation but kept separate;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is convinced that different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close articulation: 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
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Points to the need to employ a common set of administrative, financial, organisational and information procedures and ensure the harmonisation of the rules and conditions for participation in the various programmes, with a view to establishing a coherent and transparent system within the European Research Area, in which research centres from the countries that are currently under-represented will also be able to take an active part;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas we are currently experiencing an economic
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls for intangible assets and social accounting to be promoted with a view to fostering a business culture;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a.Recalls that the future funding of research and innovation should serve the goal of completing the European Research Area (ERA) by creating synergies between different approaches and levels of funding of research in Europe;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses the fact that more room for large-scale pilot projects and demonstration activities should be devoted in the new CSF;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Takes the view that the simplification and harmonisation process should consist first and foremost in replacing the current cost control-based approach with a results-based and trust-based approach;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution 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; reiterates the need to strengthen and develop the innovation friendly role of all EU instruments, also by means of closer cooperation with the EIB and by simplifying procedures for access to funding; suggests, therefore, a new organisational model based on three different layers of funding aimed at stability and convergence:
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution 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 a more tight integration of research, education and innovation; calls for the EU research and innovation programmes budget for the next financial period to be doubled as of 2014
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution 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 (
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. the next FP to embrace research as a whole; and the structural/cohesion funds to be used in closer cooperation but kept separate; 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
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas the EU and its Member States must provide themselves with the means to respond collectively to the major social, economic, environmental, demographic and ethical challenges facing the people of Europe, such as the ageing population, health, food supply, sustainable development, important ecological issues, etc, and whereas the solutions to these issues should provide an incentive to individuals to take more responsibility for their actions,
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the European Commission to make a special effort to increase the number of female entrepreneurs in the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP);
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution 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 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Invites the Commission to carry out a deep analysis of the state-of-art, impact and relevance of the currently running public-private partnerships (JTI’s and ETPs); calls on the Commission to support a bottom-up approach in the Joint Programming Initiatives in order to foster the competitiveness at European and National level;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Stresses the need to enhance the flexibility of the common strategic framework, not only so that appropriations can be moved between the individual chapters and calls, but also so that the CSF is flexible enough to allow appropriations to be allocated to meet major societal challenges that arise during the budget period;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Notes the success of the CIP so far and highlights the vital importance of continuing and further expanding the programme, particularly in order to strengthen innovative SMEs as the driver of the European economy;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 2 1st layer:
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. This layer covers the EU funds associated with infrastructure (in the wider sense, including the institutional one)
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. This layer should cover
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution 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, and whereas in this context, the Commission should propose a revision of the rules on State aid for research and innovation, which could support the EU’s competitiveness,
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the European Commission to make a special effort to support female entrepreneurs access to adequate finance and increase the number of female entrepreneurs in the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP);
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. The funding scheme within this layer includes the funding provided through the EIT, the part of the FP concerning the Capacities Programme and Marie Curie initiatives, the European funding components of large-scale projects, access to loans by the EIB (covering projects over EUR 50 million), grants associated with the above-mentioned components of the FP, and cooperation with Structural Funds
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. The funding scheme within this layer includes
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. The funding scheme within this layer includes
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. The funding scheme within this layer includes the funding provided through the EIT, the part of the FP concerning the Capacities Programme and Marie Curie initiatives, the European funding components of large-scale research infrastructures and projects, access to loans by the EIB (covering projects over EUR 50 million), grants associated with the above-mentioned components of the FP, and cooperation with Structural Funds associated with infrastructure;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. The funding scheme within this layer includes the funding provided through the EIT, the part of the FP concerning the Capacities Programme and Marie Curie initiatives, the European funding
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Stresses the need for KICs with a more narrow focus and consequently a more concentrated network with a smaller sized budget, which also enables more SME participation due to lower annual contribution costs; believes that these smaller KICs can create a single focal point in the EU as a meeting place for scientists from all over the EU in order to better compete on the global market;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Highlights the importance of maintaining appropriate instruments with which to support the development of the institutional capacity of the regions with regard to research and innovation policy, since the regional government level is a strategic link for effectively integrating FP funding with that of the Structural Funds;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Stresses the need to promote open and excellence-based access to the infrastructures concerned;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the synergy between different instruments and funds and to develop a multi-fund approach, while respecting the specific conditions set out in the respective legislation;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Stresses the need to fund large-scale projects, such as ITER, Galileo and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution 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 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the European Commission to make a special effort to increase the number of female entrepreneurs in the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and welcomes the Commission's plans to establish a network for female entrepreneurs; underlines the need for adequate financial resources to be assigned for this purpose;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Stresses the need to fund large-scale projects, such as ITER, Galileo and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) outside the FP, creating autonomous budget lines for them, in order to guarantee a transparent and reliable financing structure; calls for substantial amounts to be allocated for R&D&I for the development of the specific GNSS applications and services without which it will not be possible to harness the full capacity of the Galileo project, which would adversely affect the EU’s competitiveness; suggests that they should be partially funded through the issuing of project bonds by the EIB;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Stresses the need to fund large-scale
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Stresses the need to fund large-scale projects, such as ITER, Galileo and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) outside the FP, creating autonomous budget lines for them, in order to guarantee a transparent and reliable financing structure; suggests that they should be partially funded through the issuing of project bonds by the EIB; calls for specific medical projects to be funded in the same way;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Stresses th
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Stresses the need to fund large-scale projects, such as ITER, Galileo and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) outside the FP, creating autonomous budget lines for them, in order to guarantee a transparent and reliable financing structure; suggests that they
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Stresses the need to fund large-scale projects, such as ITER, energy infrastructure, Galileo and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) outside the FP, creating autonomous budget lines for them, in order to guarantee a transparent and reliable financing structure; suggests that they should be partially funded through the issuing of project bonds by the EIB;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Stresses the need to fund large-scale projects, such as ITER, Galileo, SESAR and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) outside the FP, creating autonomous budget lines for them, in order to guarantee a transparent and reliable financing structure; suggests that they should be partially funded through the issuing of project bonds by the EIB;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Highlights the pivotal role of Research infrastructures (RIs) for the Knowledge Triangle and calls for coherence between what is funded in different areas; calls for efforts to boost RIs, especially where there is the greatest scope for added value at European level;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 b (new) 11b. Stresses the importance of improving participation from Member States that are underrepresented, such as through using the People programme for developing the potential for scientists from EU12 and by ensuring that education does not become the forgotten side of the Knowledge Triangle by adequately complementing the linkages between research and innovation with research training, including training specifically aimed at women researchers;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 c (new) 11c. Calls on the Commission to integrate the development of the next FP and the process of drawing up a common EU- level strategic framework for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) for the period after 2013 in order to ensure that possible synergies are maximised and that the funds available are used to the greatest extent to enable researchers in Member States that have been underrepresented in the FP7 to achieve excellence;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution 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 priorities and spending on research should be set with the aim to get Europe in the lead,
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the European Commission to make a special effort to increase the number of female entrepreneurs in the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP); welcomes the Commission's initiative to facilitate female entrepreneurship through the creation of EU networks;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 d (new) 11d. Considers that the achievement of scientific excellence should be considered as an impact that in itself motivates drawing on the funds of Structural and Cohesion Funds in Member States that are underrepresented in the FP;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 3 2nd Layer:
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 3 2nd Layer:
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. This layer is the space for overall research, fundamental and applied,
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution 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, in particular SMEs, should be encouraged to participate; this layer should represent the largest share of the CSF and should be aimed at developing the strong scientific basis in both basic and applied research that is needed for innovation to spur;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. This layer is the space for overall research, fundamental and applied, and social sciences and humanities;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution 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, as well as non-profit organizations which pursue aims of general social utility, should be encouraged to participate;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. This layer is the space for overall research, fundamental and applied, and social sciences and humanities;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. This layer is the space for overall research, fundamental and applied, and social sciences and humanities;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that mobility of women researchers is an important precondition for their professional advancement and recommends that the next framework programme consist of appropriate measures to enable female scientists to move across the EU while reconciling family and work life;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution 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,
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution 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, a
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. This layer
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. The key words here are originality,
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. The key words here are originality, quality and potential of projects, including high-risk research, offset by prospective long-term breakthroughs with high technological or societal impact, and not only the possible marketed results;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. The key words here are originality
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. The key words here are originality, quality
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. The key words here are originality, quality and potential for excellence and added - value of projects, and not only the possible marketed results;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. The key words here are
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. The key words here are originality, quality and potential of projects,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 9 a (new) - having regard to the Commission's Communication of 20 April 2009 entitled 'Moving the ICT frontiers: A strategy for research on future and emerging technologies in Europe' (COM(2009)0184),
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph D D. whereas the target rate for participation by women in research was 40 % in FP7 and the figure in the mid-term evaluation was only a disappointing 25.5 %; notes, however, that this is a slight improvement compared to the participation rate of female researchers under the FP6,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Ε E. whereas other regions and countries of the world, in particular developing countries, are increasingly investing in R&D&I, and whereas EU investment in this domain should therefore be oriented towards
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Support to research aimed at bringing actual innovation into the market will have to be accompanied by the facilitation and support to funding for projects of ‘social research’ promoted by non-profit organizations which pursue aims of general social utility; this could also happen through the provision for appropriate budget lines and simplification of administrative procedures;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. The funding scheme within this layer is covered by the EU FP grants system and cooperation with Structural Funds associated with R&D&I; calls on the Commission to strengthen instruments such as the ERA-NET scheme which can help these two sources of funding to work in synergy;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. The funding scheme within this layer is covered by the EU FP grants system and cooperation with Structural Funds associated with R&D&I; also encourages simplification of interactions between projects financed by the EU and external funding bodies;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. The funding scheme within this layer is covered by the EU FP grants system and cooperation with Structural Funds associated with R&D&I; notes that grants should primarily be aimed at public and private research institutions, public sector projects and innovative SMEs;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Calls for a more flexible funding scheme in order to make the Cooperation theme more attractive for SMEs, whereby SME's would be able to join Cooperation projects during the projects implementation where possible and an open budget line for this should be available for the project; believes that in this way the SME can see the opportunities more clearly since the timeframe from entering the project to market results is shortened;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution 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);
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution 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 and innovative SMEs, as well to strengthen Marie Curie actions and initiatives, thus reinforcing mobility, in particular among female researchers; hopes that, in the context of Marie Curie actions and initiatives, particular attention will be paid in future to the proposals concerning research collaboration between academia, public research institutes and industry, as well as access to major research infrastructures; also calls for incentives for industrial firms to become involved in doctoral and postdoctoral research programmes; calls for the
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution 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 th
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution 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 substantially 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 and making Europe more internationally attractive to leading researchers and counteracting the exodus of top specialists to third countries; calls for the implementation of the necessary measures to cope with the precarious 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 way to achieving excellence in Europe;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution 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; believes that mobility can also be strengthened by introducing a mobility component, when suitable, in the ERC grants; calls for the implementation of the necessary measures to cope with the precarious 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 way to achieving excellence in Europe;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Insists on using the Cohesion
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution 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); calls on the Commission to assess the options for further improvements to the ERA’s structures and mechanisms; 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
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Recalls that the European Research Council (ERC)
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Recalls that the European Research Council (ERC) has proved to be successful and
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution 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 precarious conditions of scientific workers in the EU as a means to attract and retain researchers including female researchers, bearing in mind that precarious working conditions (which are still more prevalent for women) constitute a bottleneck on the way to achieving excellence in Europe;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution 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 both to young and female 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 precarious conditions of scientific workers in the EU as a means to
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution 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 precarious 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, young people and the elderly) constitute a bottleneck on the way to achieving excellence in Europe;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. 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 precarious 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 an obstacle on the way to achieving excellence in Europe; considers it necessary to bring Marie Curie actions and initiatives closer to the industrial sector's real needs as regards research training, career development and the transfer of knowledge with the academic world;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Welcomes the steady progress towards a balanced participation of men and women in the framework programme; agrees that measures to boost female participation should be reinforced throughout project lifecycles and that the Commission should reinvigorate its approach to promoting female scientists and should aim to galvanise Member States to address gender gaps; underlines that the 40% target for female participation in the Programme and Advisory Committees should be implemented;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Insists on using the
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Calls for a new mobility component, already supported by the European Parliament, that could increase mobility and strengthen the financing of globally leading research in Europe, by a research voucher following researchers moving to a university or a research institute in another Member state, thereby supporting the financing of the most attractive and inspiring research projects, establishing a critical mass of researchers and resources based upon the knowledge and vision in the scientific society and leading researchers;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Stresses that full implementation of the European Research Area (ERA) necessitates legislative measures that enable all EU players to participate in the national programmes, with individual states’ calls for tenders being opened to all and steps being taken to harmonise rules, procedures, contracts and assessment criteria;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Endorses the request by European universities regarding the need for experienced Commission experts to be present at the beginning of the programme so as better to implement the programme and avoid mistakes;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 b (new) 15b. Underlines that the mobility of researchers in Europe should be given priority in order to secure the diffuse dissemination of knowledge and to ensure that innovative frontier research in various disciplines benefits from dedicated and competent researchers, as well as increased financial resources;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. This layer is the space for marketing of products and services and generation of public wealth;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. This layer is the space for
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. This layer is the space for
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. This layer is the space for marketing of products and services and generation of public wealth; industry, including innovative SMEs, plays a pivotal role here in developing novel products and services;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution 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 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas, although EU funding for R&D&I has been increasing, scientifically and technologically more developed EU Member States (MS) still absorb the greatest slice of the available resources under the various Framework funding schemes and programmes (including large- scale projects), perpetuating the under- representativeness of some MS and
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Insists on using the Cohesion Funds to finance initiatives aimed at increasing female employment in technology and innovation and educating female researchers; recalls that the EU should not provide support for any research involving the destruction of human embryos or the use of parts of human embryos whose harvesting would result in their death;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution 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 novel products and services to meet societal needs;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. This layer is the space for marketing of products and services and generation of public wealth; businesses, and in particular innovative SMEs, play a pivotal role here in developing novel
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. This layer is the space for marketing of products and services and generation of knowledge and public wealth; innovative SMEs play a pivotal role here in developing novel products and services;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. This layer
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. In view of the need to encourage young people to participate in research and innovation activities and support young entrepreneurs who contribute to R&D&I activities and make use of the results for their local or regional communities' economic and social development, calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue with the Erasmus programme for young entrepreneurs, also in the context of the future multiannual financing framework, and to increase the funding allocated to that programme;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution 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; also emphasises the fact that the volume of innovation activity shapes the innovation climate, which confirms the idea that innovative activities should be concentrated in small clusters; notes, moreover, that the success of innovation activities depends to a great extent on the skills and experience of management staff;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution 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; also emphasises that the level of innovation activity affects the innovation climate, confirming the idea that innovative activities should be concentrated in small structural units; notes, moreover, that the success of innovation activities depends to a great extent on the skills and experience of management staff;
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution 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 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Highlights the need to give full consideration to the important differences among the companies encompassed by the current definition of "SME", when formulating support instruments for innovation; stresses that innovation support should be prioritized to company developmental stages in which bottlenecks have been recognized, namely at the seed, start-up and early phases; highlights that small-sized companies are the main innovators in Europe and calls for support to venture capital funding for innovative enterprises; stresses the need to tailor new and existing instruments to take due account of the limited resources such companies dispose of, in order to deal with administrative and procedure barriers associated with European funding programmes; is of the opinion that successful programmes such as Eurostars have achieved an important experience in responding to the needs of innovative companies and therefore should be reinforced;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Takes the view that increasing the innovative capacity of SMEs is crucial for future growth and job creation in Europe; believes that the Common Strategic Framework should be designed to meet this challenge and hence, any future instrument on European level targeting innovation in SMEs should be more oriented towards the demands of the companies; therefore, calls for measures to increase SME participation in collaborative projects;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas, although EU funding for R&D&I has been increasing, scientifically and technologically more developed EU Member States (MS) still are able to absorb the greatest slice of the available resources under the various funding schemes and programmes (including large- scale projects), perpetuating the under- representativeness of some MS and European regions in terms both of access to funding and of participation,
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Insists on using the Cohesion Funds to finance initiatives aimed at increasing female employment in technology and innovation and educating female researchers; recalls that the EU should not provide support for any research involving the destruction of human embryos or the use of parts of human embryos whose harvesting would result in their death;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Encourages all collaboration between universities, financial markets and business; believes that this collaboration is fundamental to make easier the creation of start-ups that can spur innovation and sustainable growth in Europe;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 b (new) 17b. Believes that instruments such as the Joint Technology Initiatives play an important role in supporting industry- driven innovation; stresses the need to take effective measures in improving transparency and open access to such instruments by SMEs and the public research sector;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 c (new) 17c. Notes that public procurement offers an untapped opportunity for promoting R&D-based innovation; stresses the need for new measures to support pre- commercial procurement and identify pre- commercial procurement opportunities;
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. The funding scheme within this layer is
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution 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 that the Commission should consider an impact assessment regarding the possibility of the creation of a new funding instrument
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas, although EU funding for R&D&I has been increasing, scientifically and technologically more developed EU Member States (MS) still absorb the greatest slice of the available resources under the various funding schemes and
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls on the Commission to create synergies between the Structural Funds and the Common Strategic Framework to guarantee equal opportunities and appropriate funding for female researchers;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. The funding scheme within this layer is covered by EU funding provided through the EIT, 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
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Takes the view that European risk capital, stemming from both public and private funds, is also a fundamental tool for co-financing the full innovation cycle from research to market uptake; highlights the success of the Risk Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) and proposes boosting European risk capital with cross- border risk capital initiatives supplemented by contributions from European funds;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes that the ERA would greatly benefit from the creation of
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes that the ERA would greatly benefit from the
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes that the ERA would greatly benefit from the creation of an EU SME Investment Bank, that could be conceived as a specialized branch of EIB fully devoted to SME innovation projects, in order to reinforce the EU's innovation policy covering the missing link: the weak participation of SMEs in EU programmes;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes that the ERA would greatly benefit from the creation of an
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas, in the interest of completing the European Research Area and of maintaining its international competitiveness in the long term, Europe must develop and exploit its full potential, and whereas, therefore, the structural causes of the persistent emigration of qualified scientists from some Member States, and their low level of participation in the European research programmes to the benefit of Europe as a whole, need to be overcome,
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Emphasises the importance of promoting non-gender-segregated research areas; calls on universities
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Calls on the Member States to introduce measures and instruments at national level with a view to guaranteeing the necessary loans for SMEs, so as to ensure the cofinancing required for their participation in European R&D&I programmes;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Takes the view, likewise, that the future framework programme should promote innovation activities through innovative public procurement;
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Stresses that increased participation by SMEs needs appropriate funding instruments that respond to their specificities
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Stresses that increased participation by SMEs needs appropriate funding instruments that respond to their specificities
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution 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; bears in mind that simplified rules of procedure and continuous evaluation process are key elements for SMEs participation;
Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution 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 and shorter timeframe from proposal to project implementation/market results; within this scenario soft loans should be considered, which are reimbursed in the event of success, excluding administrative costs;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Stresses that increased participation by SMEs needs appropriate funding instruments that respond to their specificities, including more flexibility with the concrete goals of the projects and 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 268 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Believes that enhancing the CIP instruments is crucial, but also promoting new instruments and programmes that support SMEs’ innovation management capacity (such as innovation vouchers); supports access to research and innovation services such as university- based technology transfer centres and other knowledge-based business services (business modelling, risk assessment, etc.); reminds the Commission of the importance of delivering local support for SMEs, for example through the involvement of innovation centres, chambers of commerce, business organisations and innovation clusters;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Stresses the need to involve manufacturers more fully in the next Common Strategic Framework by providing substantial project funding from the EU budget, at rates of at least 50 %, depending on the technological maturity of the projects concerned;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas there is an enormous untapped potential for coordinating the 27 national research programmes so as to avoid wasting resources on duplicated work and unnecessary administration,
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Emphasises the importance of promoting non-gender-segregated research areas; calls
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Highlights the importance of shorter and predictable time-to-grant periods for SME participation;
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 b (new) 20b. Believes that better access to financing should also be provided for innovative start-ups and that projects targeting the development of innovative business models that are needed to bring innovation to the market in the form of new products and services should be encouraged and supported;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 c (new) Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution 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 market, including non-technological, eco- and social innovation; believes that this should include new schemes and programmes that promote the sharing of knowledge of great social utility through concrete conditions in the conversion of innovation into market products, to assure affordability and the fair use of EU public funding of research;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Takes the view that not all innovation is research-based and that not all research
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution 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 aim for excellence and cover the full innovation cycle, from concept to market, including non- technological, eco and social innovation;
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution 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 market,
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21a. Stresses, however, that some of the CIP instruments could become the natural extension of the future framework programme, providing continuity for European research and innovation projects; takes the view that the technology developed under framework programme projects could be extended to innovative projects: - disseminating their use in various industrial and service sectors, - launching further additional applications in related or complementary fields;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas lack of infrastructure still hampers the possibilities of some member states and regions to apply for funding,
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Emphasises the importance of promoting non-gender-segregated research areas; calls on universities, EU institutions and Member States to promote science as a field of interest to both sexes from the early stages of education by promoting female researchers as role models
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 b (new) 21b. Recognizes the need of connecting service, social and eco-innovation to technical innovation, modelling new partnerships that link R&D organisations, with enterprises, both in services and in the manufacturing sectors;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Recalls that the very competitive nature of research, scientific, technological and innovation work and the maintenance of local scientific and innovative capacity building depend on the existence of some level of duplication and fragmentation, without which collaborative research would be undermined;
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22a. Underlines that in order to more effectively attract private investment and to ensure that research and development most effectively contribute to enhancing European competitiveness, appropriate measures should be taken in the Framework programme for a strong and efficient regulatory framework for the protection of intellectual property rights at an early stage in the research process;
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution 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 to excellence; proposes that the Commission takes a proactive approach helping public bodies to improve their management system by carrying out assessments without financial consequences which would encourage these bodies to take a number of actions to improve their project management and implement them within a specific deadline of less than a year;
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution 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 to excellence and the environmental, economic and social impact of a given project (eco-indicators);
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Strongly encourages the implementation of training and mobility 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 to excellence;
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Stresses the need for relevant user groups to be involved in setting the research and innovation agenda in the future CSF; believes that business involvement in the priority setting process is a prerequisite for high impact RDTI- projects and increased business participation; believes that the European technology platforms (ETPs), which bring industry, regulators and financial institutions together to develop long term strategic agendas within specific fields of technology, should continue to play a key role in the priority setting discussion in the CSF;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Stresses the importance of women being represented in leading positions in research institutes as well as in specific research projects;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Proposes that, for the period covered by Europe 2020, all or some of the significant increase in research appropriations required in order to consolidate the European Research Area be generated without raising taxes, by means of better burden-sharing and financial cooperation among the Member States, the EU and local authorities;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Calls for a stronger intergovernmental participation under the Joint Programming measures, which strengthens the cooperation in research, development and innovation throughout Europe;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Stresses that simplification of the FP requires a quantum leap and calls for the implementation of all identified simplification measures in the new FP;
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) – after subheading 5 Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Favours moving towards a ’science- based’ approach and calls for a trust-based and risk-tolerant attitude towards participants at all stages of the funding system; encourages an administrative support system to be established to help newer Member States to make competent, high standard applications for funding under the next Framework Programme;
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Favours moving towards a ’science- based’ approach and calls for a trust-based and risk-tolerant attitude towards participants at all stages of the funding system, which includes a smaller degree of control from the European Commission;
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Favours moving towards a
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Favours the idea that innovation should meet consumers’ needs and the idea of moving towards a ‘science-
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Favours the idea that innovation should meet consumers’ needs and the idea of moving towards a ‘science-
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Favours moving towards a
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 11 a (new) - having regard to the motion for resolution B7-0343/2011 on the celebration of the centenary of the Nobel Prize award to Marie Sklodowska-Curie,
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph D a (new) Da. whereas the public consultation to the Green Paper on a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding finds that gender balance should be fully integrated in all aspects of the Common Strategic Framework,
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas there are still significant and growing inequalities within the EU in terms of national levels of R&D funding capacities, industrial structures and higher education systems, and levels of national research funding are directly related to the performance of Member States' participation in FP7,
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on universities to appoint at least one female professor to their decision- making bodies, especially the staff appointments committees.
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Favours moving towards a ’science
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Favours moving towards a ‘science- based’ approach and calls for a trust-based a
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) Amendment 303 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) 24a. Believes that the management of European research funding should be more trust-based and risk-tolerant towards participants; recommends broader acceptance of usual accounting practices for the eligible costs; is of the opinion that lump sums and flat rates should be used on a voluntary basis; calls on the Commission to shorten time-to- contract to maximum 6 months; stresses the need for simplification of the application and contractual procedures; recommends a reduced set of rules and common principles for funding to govern EU funding for R&D;
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) 24a. Believes that the future Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation must, above all, reflect the new approach outlined in the Europe 2020 strategy, thereby promoting more integrated governance, better coordination between the various EU institutions and greater coherence between EU policies and national and regional policies; also considers it essential that the new Innovation Partnerships receive the necessary support for their full implementation;
Amendment 305 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) 24a. Recommends defining a limited set of common rules that are easy to interpret and that would apply to all programmes and instruments, governed by the basic principle that public funds are managed by public bodies and monitored by the Commission;
Amendment 306 #
Motion for a resolution 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 307 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 b (new) 24b. Stresses that efforts should be made to align spending within the new FP as far as possible with the overarching policy objectives under the Europe 2020 strategy and to integrating the research base;
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 b (new) Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 b (new) 24b. Is convinced that simplification should lead to a reduction of the combination of funding rates and indirect costs calculation methods across financing schemes; stresses, however, that the funding rates and indirect costs calculation models should be different for universities, research organizations and industry;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas there are still inequalities within the EU in terms of national levels of R&D funding capacities, industrial structures and higher education systems; whereas the increase in the cost of funding research means that more financial resources are required in order to achieve the same goal, which is that of developing new fields of research,
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Underlines the importance of having women represented in leading positions in research institutions as well as in concrete research projects.
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 c (new) 24c. Calls for measures to decrease time- to-grant targeted at improving the percentage of grants signed in less than six months during the next FP;
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Calls for the Cooperation Programme to be kept at the heart of the FP, reinforcing collaborative transnational research, especially cooperation between partners in EU Member States; believes that funding should be flexible and consistent with the needs both of large consortia and of smaller groups; in order to achieve that goal, European research funding should be able to attract the best researchers with user-friendly arrangements at all levels;
Amendment 312 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Calls for the Cooperation Programme to be kept at the heart of the FP, reinforcing collaborative transnational research; to achieve this objective, believes that the Cooperation Programme should cover the whole innovation chain from exploratory research to large scale demonstrations and dedicate ring fenced budgets to sectors having developed a strategic vision to address societal challenges with long term investment cycles;
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Calls for
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Calls for the Cooperation Programme to be kept at the heart of the FP, reinforcing collaborative transnational research to increase and accelerate the impact of research projects by cooperating also with non-EU partners of excellent global standing;
Amendment 315 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Calls for the Cooperation Programme to be kept at the heart of the FP, reinforcing collaborative transnational research and the effective dissemination of research findings;
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Calls for
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Calls for the Cooperation Programme to be kept at the heart of the FP, reinforcing collaborative and transnational research;
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Considers that the Cooperation programme plays an essential role in promoting trans-national collaborative research across the EU; takes the view that top-down definition of narrow themes for calls for proposals hinders both scientific competition across institutions and private sector participation; calls on a more extended use of broader calls with the aim of boosting scientific excellence and involvement of research-driven SMEs and highlights the need for greater flexibility in consortia size definition;
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Calls for the reallocation of R&D&I funding to fields of research that are more likely to meet the objectives of a “smart growth” in the light of the 2020 Strategy (e.g., the effectiveness and the actual impact of the projects on society, the creation of real European added value, the strengthening of cross-border collaborative research and mobility and the building of European networks and of the European Research Area);
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas there are still inequalities within the EU in terms of national levels of R&D funding capacities, industrial
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Welcomes and supports the activities of platforms which enable female scientists to obtain and exchange information about involvement with programmes, grants and international projects and which give women access to scientific networks and help them to make contacts; therefore requests the European Commission to collaborate with social networks and support them in their activities.
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Believes that procedures of competitive calls for additional partners should be based on the basic premise that the business and researchers involved have the deepest knowledge of the project and which partner it needs best and that rather than forcing them to follow the ranking lists of the evaluation experts, the Commission should evaluate a written justification of the consortium's choice;
Amendment 321 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Stresses the need for further simplification to make the funding processes quicker and more dynamic, for example, the manifold of reports required within the financial and scientific management could be reduced significantly, financial reporting at the same time being simplified;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Calls for the strengthening of measures that will contribute to the mobility of European researchers, help stem the 'brain drain', attract very promising young researchers from third countries and make the prospect of a research career in the EU more attractive;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Asks the Commission to ensure a greater independence of individual projects in the CSF, granting project leaders more flexibility in how to organise, manage and prioritise their projects;
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Calls for the creation of a short-list of concrete targets considered of special interest for Europe where a substantial amount of the funds should be directed;
Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 b (new) 25b. Voices its scepticism about the effectiveness of utilizing the funds for creating research networks of excellence and organising conferences and events and calls for a strengthening of electronic networking measures for research and innovation and the dissemination of research results via the Internet;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 b (new) 25b. Notes that large-scale projects are often subject to heavy project administration and to bureaucratic burdens which hinder scientific output; favours a shift in balance towards smaller sized projects;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 b (new) 25b. Calls for the Commission to establish a simplified reporting based upon the existing reporting schemes in universities and established research institutions;
Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 c (new) 25c. Expresses its scepticism about whether it is often possible to finance a single proposal per call, resulting in a waste of the resources invested in their preparation and evaluation and the non- funding of excellent ideas; calls on the Commission to investigate the possibility of funding excellent, non-selected proposals, through an additional research budget (matching research funds) which will also involve Member States and regional and structural funds;
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 c (new) 25c. Considers the ERC as a case of success in promoting scientific excellence and the European Research Area; believes its success factors should be emulated across other instruments, whenever applicable; believes the size of the program should be significantly increased and this could be achieved both by a greater allocation of EU funds to the ERC, and by extending agreements with Member States for the national funding of ERC selected proposals;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas there are still inequalities within the EU in terms of national levels of R&D funding capacities, industrial structures and higher education systems and balancing mechanisms should be put in place in order to make all Member States equally competitive,
Amendment 330 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 d (new) 25d. Believes there is further potential for extending the scope of the ERC concept to collaborative and multidisciplinary research projects, provided they maintain a bottom-up nature and scientific excellence is kept as the major selection criterion;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 e (new) 25e. Takes the view that priority large- scale research infrastructures are important pillars of the European Research Area and therefore EU funding should be extended after the preparatory phase, and linked to trans-national access and training of researchers;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for consolidation of multidisciplinary research and recognition of the social dimension of research; in this context, recalls that gr
Amendment 333 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for consolidation of multidisciplinary research and recognition of the social dimension of research; in this context, recalls that great societal challenges (such as climate change,
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for consolidation of multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and recognition of the social dimension of research; in this context, recalls that great societal challenges (such as climate change, demographic ageing and resources sustainability) 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 them; recalls that the important role of social sciences and humanities has been acknowledged in the FP7, and firmly believes that this should not be undermined in the future CSF;
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for consolidation of multidisciplinary research and recognition of the social dimension of research; in this context, recalls that great societal challenges (such as climate change, demographic ageing and resources sustainability) 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 them; regards the continuation of the independent subject area ‘social and economic sciences and the humanities’ as indispensable;
Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for consolidation of multidisciplinary research and recognition of the social dimension of research; in this context, recalls that great societal
Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for consolidation of multidisciplinary research and recognition of the social dimension of research; in this context, recalls that great societal challenges (such as climate change, demographic ageing, energy supply, mobility and infrastructure, world health, migration and resources sustainability) 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 them;
Amendment 338 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for consolidation of multidisciplinary
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for consolidation of multidisciplinary research and recognition of the social dimension of research; in this context, recalls that great societal challenges (such as climate change, demographic ageing, food, water and energy security, and resources sustainability) 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 them;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) Ga. whereas EU funding for R&D&I has different degrees of significance and local impact within Europe and this variability depends both on the different scientific and technological specialisations of the Member States and on inequalities within the EU in terms of national funding capacities for R&D, industrial structures and higher education systems,
Amendment 340 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Calls for consolidation of multidisciplinary research and recognition of the social dimension of research; in this context, recalls that great societal challenges (such as climate change, demographic ageing and resources sustainability)
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. To further attract the interest and the involvement of citizens and civil society in research, calls for the continuation of the Science in Society theme both as stand- alone and its horizontal expansion to cover the grand societal challenges; in addition, believes that the Commission should support further development and wider dissemination of guidelines on ethics, and the further development of instruments designed for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs);
Amendment 342 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. Calls for a continued rigorous implementation of the 40% target for female participation in Programme and Advisory Committees; highlights the importance of boosting female participation throughout project lifecycles with particular attention to overcoming gender-specific obstacles which women face;
Amendment 343 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. Emphasizes that the FP should link education and innovation more closely in an integrated knowledge triangle programme, based on the various tools available, such as infrastructure development, standardization, training programmes and measures to support key technologies;
Amendment 344 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. Underlines the importance of fostering research which supports social policies based on robust scientific evidence, including those concerning family;
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. Calls for a clear coordination with the new initiatives under the EU2020 strategy, such as the Innovation Union and other relevant Flagship Projects;
Amendment 346 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 b (new) 26b. Believes that CSO participation in the definition, conduction and evaluation of research programmes will be crucial for tackling societal challenges and must be improved; points out to particular successes whereby lessons can be learned, for instance in the medical science field, on the close involvement of patients with researchers for the development of research projects;
Amendment 347 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 c (new) 26c. Calls for research priorities and objectives to be set in a more transparent and participatory way, through the balanced involvement of players including the scientific community, researchers (also from smaller research organisations), the public sector, CSO organisations and SMEs; calls for the creation of specific platform for dialogue between CSOs and researchers for discussing research priorities areas in specific sectors; believes that specific platforms for closer interaction of SMEs and researchers should also be promoted;
Amendment 348 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 d (new) 26d. Calls for a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of impact (for instance on SMEs and smaller research organisations) of the governance of pilot partnerships established under FP7 (KIC, JTIs, PPPs, JPI), to be undertaken before consolidating or supporting the establishment of additional ones; believes that lessons should be learned from best cases examples in order to dramatically improve their governance to ensure a better involvement of a greater variety of stakeholders both for the setting of the research agenda and for ensuring access to newcomers; is also convinced that those instruments should be more clearly driven by public priority objectives and be leveraging real private investments towards delivery of not only competitiveness objectives but also valuable societal results such as more sustainability, the creation of sharable knowledge, the creation of skilled jobs and their retention in Europe;
Amendment 349 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 e (new) 26e. Believes that not only economical but also societal, ethical and sustainability assessment and evaluation of the specific research programmes is an important process that must be improved and more widely promoted, both at the European and Member States level; supports the Commission's initiatives in this field, such as the development of Responsible Research and Innovation principles and encourages their further promotion and uptake;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) Ga. whereas better relations between the worlds of academia, research and industry are essential for the optimal conversion of research results into goods and services that will generate economic growth and benefits for society as a whole,
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution 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 facilitated; stresses the need to consult and work together with researchers, industry and civil society actors, in order to set the research agendas;
Amendment 351 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Calls for a balance to be kept between bottom-up (cooperative) and top-down projects (’gr
Amendment 352 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 353 #
Motion for a resolution 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 facilitated; in this respect, believes that the smart specialisation concept in the Regional Policy can foster the uptake of these bottom-up projects;
Amendment 354 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Calls for a balance to be kept between bottom-up (cooperative) and top-down
Amendment 355 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Calls for a balance to be kept between bottom-up (cooperative like the current FET-open scheme) and top-down projects (
Amendment 356 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Calls for a balance to be kept between bottom-up
Amendment 357 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Calls for a balance to be kept between bottom-up
Amendment 358 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Takes the view that priority should be given to public-private partnerships (PPPs), as established in the Recovery Plan, in preference to JTIs (Joint Technology Initiatives); recommends offering a specific common framework for all PPPs, with clear, simplified common conditions, clearly separating the role of the private sector and the public sector; proposes that the cooperation programme should include selected industrial research activities through PPPs operating under a common umbrella;
Amendment 359 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Reminds that the balance between bottom-up and top-down projects would enable the maintenance both of curiosity- driven research (also open to the unexpected) and the definition of key political priorities such as research and innovation dedicated to the sea and to sustainable agriculture and fisheries, thus creating the conditions to combine strategic priorities with emerging problems;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) Ga. whereas national and regional authorities adopt different strategies, which gives rise duplication of effort, which in turn generates increased expenditure and fragmentation,
Amendment 360 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Is in favour of small and medium- sized projects forming the focus of future research funding; believes that small and medium-sized projects are easier and less costly for universities and SMEs to manage; small and medium-sized projects will also enable the hitherto unsatisfactory success rates of applications to be increased;
Amendment 361 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Believes that the programmes should be opened up to international partners; highlights that the basic principle should be that all programmes should be open for financing also of foreign groupings (given specific competencies); rejects the notion that the Commission would be better placed than researchers to determine the choice of cooperation partners;
Amendment 362 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. To ensure coherence and improved impact of the CSF, believes that supporting policies outside the R&D framework, such as public procurement, balanced IP management and licensing models and lead market initiatives, should be developed in specific sectors so as to enable the development of new business models and to act as real drivers for innovation;
Amendment 363 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Draws attention to the potential of security research for the security of citizens, infrastructure and utilities; underlines, therefore, the need for an independent and reinforced security theme within the CSF;
Amendment 364 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the links between education, business, research and innovation, and to place greater emphasis on the education/technology transfer component;
Amendment 365 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 b (new) Amendment 366 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 b (new) 27b. Believes that, when certain societal needs are not being met by our present innovation models, new public licensing schemes and innovation inducement prizes can be used to focus research in these areas and to assure the efficacy of public expenditure; calls on the Commission to launch as soon as possible a pilot initiative for inducement prizes in the medical sector;
Amendment 367 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 b (new) 27b. Calls for a coherent coverage of the full R&D&I chain though the implementation of transparency rules and a clear coordination between the different Commission DGs dealing with research and innovation funding;
Amendment 368 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 c (new) 27c. Stresses that NGOs and other organizations or institutions from the civil society, mainly cultural organizations, should be considered as possible partners for research and innovation projects;
Amendment 369 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Calls for an intensification of international cooperation
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas
Amendment 370 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Calls for an intensification of international cooperation
Amendment 371 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Calls for an intensification of international cooperation through effective reinforcement of capacity building
Amendment 372 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Calls for an intensification of international cooperation on a reciprocal basis and taking due account of Intellectual Property Rights through effective reinforcement of capacity building and the establishment of fair partnerships with developing countries in order better to tackle global challenges;
Amendment 373 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Calls for an intensification of international cooperation on a reciprocal basis and taking due account of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) through effective reinforcement of capacity building and the establishment of fair partnerships with developing countries in order better to tackle global challenges;
Amendment 374 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Calls for an intensification of international cooperation through effective reinforcement of capacity building and the
Amendment 375 #
Motion for a resolution 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 challenges, to help develop their own research and to reap the benefits of research;
Amendment 376 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Calls for an intensification of international cooperation through effective reinforcement of capacity building and the establishment of fair and comprehensive partnerships with developing countries in order better to tackle global challenges;
Amendment 377 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Calls for an intensification of international cooperation where appropriate through effective reinforcement of capacity building and the establishment of fair partnerships with developing countries in order better to tackle global challenges;
Amendment 378 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Noting the importance of security research, not only to enhance the defence capacities, but also to strengthen scientific and technological advances in this area, proposes that the Union, the Member States and the European Defence Agency will elaborate a future European research plan for technology and defence on the basis of Article 45(1)(d) of the EU Treaty, with a view to enhancing the industrial and technological base of the defence sector while at the same time improving the efficiency of military public spending; calls in the mean time for dual-use technologies to be promoted;
Amendment 379 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Stresses that the next framework program must within its main scope to a greater extent than the previous framework be an attractive funding mechanism for private and public sector actors, which are also the main users and responsible for translating the knowledge produced into actual products and services;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the great importance of SMEs for the EU economy and employment is not mirrored in their level of
Amendment 380 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Stresses the need for continued investment in and accelerated research on the development of tools to tackle poverty related and neglected diseases and the need to continue to build national research capacity and to ensure affordable access to the results of the research, especially in developing countries;
Amendment 381 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Stresses that the co-financing mechanism should not be to the detriment of universities and research institutions, where a lack of adequate own resources can lead to a severely limiting of financing for small and medium-sized projects of merit in favour of only large consortia projects;
Amendment 382 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Considers that cooperation with third countries in the domain of research with possible dual use should be avoided with any country that does not respect human rights, UN resolutions and international law;
Amendment 383 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) Amendment 384 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 b (new) 28b. Underlines that the overriding aim of the Framework Programme must be to contribute to the European Union becoming the world’s leading research area, which requires the Framework Programme to be strongly focused on promoting and investing in world-class research; believes therefore that it is imperative that the implementation of the specific programmes is based upon the principles of scientific excellence rather than other priorities, since only by creating state-of-the-art research it is possible for the EU to become the world’s leading research area;
Amendment 385 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 b (new) 28b. Notes that, in order to allow all researchers to take part in CSF projects, CSF administrative rules covering contracting procedures should take into account the different national rules on universities and research centres' employment which may limit cooperation with private institutions and companies;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution 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 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas, based on the budget review, the European Commission has decided to launch a debate to
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Criticises that the Green Paper: From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding is gender blind and gender mainstreaming is not taken adequately into account;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) Ha. whereas a change should be reflected in the CSF in terms of priorities areas and allocated budgets, to match EU's ambition in meeting the major societal challenges such as climate change, energy and resource efficiency; whereas funds allocated to research in the field of sustainable energy represent today the smallest share of the whole framework programme, which is at odds with EU’s objectives in this area,
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) Ha. whereas global social challenges call for global solutions, which should include making good use of the existing platforms for cooperation involving partners from all the Member States and the creation of new ones; whereas better integration of the transnational research system and instruments for SMEs will be of fundamental importance in meeting those challenges,
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) Ha. whereas, in the light of the global crisis, there is a need for a paradigm shift in EU research from a rigid topic-based approach to a focus on the major societal challenges facing the world,
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) Ha. whereas under the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy research and innovation are a key factor in intelligent, sustainable and compassionate growth,
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) Ha. whereas FP7 should be modelled on the same general principles as ERA,
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H b (new) Hb. whereas poverty-related and neglected diseases hamper economic development, especially in developing countries; whereas the diseases affect more than a billion people and cause millions of deaths every year,
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the European Commission Green Paper defining a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for funding in research and innovation, and considers that the new CSF core should be the articulation of the EU research programmes and funding schemes; considers, however, that under no circumstances should such a structure lead to university-level science being placed at a disadvantage compared to other actors in the competition for increasingly scarce subsidies;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the European Commission Green Paper defining a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for funding in research and innovation, and considers that the new CSF core should be the articulation of the EU research programmes and funding schemes; this should be via a system- based approach that aims to integrate objectives, stakeholders, strategies and instruments;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the European Commission Green Paper defining a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for funding in research and innovation, and considers that the new CSF core should be the articulation of
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the European Commission Green Paper defining a Common Strategic
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas, based on the budget review, the European Commission has decided to launch a debate to improve the efficiency of research and innovation funding at regional, national and EU levels,
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the European Commission to implement gender
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the European Commission Green Paper defining a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for funding in research and innovation, and considers that the new CSF core should be the articulation of the EU and Member States’ research programmes and funding schemes;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls for a concerted public and private effort at European and national levels to reach the Europe 2020 target of 3 % of gross domestic product (GDP) expenditure on R&D, to achieve the creation of the European Research Area and of an ‘Innovation Union’; calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to agree without further delay on a specific roadmap for achieving this target, and points to the massive economic commitment that this target would entail, amounting to around 130 billion Euro annually for both the EU and national budgets and twice as much for the private sector;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Welcomes the Innovation Union flagship initiative, which advocates an integrated strategic approach to research and innovation and establishes the framework and objectives to which future EU research and innovation programmes should contribute;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that a strong link needs to be forged between the common strategic framework and the ‘New skills and jobs’ flagship initiative, so as to exploit the job creation potential of the framework programme;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that EU research and innovation funds and programmes and the Structural and Cohesion Funds have different aims
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that enhanced synergies should be developed between EU research funds and programmes and the Structural and Cohesion Funds
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that EU research funds and programmes and the Structural and Cohesion Funds have different aims and, as such, should be kept separate, although on a complementary basis; they should also have synergistic goals, such as the promotion of excellence and of relations between academia, public research centres and industry in the various regions;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that EU research funds and programmes and the Structural and Cohesion Funds have different aims and, as such, should be kept separate, although on a complementary basis; urges that they be coordinated in a clearer and more systematic fashion in order to encourage 'smart specialisation' on the regions' part;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that EU research funds and programmes and the Structural and Cohesion Funds have different aims and, as such, should be kept separate, although on a complementary basis and synergies between them need to be identified;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that EU research funds and programmes and the Structural and Cohesion Funds have different aims and, as such, should be kept separate, although on a flexible and complementary basis;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the EU has established the objective of increasing spending on R&D to reach 3 % of EU GDP by 2020, however the overriding objective is to stimulate innovation and growth and to meet Europe's societal challenges, in particular stimulating and encouraging private investment in R&D,
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Commission to step up international cooperation and to promote the role of women in this connection;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that EU research funds and programmes and the Structural and Cohesion Funds have different aims and, as such, should be kept separate, although on a complementary basis where appropriate;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution 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 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Underlines the capacity of the regions to establish a dialogue by building networks of excellence and calls on the Commission to consider the added value of research projects which have received the support of regional governments;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution 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 66 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Draws attention to the importance of
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution 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, on the basis of their respective strengths and value they could bring to the EU, 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;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the EU has established the objective of increasing spending on R&D to reach 3 % of EU GDP by 2020, and whereas this objective requires increased public spending in research and science in order to attract more private investment for R&D in the European Union,
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on universities and research institutions to implement equality strategies and to enable women's participation in scientific disciplines;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution 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 economically weaker and socially more vulnerable and 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;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Draws attention to the importance of maintaining convergence policies, and asks the Commission to
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Draws attention to the importance of maintaining convergence policies, and asks the Commission to build stairways to excellence, according to effective and clear criteria, 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;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution 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 indicators and 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;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Commission to complement its annual and multiannual work programmes with ex-ante assessments that estimate the territorial impact of the various research and innovation topics that could obtain funding, in order to ensure greater geographical balance with regard to access to funding;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Asks the Commission to support transnational R&D and Innovation activities, combining the goals of Cohesion Policy and scientific excellence; believes that this synergy could represent a booster to accelerate the bridging of the gap between least developed and more developed regions in the scientific field;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes that strong infrastructure increases the competitiveness of the member states and regions and thereof possibilities to participate in the EU research funds and programmes;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Stresses the role of the regions and of major regional clusters in the development and implementation of European research programmes, also in view of their strong links to local businesses, services and research and training centres;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Β B. whereas the EU has established the objective of increasing spending on R&D to reach 3 % of EU GDP by 2020,
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Stresses the need to make the best use of supply chains, districts and highly specialised business networks that help to promote European excellence both within and outside the European Union and to encourage the formation of new industrial clusters;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that although excellence is considered the main general criterion for funding, it must be borne in mind that
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that although excellence is considered one of the main general criteri
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that although excellence is considered the
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas the European Parliament in its resolution of 8 June 2011 on "Investing in the Future: A New Multiannual Financial Framework" has called for a significant increase of public spending on research and science,
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the European Commission for setting gender indicators concerning the participation of women in EU funded research;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Takes the view that scientific excellence is the most important criterion for allocating competitive funding for research; however, acknowledges that the use made to date of structural funds for R&D has not yet produced enough satisfactory results in closing the research and innovation performance gap among Member States, highlights the importance of succeeding in this objective in order to avoid a two-speed European economy; is of the opinion that renewed approaches are necessary at European level to enhance R&D competitiveness in underperforming Member States; believes that the potential for European programmes to build up excellence across Europe by taking advantage of the learning opportunity offered by leading European R&D institutions has not yet been fully explored; calls on increased programme capacity for trans-national researcher training; stresses the need for new approaches to enable trans-national twinning arrangements among Universities and Research Organizations, envisaging institutional mutual learning on governance mechanisms, human resources and IPR policies, funding, education, research and innovation organizational schemes, and business and societal involvement;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points out that innovation is a fundamental component of the knowledge triangle (education-research-innovation), so any attempt to strengthen it is inextricably linked to strengthening the other parameters and requires a coherent and balanced policy towards creating a European knowledge-based society;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Criticises the lack of transparency and information on future calls for proposals for research projects; notes that this results in researchers and institutes being unable to prepare themselves fully and in time; calls on the Commission and the Member States to inform the various actors more effectively about access to the framework programme;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that in order to reach excellence and enhance European competiveness, the best and most excellent research and innovation communities in Europe must be encouraged to collaborate with the best research communities outside of Europe; believes that opening up the future CSF should primarily be based on a reciprocity principle, allowing participation on equal terms in programmes and activities of high mutual interest;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses the need to promote an approach to help turn research into innovation, focusing attention, amongst other things, on the various stages of the innovation chain: research, development, demonstration, dissemination and technology transfer;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points out the importance of joint technological initiatives such as the IMI in furthering scientific knowledge in Europe;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Bearing in mind the target of funding research and development with 3% of GDP by 2020, and recognizing that research and innovation are the only sure road to the economic recovery of the EU, urges the Commission to consider setting a binding interim minimum percentage for funding research and technological development for Member States at approximately 1% of GDP by 2015;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Is convinced that, in the future, unilateral opening of the CSF should also be considered when in line with European interests and when impact depends on the participation of third country actors; believes, furthermore that in order to tackle Grand challenges, the future CSF should facilitate a structure for global strategy processes and priority setting also engaging non European actors;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Calls for Commission participation in the evaluation of research and innovation proposals and programmes financed by the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund in those Member States which lag behind as regards national research funding, so as to ensure the application of common standards and objectives and the meritocratic evaluation and best possible utilization of these funds;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Underlines that FP8 must aim for research and structures enabling the creation of a European global research area;
source: PE-467.207
2011/06/22
IMCO
84 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Calls for the Common Strategic Framework to promote coordination between research and innovation programmes and the cohesion funds; considers that consistency between the Common Strategic Framework and industrial policy is also of great importance;
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 a (new) -1a. Emphasises that 70 million members of the EU’s population are dependent on the fisheries sector; in that connection, calls on the Member States to encourage research and development activities with the aim of developing a more competitive, sustainable and up-to-date fisheries sector;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Is concerned about the administrative burdens that current rules generate, resulting in a lack of attractiveness of EU research and innovation programmes for universities, research centres and industry, particularly for SMEs; points out the need for a balance between expenditure control and the red tape that this generates; calls on the Commission to look into the possibilities for further simplifying procedures and for introducing lighter reporting obligations to achieve such a balance;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that specific budget allocations for calls for proposals within the new Framework Programme and actions deriving from it would help to combat many of the sector’s weaknesses and would also help build a stronger position for fisheries researchers
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls for the Common Strategic Framework to proceed to an administrative simplification through the development of a more standardised set of rules covering all participants in EU research and innovation programmes; agrees with the Commission that European standards are an important step towards bringing research results to the market and for the validation of technologies and that they can play this key role only if they keep pace with the development of technologies and ever faster product development cycles;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that specific budget allocations for calls for proposals within the new Framework Programme and
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Believes that, in order to ensure European competitiveness at global level, urgent improvements are needed in order to resolve outstanding issues such as intellectual property rights and in particular the community patent, European standardisation, public procurement and access to private finance, amongst others;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes that cooperation between EU scientific teams and their counterparts outside the Community is the cornerstone for a clearer vision of the state of fisheries resources and the marine ecosystem; considers it vital for the EU to provide funding for this type of cooperation;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the importance of promoting the establishment of public-private partnerships; calls for JTIs to be simplified in order to avoid channelling a large amount of financial resources into just a few projects, and calls for the state aid rules to be
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Welcomes the fact that the Green Paper stresses the need for research that will improve innovation capacity and competitiveness, which, in coordination with the measures envisaged in the EFF, may open up new possibilities for fishing businesses to invest in the development of new, more sustainable fishing techniques, such as new gear, vessels which are less polluting, safer and more comfortable, and measures designed to upgrade the use and value of fish products;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the importance of promoting the establishment of public-private partnerships; calls for JTIs to be simplified in order to avoid channelling a large amount of financial resources into just a few projects, and calls for the state aid rules to be simplified by means of mechanisms such as
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses that serious gaps remain in our knowledge of the state of marine ecosystems and fishery resources, making it necessary to intensify research efforts in this field;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the importance of promoting the establishment of public-private partnerships; calls for JTIs to be simplified in order to avoid channelling a large amount of financial resources into just a few projects, and calls for the state aid rules to be simplified
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Considers that there is a need for more effective coordination between the research framework programmes and the European Fisheries Fund instruments and with other European programmes;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses the importance of supporting innovation in public procurement, for example by developing pre-commercial procurement and by ensuring that contracting authorities respect the confidentiality of innovative solutions – especially in terms of know-how – presented by tendering companies; therefore calls for a proactive policy for support and training and for legal certainty for public authorities looking to choose innovative solutions;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes it will be crucial to EU competitiveness to increase the participation of enterprises in the next Framework Programme; is of the opinion that entrepreneurs, especially owners of micro- and small enterprises such as small- scale coastal fishing enterprises, might be encouraged to participate in European programmes by the establishment of a greater simplified, less bureaucratic, more transparent and easily accessible system; believes that fishermen's organisations and Regional Advisory Councils should also be able to apply for small, practically oriented projects;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3α. Considers it essential that the rules on public procurement be revised so that they will promote innovative action and SMEs; notes in this context the role that pre- commercial procurement can play in reinforcing innovation;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes it will be crucial to EU competitiveness to increase the participation of enterprises in the next Framework Programme; is of the opinion that entrepreneurs, especially owners of
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls for unleashing the public sector’s purchasing power to spur innovation through public procurement including pre-commercial procurement that can enable public authorities to share the risks and benefits with suppliers, without involving state aid;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes it will be crucial to EU competitiveness to increase the participation of enterprises in the next Framework Programme; is of the opinion that entrepreneurs, especially owners of micro- and small enterprises such as small- scale coastal fishing enterprises, might be encouraged to participate in European programmes by the establishment of a transparent and easily accessible system; suggests exploring the possibilities for creating poles, as pooled activity guarantees innovation, competitiveness and development in the sector; believes that fishermen’s organisations and Regional Advisory Councils should also be able to apply for small, practically oriented projects; considers it necessary to promote cooperation between fishing areas to share best practice and knowledge;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes it will be crucial to EU competitiveness to increase the participation of enterprises in the next Framework Programme; is of the opinion that entrepreneurs, especially owners of micro- and small enterprises such as small- scale coastal fishing enterprises, might be encouraged to participate in European programmes by the establishment of a transparent and easily accessible system; believes that civil society bodies, such as fishermen’s organisations and Regional Advisory Councils, should also be able to apply for small, practically oriented projects;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Calls for the Common Strategic Framework to promote coordination between research and innovation programmes and the cohesion funds, without depriving the latter of resources;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that consolidated community policies such as agriculture and fisheries, which form the basis of the EU’s economy, particularly on the periphery of the Union, require appropriate and targeted scientific support
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Considers that financing under the common strategic framework contributes to the development of a ‘value-added Europe’ and calls for innovative financing instruments such as eurobonds to be used for carrying out research projects or innovative projects which will have a positive impact on the real economy, stimulating competitiveness, growth and employment but also economic, social and regional cohesion;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Believes that unless access to EU funding is made easier and more flexible, under strict conditions, and administrative obstacles are significantly reduced, there is a risk of that money continuing to go unused and of it not contributing towards a more sustainable EU fisheries sector;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Underlines the need for the intellectual property rights to guarantee a balance between exploitation and technology transfer and access to and rapid dissemination of scientific results;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that framework investigation programmes are primarily focused on fundamental investigation, which requires research programmes provided with specific funds for fisheries and aquaculture research in order to sustain the sector and the environmental and sanitation conditions of the fisheries products introduced into the food chain; considers that more funds should be allocated to financing fisheries research.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Is convinced that public spending allocated to research must be subject to qualitative assessment as part of the calculation of public expenditure when the mid-term budgetary objectives are evaluated;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points out that the purpose of reforming the Common Fisheries Policy is to ensure the sustainability of fishing practices, so there is a need to fund research into the development of new technologies aimed, for example, at making fishing vessels more selective or reducing fuel consumption by their engines.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Takes the view that current financing instruments for research and innovation in the EU are not satisfactorily tailored to research needs in the fisheries and aquaculture sector; stresses that a complete response to the challenges and needs facing the sector requires adapting these instruments in such a way as to take account of its specific features, notably in the field of applied research;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Takes the view that the Commission should allocate part of the research budget to SMEs
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses the importance of the exchange of best practice, correct and effective implementation by businesses and the dissemination of research results; considers that both the stakeholders directly involved and the public at large should be better informed about the research programmes launched and the results they produce.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Takes the view that the Commission should improve access to finance and allocate part of the research budget to SMEs run by young people and businesswomen, rewarding the establishment of networks or clusters;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Recognises the importance of establishing a strong base for EU cooperation efforts in the context of the ‘Innovation Union’, which is one of the flagship initiatives under the Europe 2020 Strategy, so as to enable a sustainable structured framework to be created for the development of research and innovation in the field of fisheries, with the aim of enhancing understanding of the marine ecosystem and encouraging selective fishing;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Takes the view that the Commission should allocate part of the research budget to SMEs run by young people and businesswomen, rewarding the establishment of networks or clusters, and that the Member States must ensure that information reaches SMEs by all means possible;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points to the pressing need to fill knowledge gaps in fundamental datasets, such as stock assessments on a large number of target species, since without such data there can be no proper regulation of these fisheries; further recognizes that in order to apply the ecosystem approach much more scientific data on both target and non target species is needed, including deep-sea species which today remain to a large extent unmonitored.
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Takes the view that the Commission should allocate part of the research budget to small players, small research institutions, small and micro research companies and SMEs run by young people and businesswomen, rewarding the establishment of networks or clusters;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Stresses that, given its current state of development, the potential and limitations of aquaculture require increased R&D activities in this field so that its potential can be better exploited and its limitations overcome; takes the view that the sustainable development of European aquaculture demands substantial support for scientific research and technological development for the purpose of farming native species, so as to enable production and the supply of foodstuffs to be diversified and their quality improved while also making for greater environmental security;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Reiterates that there are still many SMEs which carry out minimal or no research activities, therefore is of the opinion that the European Commission and Member States should recognise the importance of SMEs in boosting innovation in Europe by further simplifying research and innovation programmes, developing more standardised rules and procedures and making research programmes more accessible for all types of small and micro businesses in EU; Takes the view that the Commission should allocate part of the research budget to SMEs run by young people and businesswomen, rewarding the establishment of networks or clusters;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Believes that all the decisions and policies adopted by the EU need to be based on firm scientific grounds; considers, in this connection, that the stepping-up of research activities will contribute towards a better assessment of the state of fisheries resources and better management of the EU fisheries sector;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for new methods of financing to be tested, such as vouchers for EU innovation, which would allow businesses to spend those resources directly at accredited research centres; such vouchers should not be subject to cost reporting because their use would be certified by the centres where the vouchers are spent. The accreditation centres could be set up on a national or regional basis and validated by a European body such as, for example, the JRC;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Considers that sufficient funding should be available for inter-disciplinary research in the fisheries and other maritime sectors to operationalise the ecosystem approach in the decision making process regarding the management of marine activities.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that consolidated community policies such as agriculture and fisheries, which form the basis of the EU’s economy, require appropriate and targeted scientific support. Stresses that traditional ways of solving sector-specific problems such as environmental impact, provision of feed, health control and integration in coastal zones have long since ceased to be the primary and most important sources of solutions; recommends that the financial framework enable the funding, under the European Fisheries Fund, of facilities and scientific research equipment in the field of fisheries;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Is of the view that assistance for patenting should be given to innovative young enterprises, particularly with the establishment of the Community Patent;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Considers that the development of the fleet also needs to be encouraged, in order to establish sustainable fisheries and favourable conditions for small-scale fishing, which is why the new financial framework must focus on research and innovation in this area;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recommends that participation in the projects by venture capital funds and non- EU entities be rewarded; is of the opinion that investment by venture capital funds in early-stage ‘proof of concept’ projects should be encouraged;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Underlines the need to simplify procedures and to ensure that the scheme features flexible mechanisms in order to keep up with the speed of global change and to enable policy priorities to be updated;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 d (new) 4d. Notes that the European fishing industry is closely dependent on research; in this connection, initiatives such as the European Fisheries Technological Platform can be suitable instruments for encouraging the transition from a high-expenditure sector to a much more competitive, sustainable and up-to-date one, with a view to embracing all current and future projects in the field of fisheries and bolstering EU fishery capacities;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses the importance of a partnership between universities, research institutes and industry in order to concentrate research and innovation projects on relevant projects and to facilitate market uptake;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 d (new) 4d. Recognises that the difference in slaughtering methods between terrestrial farm animals and marine/aquatic animals are significant; believes that research and innovation to develop more humane catching and slaughtering methods at sea, is needed.
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Taking into account the fact that the EU is the largest market in the world and that the world economy is becoming more and more knowledge-intensive, the different EU instruments for research and innovation should constantly adapt and respond to market developments, taking into account the consumer perspective;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 e (new) 4e. Supports participatory research with social stakeholders, as developed in the Science-In-Society / Mutual-Mobilisation & Learning (SIS-MML) programme, with a view to enshrine science in society.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Underlines the importance of enhancing the mobility of researchers, namely by facilitating the mutual recognition of their professional qualifications in order to create a genuine European research area;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 f (new) 4f. Notes that the use of structural funds to invest in research infrastructures, contributes to bridge the scientific capacity gap between Member States and improve the participation of some MS and regions in Community research programmes.
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Recalls that investment in innovation makes sense only if the solutions and trade marks are properly protected and safeguarded at both intra-Community and extra-Community level; calls therefore for customs cooperation policy and consumer information to be improved and to be given increased human and material resources;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 g (new) 4g. Notes that the sustainability of primary food production and other marine activities in shared seas (Mediterranean, Black Sea, Baltic) depends on concerted approaches with neighbouring countries; stresses the need for a stronger scientific capacity building in neighbouring countries, based on a better coordination of the Common Strategic Framework with EU neighbourhood policy instruments.
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Regrets that academic professionals still encounter obstacles to the free movement of workers such as problems with pension portability; stresses the need for developing a system which actively encourages the mobility of researchers and scientists between European universities and academic centres; underlines that this would stimulate sharing knowledge and would be highly beneficial to innovation and to the emergence of a European knowledge- based economy;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls for capacity-building measures, such as the research potential programme, to be broadened by extending eligibility also to cover regions with low R&D intensity, as well as economically weak or geographically remote or peripheral regions of the EU;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Proposes that the Commission should find concrete benchmarks to measure innovation performance and progress for all the different EU instruments of research and innovation; believes that enhancing the dissemination of information and the results achieved from different funding programmes and projects is needed to improve understanding of the innovation process and to reduce the gap between European citizens and scientific and technological development;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1α. Regards synergies between national administrations (at all levels), universities and research institutes, companies and SMEs and civil society as essential to the successful alignment of research and society’s needs;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers it vital that one of the Green Paper's objectives should be achieved, i.e. the future EU budget must focus on instruments with 'added value' and become 'more results-driven'; takes the view that, even though excellence is a fundamental criterion in science, there are some sectors such as fisheries in which applied research is unavoidable in order to define and apply management measures; points out that the objectives of the new CFP, based on the ecosystem approach and maximum sustainable yield, require multidisciplinary and on-the-spot knowledge and assessments which make it possible to draw speedy conclusions on which innumerable business decisions, jobs and marine ecosystem measures depend;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to improve framework conditions for business to innovate, in particular with respect to intellectual property rights and the adoption of the EU patent;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Calls for the simplification and streamlining of rules and procedures in the ERA landscape, given the existence of numerous instruments;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 c (new) Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 c (new) 8c. Believes that future funding programmes for research and innovation should emphasise innovation activities, including non-technological innovation;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 d (new) 8d. Recommends that the European Institute of Technology should be fully integrated into the Common Strategic Framework, with the objective of building a European centre of excellence for enterprise and industry which can compete with global academic players in nurturing and promoting EU innovation skills and competitiveness while addressing the brain drain question, attracting international talent and investing in the knowledge growth economy;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 e (new) 8e. Recalls that the 3% of GDP R&D target is composed of a 2 % (private) and 1 % (public expenditure) share; notes that there are still particular shortcomings in the field of private research spending which can only be overcome by adapting the regulatory environment for companies, including SMEs; supports in particular the Commission’s work to develop a new headline indicator based on the service delivery of innovation as this would be more informative than measuring performance against numerical targets;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 f (new) 8f. Stresses the need to enhance, stimulate and secure the financing of research, development and innovation in the EU; stresses in particular the need for SMEs and micro-enterprises to have access to affordable finance by increasing the scope for participation in different innovative projects; urges the Commission to take appropriate steps to improve the functioning of the EU’s funding programmes by rewarding enterprises that promote innovative projects; regrets in particular the lack of funding for crucial instruments for research, innovation and development that have already been adopted, such as the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan);
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 g (new) 8g. Stresses the importance of alternative sources of financing for innovative enterprises engaged in research and development, in particular for the financing of projects targeted at bringing the results of R&D to market in collaboration with universities and academic centres; supports in particular the creation of pan-European venture capital instruments, bringing together public and private investment, to create a more effective funding environment for high-growth and innovative SMEs, and encourages the Commission to work with the EIB, EIF and Member State expert bodies to take this work forwards as a priority;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 h (new) 8h. Welcomes the EU Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programme to identify technology-oriented public sector challenges and fund R&D projects to develop new solutions to both old and emerging problems;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Is convinced that investments in research, innovation and education are key elements towards achieving a highly competitive social market economy in Europe; endorses the fact that the re- launch of the single market should open new horizons in the research and innovation sector with an emphasis on knowledge and technology, which constitute a driving force for the future economic development of a competitive service-based society;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Emphasises that, on top of the need for sufficient and reliable scientific data, multi-dimensional cross-sectoral research should also be carried out into both the sustainability and viability of marine ecosystems and the welfare of the fisheries sector;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Underlines the role which standardisation might play in the promotion of research and innovation by contributing to competitiveness and offering consumers greater security; therefore calls for the importance given to standardisation to be one of the project assessment criteria;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Hopes, in this context, that the Green Paper will mark a change in current scientific policy in relation to fisheries, since the pure pursuit of excellence in this sector has resulted in the abandonment of key chapters such as knowledge of species and their behaviour from the perspective of their utilisation by fleets and their relationship with management measures, and has led many scientists to move away from applied fisheries research and young researchers to reject this field, causing serious shortages of specialised staff at a time when they were most needed, given the state of stocks;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Believes that innovation and creativity are essential to economic recovery and that the importance of converting the Union’s scientific and technological breakthroughs into new goods and services cannot be underestimated; expects that sufficient funds and new investments should be allocated in order to create a genuine single market for knowledge, attracting more innovative- friendly businesses and entrepreneurs, creating new high added value jobs and addressing major societal challenges;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that, given the many and varied research opportunities in the fisheries sector, such as oceanography, living marine resources, aquaculture, marine biology and genetics and inland waterways, specific budget allocations for calls for proposals within the new Framework Programme and actions deriving from it would help to combat many of the sector’s weaknesses and shortcomings and would also help build a stronger position for fisheries and aquaculture researchers
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the importance of establishing networks of excellence and of integrating EU policies and the strategies launched by the Member States, by strengthening the role of regional and local governments; takes the view that pooling of Member States’ financial resources allocated to research and innovation would bring more added value in terms of results, namely by opening new opportunities for financing large strategic projects;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that specific budget allocations for calls for proposals within the new Framework Programme and actions deriving from it would help to combat many of the sector’s weaknesses and would also help build a stronger position for fisheries researchers. Stresses also that building a strong research base would help to further develop a sustainable fisheries and aquaculture sector; calls for the new financial framework to provide support for research and innovation with the aim of stimulating the aquaculture sector and making it more competitive, sustainable and stable and better equipped to meet environmental challenges, in order to ensure the independence of the European fisheries sector vis-à-vis the rest of the world;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the importance of establishing networks of excellence and of integrating, where appropriate, EU policies and the strategies launched by the Member States, by strengthening the role of regional and local governments;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that specific budget allocations for calls for proposals within the new Framework Programme and actions deriving from it would help to combat many of the sector's weaknesses and would also help build a stronger position for fisheries researchers. Stresses also that building a strong research base, both at a European level and in Member States, would help to further develop a sustainable fisheries and aquaculture sector;
source: PE-467.031
2011/06/24
REGI
73 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses that greater coordination is needed between the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for regional policy and the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for research and innovation programmes; calls on the Commission to
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. In the light of the future gearing of cohesion policy to the Europe 2020 Strategy, calls for the ‘innovation’ priority to be binding on
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. In the light of the future gearing of cohesion policy to the Europe 2020 Strategy, calls for the ‘innovation’ priority to be binding on the regions, which must also be reflected in the funding allocated, believes that this is how the widely supported Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth based on research and innovation, as key drivers of social and economic prosperity and sustainable development, will be achieved;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. In the light of the future gearing of cohesion policy to the Europe 2020 Strategy, calls for the ‘innovation’ priority among others to be binding on the regions, which must also be reflected in the funding allocated;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. In the light of the future gearing of
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Commission to propose, alternatively, further incentives for the use of Structural Fund subsidies in the field of innovation;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Considers that the regions should act as a testing ground for the work of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology and the ‘living labs’, and that local and regional authorities should consequently invest more in regional development and play an active part in implementing policy on science, technology and innovation;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the regions, in line with the ‘smart specialisation’ approach, to develop tailored innovation strategies;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the regions, in line with the ‘smart specialisation’ approach, to develop tailored innovation strategies which involve all stakeholders and can contribute to the creation of regional poles of excellence; stresses that territorial cooperation must be optimised with a view to greater complementarity between regions, the aim being to boost international competitiveness;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses that greater coordination is needed between the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for regional policy and the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for research and innovation programmes in order to strengthen the European innovation cycles; calls on the Commission to set out how this is to be achieved in practice; asks the Member States to pay attention to the implementation of these policies on national and regional level, especially when the responsibilities for different EU funds fall under different national ministries and authorities, in order to create better complementarity for the programmes;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the regions, in line with the ‘smart specialisation’ approach, to develop tailored innovation strategies; calls on the Commission therefore to encourage the EU’s research programmes and funds to coordinate with the Structural and Cohesion Funds; stresses that territorial cooperation must be optimised with a view to greater complementarity between regions;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the regions, in line with the ‘smart specialisation’ approach, to develop tailored innovation strategies that are based on regional competences and assets; stresses that territorial cooperation must be optimised with a view to greater complementarity between regions;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the regions, in line with the ‘smart specialisation’ approach, to develop tailored innovation strategies; stresses that territorial cooperation must be optimised with a view to greater complementarity between regions; advocates a ‘bottom-up’ approach to innovation at local level; stresses the need to develop partnerships between local and regional authorities and research centres with a view to identifying feasible development solutions; believes that local and regional authorities should be encouraged to innovate, notably via initiatives of the type ‘Regions of Knowledge’, ‘Living Labs’ and ‘Smart Cities’;
Amendment 23 #
Paragraphe 3 3. Calls on the regions, in line with the ‘smart specialisation’ approach, to develop tailored innovation strategies; stresses that territorial cooperation must be optimised with a view to greater complementarity between regions; believes that research and innovation should be better linked, that the EU needs to break away from traditional compartmentalised approaches and focus more on challenges and outcomes to be achieved, linking our research and innovation funding closer to our policy objectives, and that developing a simplified set of instruments and rules, while leaving room for flexibility where it is needed, is equally crucial;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the regions, in line with the ‘smart specialisation’ approach, to develop tailored innovation strategies; stresses that territorial cooperation must be optimised with a view to greater complementarity between regions; calls on the Member States to support such moves on the part of the regions and create the necessary framework for realising such strategies;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the regions, in line with the ‘smart specialisation’ approach, to develop tailored innovation strategies; stresses that territorial cooperation must be optimised with a view to greater complementarity between regions, calls in this regard for a better articulation and coordination between local, regional, national and European authorities;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the regions, in line with the ‘smart specialisation’ approach, to develop tailored innovation strategies; stresses that territorial cooperation must be optimised with a view to greater complementarity between regions and in the context of the environmental sustainability criteria;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Recommends at the same time that the regions candidly analyse, in particular, their strengths and weaknesses, and set realistic targets with a view to, on the one hand, developing current strengths (their comparative advantage) in order to establish strong, competitive international clusters and, on the other, to catching up with other regions, thus strengthening the regional economy;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls for a stronger intergovernmental participation of Joint Programming measures and under Interreg III B, which strengthens the cooperation in research, development and innovation throughout Europe, also with the view to increase participation and better involvement of new Member States in all European research programmes;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 а (new) 3а. Considers that research and innovation programmes make a considerable contribution to the cohesion policy, and stresses that opportunities for cross-border cooperation in this field should be further developed; stresses that macro-regional cooperation has a useful function with regard to finding common scientific, technological and innovative solutions to shared regional problems;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses that greater coordination is needed between the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for regional policy and the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for research and innovation programmes, reiterates that this coordinated action must strive to involve regional and local authorities more in the design and execution of these policies and to tailor the priorities more to the specific needs of each region; calls on the Commission to set out how this is to be achieved in practice;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Points out, however, that in addition to the individual regions’ interest in economic growth, the EU as a whole should be seen as an innovation area, which means that the regions should complement one another; therefore calls on the regions to work closely together in drawing up their research and innovation strategies; welcomes, in this regard, the assistance of the Commission, which can provide the regions with valuable pointers and should ensure that the strategies are of a high quality, without calling into question the principle of subsidiary;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Stresses that a fundamental requirement for such a synergy- generating, integrated strategy is for all authorities involved to be aware of all the funding possibilities; points out that awareness-raising in this regard is also financed from the Structural Funds;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Points out that innovation is a broad concept, which above all lies at the interface with practice and concerns products, processes and services as well as systems and organisational structures; recommends, therefore, as the necessary complement to excellence in technological research, placing the focus of regional support, on
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Points out that innovation above all lies at the interface with
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Points out that innovation above all lies at the interface with practice, as some 19/20 of innovations originate from interaction (demand and user based innovation, DUI); underlines for this reason, the increasing need for networks and connections for innovation, as they reinforce the importance of regional innovation systems; recommends, therefore, as the necessary complement to excellence in research, placing the focus of regional support on support for applications, without preventing research capacity from being built up, in order above all to enable companies to develop innovative methods;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Points out that innovation above all lies at the interface with practice; recommends, therefore, as the necessary complement to excellence in research, placing the focus of regional support on support for applications, without preventing research capacity from being built up, in order above all to enable companies to develop innovative methods; is aware of the gap between new knowledge in the research field and the act of putting it into practice at ground level; calls for concrete measures in the context of the regional policy instruments with a view to transforming the results of research into innovation, of such a nature as to be adaptable to the local and regional levels and applicable Europe-wide;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Points out that innovation above all lies at the interface with practice; recommends, therefore, as the necessary complement to excellence in research, placing the focus of regional support on support for applications, without preventing research capacity from being built up, in order above all to enable companies to develop innovative methods; advocates developing initiatives in fields having a practical applicability for the benefit of the community;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Points out that innovation above all lies at the interface with practice; recommends, therefore, as the necessary complement to
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Points out that innovation above all lies at the interface with practice; recommends, therefore, as the necessary complement to excellence in research, placing the focus of regional support on support for applications, without preventing research capacity from being built up, in order above all to enable companies, and especially SMEs, to develop innovative methods;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Points out that innovation above all lies at the interface with practice and the market; recommends, therefore, as the necessary complement to
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses the importance of cohesion policy in developing research and innovation in the regions; believes that greater coordination is needed between the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for regional policy and the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for research and innovation programmes; calls on the Commission to set out how this is to be achieved in practice;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. wishes to have an action plan for the ‘Stairway to Excellence’, for the realisation of Research Infrastructures, under the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF; to boost the participation in these countries to the next Common Framework Programme on Research and Innovation;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 а (new) 4а. Underscores the need for greater continuity in the financing of research projects and innovation, and for follow-up financing to disseminate the results of such projects and make them marketable; notes the importance, in this respect, of closer cooperation between the various European and national programmes and the Structural Funds;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses the need to establish the concept of the stairway to excellence, which must entail improving regional networks linking research institutes, universities, SMEs and other relevant stakeholders, so as to create clusters, regional technology platforms and centres of excellence, with a view to helping such networks take part in EU cooperation projects and programmes for research and innovation;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Reminds, that through the cohesion fund some 86 billion Euros, 25% of the whole cohesion budget, have been earmarked for Innovations; regrets that only a fraction of the allocations has been effectively used to this end; asks the Commission to analyse, whether the innovations (e.g. DUI) funded under the cohesion funds could be given a similar prestige as currently under framework programmes in order to make this funding more interesting and visible for the actors;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Believes that research and innovation play a fundamental role which creates a more sustainable urban development, promotes the wellbeing of the population and is based on environmental and social sustainability and energy efficiency; recommends therefore that regional aid promotes this goal;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls for enhanced priority funding to develop the knowledge triangle and ‘living labs’ concepts, given the importance of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology in implementing new concepts and in order to stimulate innovation at local and regional levels;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. In the light of the need to improve the extent to which SMEs are benefiting from support for research and innovation, considers that
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. In the light of the need to improve the extent to which SMEs are benefiting from support for research and innovation,
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. In the light of the need to improve the extent to which SMEs are benefiting from support for research and innovation, considers that this should be made a focus of cohesion policy,
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. In the light of the need to improve the extent to which SMEs are benefiting from support for research and innovation, considers that this should be made a focus of cohesion policy, for example in relation to
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses that greater coordination is needed between the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for regional policy and the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for research and innovation programmes, in line with the principles and objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and the ‘Innovation Union’ flagship initiative; calls on the Commission to set out how this is to be achieved in practice;
Amendment 50 #
Paragraphe 5 5.
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. In the light of the need to improve the extent to which SMEs are benefiting from support for research and innovation, considers that this should be made a focus of cohesion policy, for example in relation to internationalisation or promotion of entrepreneurship; believes that enterprises need to be encouraged to innovate on the basis of fuller use of the regional resources available to them; favours introducing ‘one-stop shop’ initiatives in the form of centres offering, under one roof, useful information to SMEs, universities, research centres, regional authorities and other potential beneficiaries of EU, national and local research and innovation funding;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. In the light of the need to improve the extent to which SMEs are benefiting from support for research and innovation, considers that this should be made a focus of cohesion policy, for example in relation to internationalisation or promotion of entrepreneurship, with the development of skills as the absolute priority and, as a horizontal priority, the reinforcement and dissemination of initiative capacity and entrepreneurship of various types;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. In the light of the need to improve the extent to which SMEs are benefiting from support for research and innovation, considers that this should be made a focus of cohesion policy, for example in relation to internationalisation or promotion of entrepreneurship, the encouragement of an innovation culture and technology transfer in respect of member bodies of the Scientific and Technological System;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. In the light of the need to improve the extent to which SMEs are benefiting from support for research and innovation, considers that this should be made a focus of cohesion policy, for example in relation to internationalisation or promotion of entrepreneurship; calls for greater flexibility in the funding programmes with a view to involving SMEs;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. In the light of the need to improve the extent to which SMEs are benefiting from support for research and innovation, considers that this should be made a focus of cohesion policy, for example in relation to internationalisation or promotion of entrepreneurship, stresses, in this regard, the need for KICs to focus more on SME participation;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. wishes to see the continuation and strengthening of the ‘Regions of Excellence’, in which the territorial dimension of Research and Development is fostered;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 а (new) 5а. Stresses that, in the interests of cohesion and of making Europe’s economy more competitive, measures – inter alia to simplify participation procedures and raise awareness – should be taken to improve access to research and innovation for SMEs, especially those located in underdeveloped, remote and rural regions;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Believes that the number of enterprises participating in the next framework programme should be higher; is of the opinion that the establishment of an accessible and transparent system would make it easier for project developers to take part in EU programmes;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses that greater coordination is needed, plus synergies, between the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for regional policy and the future ‘Common Strategic Framework’ for research and innovation programmes; calls on the Commission to set out how this is to be achieved in practice;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission, despite the differences in systems of governance, to aim to achieve
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission, despite the differences in systems of governance, to aim
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission, despite the differences in systems of governance, to aim to achieve maximum harmonisation of rules for the funding of programmes; considers that, in line with the existing general framework for budgetary adjustments, there should be a commitment to optimising funding by encouraging international coordination between national and regional funding agencies in order to develop a strategic research and innovation agenda approve at European level;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission, despite the differences in systems of governance, to aim to achieve maximum harmonisation of rules for the funding of programmes; recommends that the Commission take measures for the consolidation of the single market, and especially the digital single market, and finance large-scale R & D initiatives for implementing the results of research at global level;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission, despite the differences in systems of governance, to aim to achieve maximum harmonisation of rules for the funding of programmes; stresses that funding for research and innovation at national and EU levels needs to be more efficient and effective;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission, despite the differences in systems of governance, to aim to achieve maximum harmonisation of rules for the funding of programmes, on a basis of active participation and the involvement of all regions’ key socio- economic agents;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Considers the excessive administrative requirements to be a serious impediment to achieving cohesion policy objectives and therefore calls for the processing of grants and the monitoring systems to be greatly simplified;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the synergy between different instruments and funds and to develop a multi-fund approach, while respecting the specific conditions set out in the respective legislation;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recalls that research and innovation programmes should have a sufficient degree of flexibility to enable them to adapt to new frontiers and new challenges for knowledge, such as the sea-bed with its significant potential in the case of the Atlantic;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Emphasises that regional aid for innovation, research and entrepreneurship has, rightly, grown in significance over the decades; notes that, in the current programming period, around 25% of all Structural Fund monies have been spent on such aid, and considers that, in view of the EU 2020 objectives, this proportion should in any case be maintained – a strong and well- resourced regional policy already being a fundamental requirement in that regard; takes the view, moreover, that no effort must be spared to make the outflow of funds to the regions more efficient;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to examine whether it is appropriate to
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to examine
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls on the Commission for sustainable development to be reflected in the allocation of funds to create green jobs, to promote local and regional development and to ensure well-being in European regions; calls on the Commission to orient Research and Innovation towards ecological conversion;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls for a clear coordination between existing and new initiatives under the EU2020 strategy.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recalls, in this respect, the possibilities offered by regional policy for creating synergies ensuring the success of general research policies;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Points out that, at times when financial resources are scarce, it is crucial that funding is allocated to intelligently selected priorities in the regions so as to reach a critical mass;
source: PE-467.320
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
docs/0 |
|
docs/3 |
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/4/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-AD-465040_EN.html
|
docs/5 |
|
docs/6 |
|
docs/6 |
|
docs/6/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-AD-467030_EN.html
|
docs/7 |
|
docs/7 |
|
docs/7/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-464822_EN.html
|
docs/8 |
|
docs/8 |
|
docs/8/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/FEMM-AD-465037_EN.html
|
docs/9 |
|
docs/9/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/BUDG-AD-464899_EN.html
|
docs/11 |
|
docs/12 |
|
docs/12 |
|
docs/13 |
|
docs/13 |
|
docs/14 |
|
committees/0/rapporteur |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE464.836New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-PR-464836_EN.html |
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE467.207New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-AM-467207_EN.html |
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE467.208New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-AM-467208_EN.html |
docs/3/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE465.040&secondRef=02
|
docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE464.738&secondRef=03New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PECH-AD-464738_EN.html |
docs/5/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE467.030&secondRef=02
|
docs/6/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE464.822&secondRef=02
|
docs/7/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE465.037&secondRef=02
|
docs/8/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE464.899&secondRef=03
|
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0302_EN.htmlNew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0302_EN.html |
events/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0048/COM_COM(2011)0048_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0048/COM_COM(2011)0048_EN.pdf |
events/1/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/2/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/3 |
|
events/3 |
|
events/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110926&type=CRENew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2011-09-26-TOC_EN.html |
events/6 |
|
events/6 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 150
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 52
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/5 |
|
committees/5 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/12 |
|
committees/12 |
|
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-302&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0302_EN.html |
docs/10/body |
EC
|
events/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0048/COM_COM(2011)0048_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0048/COM_COM(2011)0048_EN.pdf |
events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-302&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0302_EN.html |
events/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-401New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0401_EN.html |
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/5 |
|
committees/5 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/9 |
|
committees/9 |
|
committees/10 |
|
committees/10 |
|
committees/11 |
|
committees/11 |
|
committees/12 |
|
committees/12 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
ITRE/7/05485New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 52
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52011DC0048:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52011DC0048:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0048/COM_COM(2011)0048_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0048/COM_COM(2011)0048_EN.pdf |
activities/1/committees/11/rapporteur/0/mepref |
4f1adc77b819f207b300011c
|
activities/1/committees/11/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
WAŁĘSA Jarosław LeszekNew
WAŁĘSA Jarosław |
activities/2/committees/11/rapporteur/0/mepref |
4f1adc77b819f207b300011c
|
activities/2/committees/11/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
WAŁĘSA Jarosław LeszekNew
WAŁĘSA Jarosław |
committees/11/rapporteur/0/mepref |
4f1adc77b819f207b300011c
|
committees/11/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
WAŁĘSA Jarosław LeszekNew
WAŁĘSA Jarosław |
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|