11 Amendments of Henna VIRKKUNEN related to 2016/2147(INI)
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Confirms that ‘excellence’ shouldmust in future too remain the key criterion across the three pillars, while noting that it is only; recalls that excellence is one of the three evaluation criteria, alongside ‘impact’ and ‘quality and efficiency of the implementation’; calls for the reweighting of these criteria and invites the Commission to set out additional sub- criteria by adding ‘SSH integration and geographical balance’ under ‘impact’ and ‘project size’ under ‘efficiency of the implementation’stresses that excellence should be a prime objective of the FP, so that the EU can respond to the challenges of the future and remain competitive;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to better define ‘impact’ more broadly; stresses that the assessment of the impact of fundamental research projects should remain flexible and its relative weight in the evaluation procedure should be decreased; asks the Commission to check that the balance between bottom-up and top-down calls is maintained and to analyse which procedure (one or two stage) is more useful to avoid oversubscription;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to continue to enhance the societal challenges approach and emphasises the importance of collaborative research; underlines the need to reinforce some societal challenges such as innovation in agriculture and health, especalls for societal challenge 6, ‘Europe in a changing world – inclusive, innovative and reflective societies’, of the funding programme on socially chancer and antimicrobial resistance research plansge to be retained;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that synergies between funds are crucial to make investments more effective; stresses that RIS3 are an important tool to catalyse synergies setting out national and regional frameworks for R&D&I investments; regrets the presence of substantial barriers to making synergies fully operational19 such as the State Aid rules; calls on the Commission to reviseassess the State Aid rules and to allow R&D structural fund projects to be justifiable within the FP rules of procedure; _________________ 19 Large research infrastructure fits within the scope and goals of the ERDF, but ERDF funds allocated nationally cannot be used to co-finance it; construction costs associated with new research infrastructures are eligible under the ERDF, but operational and staff costs are not.
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that the R&I capabilities of North/South and West/East Member States are very different; recognises the European dimension to the problem of the participation gap, which must be addressed by the FP if the EU is to exploit its full potential; welcomes, in this respect, the Widening Programme; calls on the Commission to assess whether the three Widening instruments have achieved their specific objectives and to clarify the rational and general goal of the Programme, to review the indicator used to define ‘underrepresented’ countries, and to keep a dynamic list that allows Member States to be in or out depending on how their capabilities evolve; calls on the Commission to adapt or adopt new measures to bridge this gap;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recognises the importance of incorporating research and entrepreneurship skills into Member States’ primary and high school education systems in order to encourage young people to develop these skills, as R&D should be viewed in structural rather than cyclical or temporal terms; calls on the Member States and the Commission to enhance employment stabilitypromote research careers for young researchers; calls on the Commission to provide new increased levels of support forfunding instruments for gifted young researchers, such as a new funding scheme for early-stage researchers with less than three years of experience after PhD completion;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Confirms that international co- operation fell from 5% in FP7 to 2.8% in Horizon 2020; recalls that the FP should contribute to ensuring that Europe remains a key global player, while underlining the importance of scientific diplomacy; calls for a strategic vision and structure to support this objective and welcomes initiatives such as BONUS and PRIMA;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that SSH integration means SSH research in interdisciplinary projects and not an ex-post add-on to otherwise technological projects, and that the most pressing problems faced by the EU require methodological research that is more conceptually focused on SSH; calls on the Commission either to introduce a minimum percentage dedicated to SSH funding, or to create an evaluation sub-criterion that takes account of its inclusion in projectssocial and humanist research should be included in multidisciplinary research projects where relevant;
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Underlines the need for new higher excellence centres and regions and the importance of continuing to develop the ERA; calls for policies to remove barriers such as lower salaries that are faced by Eastern and Southern countries in order to avoid brain drain, and for the excellence of the project to be prioritised over the excellence of ‘elite’ centreexcellence to be assigned priority and for better opportunities to be created for early exchanges of researchers and cooperation on projects;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Observes that the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions are a source of funding that is widely known among researchers, which promotes mobility of researchers and the development of young researchers; takes the view that, in the interests of continuity, it would be desirable for Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions to continue to be funded in FP9;
Amendment 361 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Regrets the mixed set of results achieved by the gender equality focus in H2020, as the only target reached is the share of women in the advisory groups, while the share of women in the project evaluation panels and among project coordinators, and the gender dimension in research and innovation content, remain below target levels; encourages Member States to create a gender-positive legal and political environment and to provide incentives for change, and calls on the Commission to continue to promote gender equality and mainstreaming in FP9 and to consider the possibility of gender as a sub- criterion in the evaluation phasein order to attain the target levels;