40 Amendments of Herbert REUL related to 2016/2147(INI)
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the evaluation of FP7 and monitoring of H2020 shows that the EU FP for research is a huge success15; _________________ 15 With over 130 000 proposals received, 9 000 grants signed, 50 000 participations and EUR 15.9 billion of EU funding.draws attention to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the EuropeaN Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - European Standards for the 21st Century (SWD(2016)186 final), which emphasises the important role which standardisation plays in the context of innovation; acknowledges that standards foster, not stifle, innovation; _________________
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recognizes European competitiveness and the creation of growth and jobs as key objectives of European R&I programmes and therefore calls for the further promotion of the participation of key industrial sectors and companies; collaborative involvement of SMEs should be fostered (in addition to the SME instruments);
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Understands that the FP intends to incentivise industry participation in order to increase R&D spending by industry16 ; welcomes the fact that industry already funds two thirds of total R&D spending though at the same time regrets that some industries have not increased their share of R&D spending; asks the Commission to assess further promote the added value of funding for industry-driven instruments such as Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs), which account for a large share of the budget17 , and further underline the coherence and transparency of all joint initiatives18 ; _________________ 16 Two-thirds of the 3% of GDP for R&D should come from industry. 17 In total, the 7 JTIs account for more than EUR 7 billion of the H2020 funds, ca. 10% of the whole H2020 budget and more than 13% of the actual available funding for H2020 calls (ca. EUR 8 billion/year over 7 years). 18 See Council conclusions of 29 May 2015.
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the programme budget, management and implementation is spread over 20 different bodies; queries whether this results in excessive coordination efforts and redundancy; asks the Commission to reflect on how to simplify this; underlines the need for the clear presentation of the new European Innovation Council's portfolio and responsibilities;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that Pillars 2 and 3 are too focused on higher Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), which limits the future absorption of disruptive innovations that are still in the pipeline of research projects with lower TRLs; considers that TRLs exclude non-technological forms of innovation generated by fundamental or applied research, particularly from SSH;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that Pillars 2 and 3 are too focused on higher Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), which limits the future absorption of disruptive innovations that are still in the pipeline of research projects with lower TRLs and therefore asks for a careful balance of TRLs to promote the entire value chain; considers that TRLs exclude non-technological forms of innovation generated by fundamental or applied research, particularly from SSH;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes that Horizon 2020 as being the framework programme for research and innovation, should continue to be primarily grant-based, as it is not legally permitted for public research organisations in several member states to make use of loans;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to offer a balanced mixset of small, medium and large- sized projects; notes that the average budget for projects has increased under H2020 and that larger projects requirefavour participants with large financial and staff capabilities; notes that this favours large institutions, creating a problem for smaller Member States and for small participants from larger Member States; regrets that this poses obstacles for newcomers and concentrates funding in elite institutiongreater experience in the Framework Programmes projects, creating some barriers for newcomers;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the current alarmingly low success rate of 14 %s represents a negative trend compared to FP7; regrets that the cuts inflicted by EFSI have deepened this problem;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Insists that research can be a risky investment for private investors and that funding research practice through grants is a necessity; regrets the tendency, in some cases, to move away from grants towards the use of loans; recognises that loans mustfinancial instruments should be available for high TRL,s and close to market activities, within other types of instruments (e.g. EIB schemes) outside of the FP as a part of the Framework Programme (InnovFin) or outside it (EIB schemes);
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Underlines that several Member States are not respecting their national R&D investment commitments; calls for the earmarking of and stresses that the 3% of GDP target needs to be met; calls for the possible high usage of the Structural Funds for R&D activities, especially and programmes, investments in capacity building, infrastructure and salaries, asks that the 3% of GDP target be met, and hopes that this well as supporting activities for the preparation of proposals can be raised to 4% in the not too distant futured projects management;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Confirms that ‘'excellence’' should remain the keycore and undisputed evaluation criterion across all the three pillars, while noting that it is only one of the three evaluation criteria, alongside ‘ of the FP, but stresses as well existing '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’' criteria and therefore invites the Commission to include into the 'impact' criterion the problem of 'underrepresented EU regions involvement' and 'the exploitation of the research infrastructure financed from ESIF';
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for better evaluation and quality assurance by the evaluators; takes note of the complaints made by unsuccessful applicants that the Evaluation Summary Reports lack depth and clarity on what should be done differently in order to succeed; calls on the Commission to organise calls for proposals in such a way as to avoid excessive oversubscription; notes that when funding applications are rejected researchers’ motivation can be badly affected;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to better define ‘'impact’'; 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 142 #
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 somimportance of regular revision of the adequacy of the sSocietal cChallenges such as innovation in agriculture and health, especially cancer and antimicrobial resistance research planslist as well as flexibility of the budget dedicated to each of them;
Amendment 162 #
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, aims for the alignment of rules and procedures for R&D&I projects under ESIF and FP; calls on the Commission to revise the State Aid rules and to allow R&D structural fund projects to be justifiable within the FP rules of procedure; _________________ 19Large 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 170 #
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 tosuccessful implementation of the European Research Area requires full usage of the R&D&I potential of the all Member States and recognises 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 in Horizon 2020 programme; welcomes in this respect the Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation policy and calls on the Commission to increase its budget substantially; calls on the Commission to assess whether the three Wwidening 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 allowsprovide the balanced and adopted set of instruments responding to the existing EU disparities in research and innovation field; calls on the Commission and Member States to be in work out depending on how their capabilities evolve; calls on the Commission to adapt or adopt new measures to bridge this gapthe clear rules allowing the full implementation of Seal of Excellence scheme; calls to review the indicators used to define 'underrepresented' countries and to verify regularly the list of those countries during the framework programme implementation;
Amendment 187 #
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 stability and attractiveness for young researchers; calls on the Commission to provide new increased levels of support for young researchers, such as a new funding scheme for early-stage researchers with less than three years of experience after PhD completion;
Amendment 197 #
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; calls on the Commission to revise the terms of international cooperation, recalls that the FP should contribute to ensuring that Europe remains a key global player, while underlining the importance of scientifice diplomacy; calls for a strategic vision and structure to support this objective and welcomes all initiatives involving third countries such as PRIMA;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to clarify the instruments and functioning of the EIC; underlines the need to keep and strengthen the SME Instrument and the Fast Track to Innovation, and to facilitate funding for the final stages of research so that laboratory scientific innovations can develop into commercial businesses; asks the Commission to analyse also how KICs can be integrated into the EIC and stresses the need to evaluate the EIC pilot results to propose the balanced mix of instruments for EIC portfolio; underlines the need to keep and strengthen the SME Instrument and the Fast Track to Innovation; invites the Commission to work out mechanisms including SMEs into big FP projects; calls on the Commission to keep KICs in the current EIT structure;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to clarify the instruments and functioning of the EIC; underlines the need to keep and strengthen the SME Instrument and the Fast Track to Innovation, and to in a way that new ventures with a proven technology foundation but without a track record can benefit, as the sensitive spot for deep-tech companies lies before the foundation of the company and therefore new instruments would facilitate funding for the final stages of research so that laboratory scientific innovations can develop into commercial businesses; asks the Commission to analyse also how EIT and its KICs can be integraconnected into the EIC;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Welcomes the Open Science pilot funding as a first step towards an Open Science Cloud; recognises the relevance of e-infrastructures and supercomputing, the need for public and private sector stakeholders and civil society to be involved and the importance of citizen science in ensuring that society plays a more active part in the definition of the problems; calls for a scientific metadata structure and procedures for the generation of such data in order to feed the European OSC and ensure data exploitation; calls on the Commission and the public and private research community to explore new models that integrate private cloud resources and public e- infrastructures and the launch of citizen agendas in science and innovation;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Welcomes the success of H2020 and the 1:11 leverage factor; notes the oversubscription and the challenges that lie ahead, and calls for a budgetary increase of EUR 100 billion for FP9calls on the Commission to increase the budget of FP9 to EUR 120 billion and insists on avoiding fragmentation and dispersing of this budget;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Stresses that the main goals of FP9 programme should remain strengthening of the EU competitiveness, creating growth and jobs, bringing new knowledge and innovations in order to tackle the crucial challenges faced by Europe as well as the further progress towards developing sustainable European Research Era; welcomes in this respect the current pillar structure of the FP and calls on the Commission to retain this structure for the sake of continuity and predictability.
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)
Paragraph 26 b (new)
26b. Notes that the EU faces numerous significant and dynamic challenges and calls on the Commission to provide in Pillar 3 balanced set of instruments responding to the dynamic nature of emerging problems; underlines the need of providing sufficiently flexible budget for the specific challenges in Pillar 3 as well as the regular revision of the adequacy of those challenges;
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 c (new)
Paragraph 26 c (new)
26c. Encourages the Commission to continue its efforts on enhancing synergies between FP9, ESIF and EFSI and providing fewer instruments with harmonised rules (State Aid); askes Commission therefore to continue work on the coherence, simplification, transparency and clarity of the programme, on improving the evaluation process and on reducing fragmentation;
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 d (new)
Paragraph 26 d (new)
26d. Calls on the Commission to keep adequate balance between fundamental research and innovation within FP9; notes a need of strengthening of the collaborative research; underline the necessity of inclusion SMEs into collaborative projects and creating corresponding mechanisms and rules;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 e (new)
Paragraph 26 e (new)
26e. Notes that FP9 should tackle the possible problem of the oversubscription and low success rates faced in Horizon 2020; suggests to consider the reintroduction of the two stage evaluation procedure with the unified first stage and specified second stage dedicated to the selected applicants; calls on the Commission to ensure sufficiently comprehensive ESRs with indications on how the proposal could be improved;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 f (new)
Paragraph 26 f (new)
26f. Underlines the need of strengthening the international cooperation within FP9 and spreading science diplomacy.
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 g (new)
Paragraph 26 g (new)
26g. Stresses that the European Union needs to fully use the existing R&D&I potential of all Member States and provide adequate and equal opportunities for the scientific development to all the European scientists and researchers in order to implement successfully the European Research Area concept; calls on the Commission to strengthen current efforts to support wider participation in FP9 to demonstrate European added value and handle the existing disparities in Europe in research and innovation field; asks the Commission to work out the balanced set of Widening Participation instruments and measures, having in mind that the budget for those instruments needs to be increased significantly; underlines the need for providing cooperation patterns enhancing brain circulation and opening the existing networks to newcomers; asks for creating mechanisms allowing inclusion of research infrastructure financed from ESIF into FP9 projects; calls to review the indicators used to define 'underrepresented' countries and regularly verify the list of those countries during the implementation of the framework programme;
Amendment 284 #
26h. Calls on the Commission to improve transparency and clarity of rules for public-private cooperation within FP9 projects following the results and recommendations stemming from the evaluation; asks the Commission to verify and assess the existing instruments for public-private partnerships;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls on the Commission to separate military defence research from civilian civil research in the next MFF, since EU needs these must be two different programmes with two different budgets that do not affect the budgetary ambitions and main goals of FP9;
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Welcomes the current pillar structure of the programme, and calls on the Commission to retain this structure for the sake of continuity and predictability, to improve the interaction among all funding instruments/programmes and to study the possibility of having fewer instruments with harmonised rules; asks the Commission therefore to continue work on the coherence, simplification, transparency and clarity of the programme, on improving the evaluation process and on reducing fragmentation; calls on the Commission to continue taking account in future FPs of the important role which standardisation plays in the context of innovation;
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Notes that R&D investment by industry has not significantly increased; in view of the generally scarce resources for public R&D spending, calls for industrial competitiveness to be supported by differentiating between mature and emerging sectors, thus allowing larger or more mature industries to participate in projects more at their own cost or through loans;
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. NotesWelcomes the fact that R&D investment by industry has not significantly increasedrepresents two thirds of total research in the EU; in view of the generally scarce resources for public R&D spending, calls for industrial competitiveness to be supported by differentiating between mature and emerging sectors, thus allowing larger or more mature industries to participate in projects more at their own cost or through loanflexible instruments such as PPPs and JTIs;
Amendment 358 #
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 phase;
Amendment 367 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Notes that the next FP will have to take account of the UK’s departure from the EU; notes that R&I benefits from clear and stable long-term frameworks, and that the UK has a leading position in the field of scienceFP9 needs to take into consideration the Brexit implications and calls on the Commission to provide the solutions, which will prevent EU from losing scientific results generated in Horizon 2020 and FP9 projects; expresses the wish that networks and collaboration with entities in the UK can continue and that stable and satisfying solutions can be found quickly;