61 Amendments of Christian EHLER related to 2024/2109(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
Citation 1
– having regard to Articles 10179 to 1909 and Article 173 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Citation 9 a (new)
– having regard to the Commission communication of 22 October 2024 on the Implementation of the European Research Area (ERA) (COM(2024)490 final)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. wWhereas Horizon Europe (HEU) is the EU’s largest centrally managed funding programme and the largest publicly funded rResearch and d& Development (R&D) programme in the world; whereas the European Parliament initially proposed a budget of EUR 120 billion rather than the EUR 93.4 billion left after the MFF revision;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the FP must be founded on European values, scientific independence, freedom and excellence, as well as on high European ethical standards and a drive to improve European competitiveness as well as to address societal challenges;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the value chain that goes from research to innovative products that improve citizens lives in the EU is less effective compared to our global competitors in translating good research into successful businesses providing jobs, new products and services to European citizens;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas Commissioner Zaharieva has committed to fight for an independent and simplified Framework Programme with support for increased budget and a more expert-driven governance.
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls the recommendation by the Heitor report to foster an attractive and inclusive European RD&I ecosystem; recalls the recommendation by the Letta report to foster the development of a Fifth Freedom in the Single Market; recalls observation of the Draghi report that the fragmentation of the EU innovation ecosystem is one of the root causes of Europe's weak innovation performance; recalls that the Treaties situate the Framework Programme in the development of the European Research Area; is convinced that to maximise the impact of the Framework Programme, it needs to be embedded in a broader European research policy that ensures that Europe is an attractive location for research activities which attracts global talent, which effectively translates science into economic growth and societal progress, and which effectively addresses the innovation gap within the Union; considers that the upcoming ERA Act should aim at achieving this Europe;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Highlights recital 72 of the Horizon Europe Regulation, which states that in order to guarantee scientific excellence, and in line with Article 13 of the Charter, the Programme should promote the respect of academic freedom in all countries benefiting from its funds; underlines that while several incidents regarding academic freedom took place in several countries benefiting from Horizon Europe funds, the European Commission has not used this recital effectively to address specific problems; Welcomes that the Commissioner-Designate committed to propose a legislative proposal on the Freedom of Scientific Research; calls on the Commission to table such Union legislation in line with the Parliament’s resolution.
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Supports the high levels of climate spending in the first years of Horizon Europe; urges the Commission to stay on course to achieve the overall climate spending target of 35% over the full life time of the Programme; highlights that these spending targets were achieved without, according to the Horizon Europe Programme Guide, considering the Do No Significant Harm Principle in the evaluation of proposals, unless it was relevant for the content of the call; underlines that there is no legal obligation nor legal base for the horizontal application of either the Do No Significant Harm principle or the Do No Harm principle; reminds in this regard that the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary matters only commits the institutions to taking into account the Do No Harm principle when establishing the methodology for measuring climate spending; is firmly convinced that this in no way is a legal requirement for all Horizon Europe spending to comply with this principle given that this would in effect mean a 100% climate spending requirement; underlines that these principles are unnecessary tools, which add complexity and limit the development of new ideas, given the strong performance of the Programme with regard to climate spending; welcomes that Commissioner-Designate Zaharieva committed to assess the current approach and the new approach to the application of the Do No (Significant) Harm Principle, including the legal base for that application, and to share the assessment with the European Parliament
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Considers that during the implementation of Horizon Europe two major global events put thousands of researchers at risk in Europe's neighbourhood; is disappointed that the Union had no proper response to the first global event, which was the return to power of the Taliban in Afghanistan; welcomes the improved response to the second global event, which was Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, through the MSCA4Ukraine actions; concludes however that under the current Programme, Europe does not have sufficient funding available to support researchers at risk and that efforts by some Member States and NGOs are fragmented.
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3e. Affirms the importance of international cooperation for the advancement of science; is concerned in this regard that international cooperation has declined in Horizon Europe compared to Horizon 2020; emphasises that the changing geopolitical landscape requires a balanced and coherent approach to international cooperation, specifically taking into account knowledge security, strategic autonomy and competitiveness; supports the association to Horizon Europe of democratic third countries that have good capacity in science, technology and innovation and recognises that such collaboration contributes to the overall strength and effectiveness of the EU’s external action; endorses in this regard the association of the Faroe Islands, New Zealand, Canada, South Korea and Japan to Horizon Europe; encourages the Commission to seek and conclude other association agreements with third countries, as this increases the competitiveness of the EU as well as its standing on the global stage; underlines that the association of third countries to EU programmes is not a mere technical act, but rather a political decision concerning the associated countries’ relations with the EU and, specifically for Horizon Europe, the issue of scientific and academic freedom; emphasises that the Parliament's ability to give meaningful consent to international agreements specifically concerning the participation of countries referred to in Article 16(1)d of the Horizon Europe Regulation in Union programmes is impeded where such agreements do not provide for a structure that guarantees parliamentary scrutiny under a consent procedure for association to a specific Union programme; strongly condemns that all such agreements concluded by the Commission, with approval of the Council, since the start of Horizon Europe do not provide the Parliament with the prerogative, as laid down in the Treaties, to provide meaningful consent, despite early and repeated communication from the Parliament to the Commission and the Council raising this issue;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3f. Welcomes in particular the association of the UK to Horizon Europe as it recognises the fact that UK science and innovation are an integral part of the European science and innovation ecosystem; expresses concern about the fact that the automatic rebate on the UK’s contribution to Horizon Europe in the event of ‘lower than expected’ UK participation in the programme, as agreed in the amended Protocol in 2023, has resulted in inconsistencies with the provisions of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement to which Parliament gave its consent; notes that this change of the Agreement through the adoption of a Protocol reconfirms that the Parliament cannot give meaningful consent to these agreements given that core parts of the Agreement with regards to Union Programmes and budgetary matters can be changed in ways the Parliament could not foresee or consent to;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 g (new)
Paragraph 3 g (new)
3g. Regrets that Switzerland and the Union have not yet agreed on a general framework for cooperation; deeply regrets this has prevented Switzerland from associating to Horizon Europe; believes, in principle, that association of Switzerland to the Union Framework Programmes is beneficial for both the Union and Switzerland, and recognises the Swiss science and innovation ecosystem as integral part of the European ecosystem; emphasises that any international agreement on the association of Switzerland to Union Programmes should fully respect the prerogative of the Parliament to provide meaningful consent in line with the European Parliament resolution on association agreements for the participation of third countries in Union programmes (2023/3018(RSP));
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 h (new)
Paragraph 3 h (new)
3h. Takes note of the Commission White Paper On options for enhancing support for research and development involving technologies with dual-use potential; considers that nearly all respondents to the public consultation on the White Paper rejected option 3; emphasised that many respondents considered that the implications of options 1 and 2 were not clear enough in order to determine which option would be preferable; highlights that it is widely recognised that the current constellation requires improvement to ensure the efficient use of public means and to boost Europe's technological sovereignty;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 i (new)
Paragraph 3 i (new)
3i. Considers that research and innovation are the main drivers of productivity growth in Europe and that the existing innovation gap in Europe undermines its productivity growth as well as its competitiveness; stresses that research and innovation must be placed at the heart of the European economy and must be a central feature of its industrial policy;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Underlines the importance of standardisation activities to ensure that European companies can effectively capitalise on the competitive advantage from research and innovation;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Emphasises the importance of the European Innovation Council for Europe's competitiveness; highlights in this regard that investments under the EIC are bridging the Valley of Death and lead to innovations with potential breakthroughs and disruptive nature that have scale-up potential1a as well as the unique proposition of the EIC Accelerator to provide tailor-made support for high- potential, non-bankable startups. _________________ 1a European Commission: Directorate- General for Research and Innovation, Naujokaitytė, R., Cakić, M., Didžiulytė, M., Zharkalliu-Roussou, K. et al., Evaluation study of the European framework programmes for research and innovation for an innovative Europe – Report phase 2 (support study for the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe), Publications Office of the European Union, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132 , page 98
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Welcomes the fact that 44% of the Horizon Europe budget to date has contributed to the digital and industrial transitions, most notably by stimulating cooperation for technology development, which are fundamental for European competitiveness;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the administrative simplification stagnated under HEU and might even have reversed, given considering that the transaction costs rose significantly; notes that around 10% of respondents to a survey reported administrative costs for a Horizon project of more than 20% of the budget for the project, and that on average respondents reported 6-12% of administrative costs; deplores that the Time-to-Grant under Horizon Europe is longer than it was under Horizon 2020, and that it exceeds the target of 8 months set by the Commission;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Reminds that the first full version of the Annotated Model Grant Agreement for Horizon Europe was published only in May 2024, more than three years after the start of the Programme; notes that without a full version of this document, beneficiaries are not fully informed of the legal and financial conditions associated with signing a Grant Agreement; recalls that the first version of the Annotated Model Grant Agreement for Horizon 2020 was published already before the official start of the Programme; notes that the apparent cause of the delayed publication is the corporate approach to Model Grant Agreements which the Commission took for the Union Programmes under the current MFF;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Notes with concern that the Commission often refers to the need to bring financial error rates in the FP down as an argument for the introduction of lump sum funding; underlines that lump sum funding does not reduce the error rate but rather prevents the accurate measuring of the error rate by eliminating the reporting on how funds are spent; emphasises that there is no proof that the material error rates of Horizon Europe are a reflection of bad financial management and therefore do not call into question whether Horizon Europe funds are spend appropriately; warns against changing the functioning of a highly successful programme, putting at risk the quality of the spending under that programme, in order to achieve a bureaucratic norm for error rates;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that a large numbern important share of beneficiaries do not consider the introduction of lump- sum funding to be a simplificationas simplification; underlines that the 2024 assessment of lump sum funding presents unclear data, which leaves important objections, like the uncertainty of the impact of an ex-post audit, unanswered while confirming other objections, like the artificial increase of the number of work packages; considers that this assessment confirms that lump sum funding can be a simplification for some beneficiaries, but not for all;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Observes that the average size of consortia in Horizon Europe is significantly higher than in Horizon 20201a; considers that bigger consortia require more time and effort to manage, which takes away resources from performing research; considers furthermore that more complex consortia are less attractive to join for newcomers, given the complexity and the resources as well as experience to manage it; _________________ 1a The average number of participants in a grant went up from 5.0 under H2020 to 7.1 under Horizon Europe (see: Horizon Europe Strategic Plan 2025–2027 Analysis). At the same time, the share of collaborative grants went down from 78% under H2020 to 56% under Horizon Europe (see Heitor report box 9.1)
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Welcomes the continued success of the European Research Council; underlines that its success is dependent on the independence of the Scientific Council; stresses that the last few years have shown that the presence of a capable and committed President of the Scientific Council with respected scientific credentials is essential for the functioning and independence of the ERC;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Notes the valuable contribution of the Marie Slodowska Curie Action to European scientific leadership; notes with worry the low success rates in the MSCA
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Highlights the ability of both the ERC and the MSCAs to attract scientific talent to Europe
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Emphasises that collaborative research is at the heart of the European Framework Programmes; considers that Pillar 2 has fostered research collaboration and has in particular been able to support joint research and innovation agendas for technology maturation through the Joint Undertakings which contributes to the competitiveness of the Union.
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Concludes, however, that Pillar 2 remains too complex; believes that the implementation of this pillar should be improved, simplified and streamlined; notes that the number of instruments involved, the unsuccessful implementation of missions, and the many budgetary shifts have resulted in unnecessary complexity which discourages applicants, and especially newcomers, from participating; emphasises the importance of the accessibility of these instruments, particularly for SMEs from across all European regions, in order to enable participation for all excellent researchers and innovators as well as foster the widespread adoption of innovative technologies;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Concludes, in line with the ERAC Opinion on FP10, that the Cluster structure of Horizon Europe creates an unnecessary obstacle for participants looking for funding, in particular newcomers; support the conclusion of the Draghi report that "[t]he programme should consolidate the overall fragmented and heterogenous activities”.
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Highlights that the European Innovation Council is filling a widely recognised investment gap for scale-up finance for break-through innovations; takes note of the very low success rate under the EIC and considers this a confirmation of the relevance of EIC funding; welcomes that the EIC was completed as instrument by the introduction of Transition activities because these complete the innovator journey from early idea to scale-up by facilitating technology maturation and validation; notes that Transition activities should be open for proposals based on results stemming from any FP project; underlines the quality and relevance of the advice provided by the EIC Board and reminds in this regard of the importance of expert advice to guide the implementation of the Framework Programme;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Draws attention to the work of the Programme Managers in the EIC; strongly believes in the approach of strategic intelligence developed by experts with a solid track record in the field to effective programming of strategic Challenge-based calls; appreciates, in particular, the work done by Programme Managers to help projects find and realise added value by bringing together projects with a common interest;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Considers that the EIC is a needed and excellent instrument in principle; regrets however that the Commission made some implementation decisions that led the EIC away from its intended purpose; firmly believes that the EIC can achieve its full potential if the legal and institutional setting of the programme is clarified and strengthened;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8e. Regrets that not all the Parliament's recommendations set out in its Implementation Own Initiative Report on the EIC from 2022 have been implemented, most notably the call for an assessment of the option to establish an independent Union body under TFEU 187 for the independent and agile implementation of the EIC; regrets moreover that its recommendation to ensure that the implementation of both the equity and grant components with direct coordination between the two components has been ignored;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 f (new)
Paragraph 8 f (new)
8f. Regrets to conclude that the relevance of the European Institute for Innovation and Technology as a programme is questioned by several stakeholders, including some of its biggest beneficiaries; highlights that a key issue raised by stakeholders is the bureaucratic complexity of the EIT; underlines that in principle the concept of ‘Knowledge and Innovation Communities’ is appreciated by stakeholders as a useful instrument for effective innovation ecosystem development and integration; considers that the two main concerns raised are the financial self-sustainability requirement for KICs and the central management by the EIT organisation which is too bureaucratic, burdensome and creates governance difficulties for the KICs; concludes that for many stakeholders the financial and other costs of participating in a KIC are outweighed by the high bureaucratic burden for relatively little funding support.
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of at participation of participants from widening countries has increased in HEU, while recognising the persistent geographical disparities in Horizon Europe funding distribution; notes that part of this low participation can be explained by structural factors, including national public investments in R&D, which undermine the effectiveness of the national R&I systems, as reflected by low scores on the European Innovation Scoreboard; underlines however that the existence of this innovation gap in Europe has negative consequences for the Union as a whole given that it means available talent is left unused and economic dispariticipants, from widening countries, in HEUes within the Union can be expected to grow; highlights that this innovation gap does not only exist between Member States but is even more prevalent between European regions, including between regions from the same Member State; is strongly convinced that without national reforms the innovation gap cannot be closed regardless of the efforts made at European level and refers to the 2022 Special Report of the European Court of Auditors on this matter; calls on the Commission to ensure that the upcoming ERA Act lays down strong obligations for Member States to improve the functioning of their R&I system in order to eliminate subpar performance due to structural challenges; underlines that closer synergies between horizon Europe, cohesion and development programs are crucial for reducing the innovation gap and ensuring balanced development across the European Research Area;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Underlines the importance of the Seal of Excellence under Horizon Europe; considers that the Seal in part mitigates the persistent issue of underfunding in FP10, which significantly hampers the ability to adequately support all high-quality proposals; acknowledges furthermore that the Seal can contribute to improving the relative participation of researchers from Widening countries; emphasises however that the Seal cannot be considered as a substitute for direct financial support, particularly because the Seal is not a guarantee for funding;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Considers the Joint Undertakings as very useful instruments to foster better coordination and alignment of research agendas across the Union, as well as to foster co-investment in R&D between the public and private sectors; notes with regret that the Joint Undertakings have not yet resulted in increased R&D spending by European industry overall;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the mMissions took place since the publication of the cCommunication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of mMissions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 wWork pProgrammes would not be an effective use of the limited resources available to HEU and should therefore be stopped; encourages the Commission to find funding for the continuation of mthe Missions in other parts of the EUnion budget and at national level; considers that specific research calls foreseen to be funded under the Missions could be considered, if necessary, for further funding under the respective Clusters in Pillar 2;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Supports the proposal by the Heitor report to set up an experimental unit under Horizon Europe in order to experiment with new implementation modalities and instruments in order to foster real simplification for participants and to develop a more agile implementation of the Programme;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Insists that the Commission should reduce the use of lump- sum funding under HEU until there is substantial evidence that lump- sum funding provides a simplification for the beneficiaries over the full life cycle of the project, including the audit, as well as for the pProgramme as a whole, reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries with lump-sum projectsin lump sum projects; urges the Commission to improve the use of lump sum funding by addressing identified challenges, in particular the increased risk and management burden for Project Coordinators and the artificial inflation of work packages, where it continues to use the funding method; proposes that a differentiated application of lump sum funding, oriented towards making the method available to those beneficiaries for whom it is a genuine simplification while avoiding forcing its use on beneficiaries for whom it leads to additional complexity, should be considered; calls in this regard on the Court of Auditors and the internal audit service to reconsider its approach to Horizon Europe with a view of reducing the importance of the bureaucratic norm for error rates and increasing the focus on the long-term and structural impact of the programme's funding; further urges the Commission to continue exploring alternative methods to simplify cost calculation and reporting;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Believes the EIC Transition activities should be open to proposals based on results from any FP project, regardless of which programme part funded that project;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Urges the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to rely on recital 72 of the Horizon Europe Regulation to enforce more respect for academic freedom in the Union as well as in associated countries, in particular to use it as a basis to openly and directly address blatant violations of academic freedom by national governments;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13c. Recommends that the use of the Do No (Significant) Harm principle is limited to calls for proposals for projects which directly relate to environmental objectives, as defined in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and which aim to fund activities close to market deployment; emphasises that the use of the principle shall be accompanied by detailed guidance from the Commission on how compliance with the principle will be evaluated in the context of the specific call in which the principle is used.
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU pUnion Programme dedicated to EU research excellence and strategic technology development, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficientappropriate for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and forsufficient to funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 to focus on three core objectives: (i) advancing the European Research Area (ERA) with specific measures that address regional disparities and support under-represented Member States , including by addressing their innovation cgapacities in Europe, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiative and a funnel to accelerate the development from fundamental science to innovation scale-up, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives, including for technology maturation and fostering of European ecosystems, which is crucial for European industry and SMEs to address the competitiveness gap with our global competitors; recommends that FP10 should be structured inby three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives which should together effectively contribute to overcome the European Paradox;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point a – point ii
Paragraph 15 – point a – point ii
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point b
Paragraph 15 – point b
(b) sSetting up the four councils proposed by the Heitor expert group, composed of eminent experts from the field, to decide on the strategic direction of the different parts of FP10, and in particular a up Councils in line with the Heitor report, composed of eminent experts from the field, including the re- establishment of the ERC and the EIC, as well as the establishment of the European tTechnology and iIndustrial cCompetitiveness cCouncil and athe European sSocietal cChallenges cCouncil to decide on the strategic direction and priorities of the different parts of FP10;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point c
Paragraph 15 – point c
(c) iIncludinge positions for pProgramme managers andManagers for the EIC, comparable to Programme Managers at the American ARPA-style agencies which are external experts with a proven track record in the relevant field, whoich are appointed for a predefined period, as special advisers to the Commissioner responsible for research and innovation to ensure their seniority in the Commission, to manage strategic visionary portfolios of projects, where relevant across the whole programme, fostering collaboration between projects for their mutual benefit and to set out challenges based on strategic intelligence and with a view to fostering global leadership for Europe in specific areas of their field;.
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point c a (new)
Paragraph 15 – point c a (new)
(ca) Implement a radical simplification in the administrative work related to the application for and management of FP10 projects, following the proposal of the Heitor report to trust first and check later as well as minimising the information requested in applications to an absolute minimum – no information which is not absolutely necessary for a good qualitative evaluation of the scientific or innovative quality of a proposal should be included in the proposal stage.
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recommends that the objective of the part of FP10 on advancing the ERA be to build an excellent, unified ERA; underlines that thisshould be to contribute to the development of an excellent, unified European Research Area; underlines that the forthcoming ERA Act needs to ensure increased national investments, national reforms and the elimination of barriers to the free movement of knowledge, technology and researchers, which creates the conditions for FP10 to support the achievement of a well-functioning ERA; underlines that a well-functioning ERA requires attracting talent, integrating newcomers in existing networks, providing access to leading research and technology infrastructures, supporting joint early research programmes with national funders, and developing European uUniversities alliances into European scientific institutesy Alliances toward European scientific institutes in the longer term; considers therefore that the MSCA, the Research Infrastructures, COST and Teaming programmes should be included in this part; is convinced that this part should provide for an instrument for strategic investments in Technology Infrastructures; firmly believes that this part should include a newly established European Fellowship Programme for Researchers At Risk, incorporating the lessons learnt from the ongoing Preparatory Action;
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Firmly believes that this part should include a newly established European fellowship programme for researchers at risk, incorporating the lessons learnt from the ongoing preparatory actionContinues to support the knowledge triangle approach of the EIT to foster innovation in Europe; believes that a reformed and refocussed EIT should be funded under the part on advancing the ERA of FP10 given its particular role of integrating the European innovation ecosystem;
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (FP10 should grant more space for bottom up research and innovation; in that context calls for an expanded ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) shouldto be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with aFP10 part on European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget of FP10; recommends that these programmes should be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quicklyaccelerate from fundamental science to innovation scale- up; considers that the EIC can only succeed if it can both offer blended finance as a single project and act with the same speed and agility as private actors on the venture capitalist market through a tailor-made legal entity for implementation; underlines that the strengthened autonomy and self- governance of both the ERC and the EIC are crucial to achieving this;
Amendment 303 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Considers that the EIC can only succeed if it can 1) offer blended finance as a single project and 2) act with the same speed and agility as private actors on the Venture Capital market through a tailor-made legal entity for the implementation; underlines that strengthened autonomy and self- governance of both the ERC and EIC are crucial to achieving this; considers in this regard that a dedicated legal entity could be created for the ERC in order to ensure its independence and long-term stability.
Amendment 306 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Considers that the expansion of the EIC and ERC should include increased funding for blue-sky, collaborative, early research projects; recommends this expansion to fund smaller projects and consortia in order to lower the barrier to participation, to increase the success rate and to encourage experimentation with new ideas and collaborations; considers that both the EIC Pathfinder and the ERC Synergy Grants have a role to play in this expanded space for bottom-up collaborative research; underlines that the EIC Pathfinder should continue to fund Challenges, but they should be reformed from Challenge-based calls to ARPA-style Challenges which leave space for bottom-up proposals while securing strategic technology development;
Amendment 307 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Urges the Commission to design the part of FP10 on strategic deployment such that it focuses on a limited number of pan- European research initiatives with 2040 aset as the time horizon and which require cross- border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in questionat hand; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of (1) societal mission-oriented programmes which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, (2) technology mission-oriented programmes to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or jand (3) Joint uUndertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EUnion to support research-based competitiveness and the resilience of key sectors in the European economy; believes that all of these initiatives should receive a budget of between EUR 2.,5 and 5 billion; is furthermore convinced that a share of the budget of this part of FP10 should remain available for higher TRL collaborative calls to support strategic collaboration not covered in the other initiatives under this part, in particular this budget could be used for strategic calls developed by the Programme Managers to further develop an emerging ecosystem;
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Emphasises that mission-oriented programmes under FP10 should be fundamentally differently organised than the ongoing Missions in Horizon Europe; believes mission-oriented programming should have objectives that can be reached through R&I, should be implemented through open calls for bottom-up ideas to achieve the mission, and should be managed through a portfolio approach building on the experience of the EIC Programme Managers; considers that mission- oriented programming should first and foremost be a novel approach to research programming which leads to less political steer on individual calls and puts more emphasis on bottom-up research ideas to address problems;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Convinced that a strategic approach to international cooperation is more important than ever; believes that global collaboration in science is essential for the knowledge development of humanity, but cannot be pursued in a naive manner; recommends that the Commission develops a clear strategic policy framework for its decisions on international collaboration which includes (1) a clear policy on association of third countries which recognises that association is a tool for political partnerships, (2) a structured process for determining how open or closed FP10 projects need to be to foster the best possible research while also considering the strategic interests of the Union, and (3) a plan to boost global collaboration through the Programme; underlines the importance of FP10's compliance with the Council Recommendation on research security; calls on the Commission to include in the strategic approach whether the right balance between security and openness can be best achieved at the level of programmes, calls or selected projects;
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 c (new)
Paragraph 19 c (new)
19c. Recommends to maintain the civil nature of Horizon Europe and to leave calls for specific defence application to the successor of the European Defence Fund; urges the Commission further develop options 1 and 2 of its White Paper in order to strengthen the synergies between civil and defence R&D spending; in particular calls on the Commission to explore how the exploitation of dual-use potential can be maximised after project selection rather than in call or programme definition; emphasises that designating certain calls as (partially) defence oriented has significant risks of excluding research performing organisations and researchers from participation in those calls and thereby excluding potentially excellent contributions; underlines that academic freedom includes the right of researchers to decide what research and development to contribute to.
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 d (new)
Paragraph 19 d (new)
19d. Recommends the introduction of Research Actions in order to foster and encourage more lower TRL research;
Amendment 346 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 e (new)
Paragraph 19 e (new)
19e. Underlines that the application of the Do No (Significant) Harm principle under FP10 must be based on a legal provision provided for in the basic act of the Programme, in line with Article 33(2)b of [Financial Regulation]; recommends that this legal provision limits the use of the principle to calls for proposals for projects which directly relate to environmental objectives, as defined in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and which aim to fund activities close to market deployment; emphasises that the use of the principle shall be accompanied by detailed guidance from the Commission on how compliance with the principle will be evaluated in the context of the specific call in which the principle is used;
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 f (new)
Paragraph 19 f (new)
19f. Recommends that the central role of standardisation in driving innovation, enhancing competitiveness, and ensuring impactful, market-ready solutions is recognised in FP10 by providing funding for standardisation activities where relevant in projects as well as by offering support to researchers in their standardisation activities;
Amendment 352 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 g (new)
Paragraph 19 g (new)
19g. Insists that rules regarding the association of third countries to FP10 should require that these associations can only be concluded through international agreements which requires the consent of the Parliament for each specific association to a specific Union Programme, including the scope of that association;