20 Amendments of Bendt BENDTSEN related to 2011/2107(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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 umbrellaall within the scope of the EIB; expresses its reservations about so-called ‘soft loans’ blurring the distinction between grants and loans;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
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, for example, more frequent use of prizes – in preference to a purely results- based approach, which is at odds with the very nature of innovative scientific research;Does not affect English text.
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
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 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
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 (which permit important lessons to be learnt for the future) – involving, for example, more frequent use of prizes – in preference to a purely results- based approach, which is at odds with the very nature of innovative scientific research;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
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;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
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 through excellent research,
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
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 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
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 that these differences are a symbol of the comparative advantages of different Member States,
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
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;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that although excellence is considered the main general criterion for funding, it must be borne in mind that the nature of excellence differs with the type of participant or the very nature of the research and innovation project (the excellence criterion for a research institution is not the same as for an individual researcher or for an SME, and also differs between fundamental and applied projects)and that this simplicity is central to getting value for the limited EU funds;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
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 is of key importance herethe different regulatory levels, and that funding at the EU level should seek to leverage investments at the regional and national level;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
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 as a whole; and the structural/cohesion funds to be used in closer cooperation but kept separate;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. This layer should covers the EU funds associated with infrastructure (in the wider sense, including the institutional one) and capacity building;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
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 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. This layer ishould be 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 should be encouraged to participate;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. This layer ishould be 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;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
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 the creation of a new funding instrument – the EU SME Bank – which should act in articulation with national contact points and financial institutions designated by the MS;
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
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 and eco- innovation;
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
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 338 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
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;