Sittings · Document

Draft report (2024/2109(INI)) 2024-12-05

Assessment of the implementation of Horizon Europe in view of its interim evaluation and recommendations for the 10th Research Framework Programme

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX

Amendment 1

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Citation 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
– having regard to Articles 101 to 109 and Article 173 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,	– having regard to Articles 179 to 190 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

Or. en

Amendment 2

Paolo Borchia, Auke Zijlstra, Barbara Bonte, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, András Gyürk, András László, Jana Nagyová, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Citation 8 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s net-zero technology manufacturing ecosystem and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 1a;
	_________________
	1a OJ L, 2024/1735, 28.6.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1735/oj

Or. en

Amendment 3

Paolo Borchia, Auke Zijlstra, Barbara Bonte, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, András Gyürk, András László, Jana Nagyová, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Citation 8 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/795 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 February 2024 establishing the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP), and amending Directive 2003/87/EC and Regulations (EU) 2021/1058, (EU) 2021/1056, (EU) 2021/1057, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) 2021/1060, (EU) 2021/523, (EU) 2021/695, (EU) 2021/697 and (EU) 2021/241 1a;
	_________________
	1a OJ L, 2024/795, 29.2.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/795/oj

Or. en

Amendment 4

Motion for a resolution

Citation 8 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the complementary funding programme to Horizon Europe covering nuclear research and innovation “Euratom Research and Training Programme (2021–2025)”;

Or. en

Amendment 5

Paolo Borchia, Auke Zijlstra, Barbara Bonte, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Citation 8 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the European Commission Report “Horizon Europe and SMEs” of July 2024;

Or. en

Amendment 6

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Citation 9 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the Commission communication of 22 October 2024 on the Implementation of the European Research Area (ERA) (COM(2024)490 final)

Or. en

Amendment 7

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Citation 20 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the Partnership Evaluation Reports published in 2024 on eight of the nine Knowledge and Innovation Communities, namely EIT Urban Mobility, EIT Climate-KIC, EIT Food, EIT InnoEnergy, EIT Health, EIT KIC Manufacturing, EIT KIC Raw materials, and EIT KIC Digital;

Or. en

Amendment 8

Elena Donazzan, Nicola Procaccini, Carlo Ciccioli, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Pietro Fiocchi, Giovanni Crosetto, Francesco Torselli, Chiara Gemma, Ondřej Krutílek, Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Citation 20 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the Report of the CERIS Expert Group of November 2024 entitled ‘Building resilience in the civil security domain based on research and technology’,

Or. en

Amendment 9

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Citation 20 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the Special report of the European Court of Auditors of September 2022 entitled “Climate spending in the 2014-2020 EU budget: Not as high as reported”;

Or. en

Amendment 10

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
A. whereas Horizon Europe (HEU) is the EU’s largest centrally managed funding programme and the largest publicly funded research and development (R&D) programme in the world;	A. Whereas Horizon Europe (HEU) is the EU’s largest centrally managed funding programme and the largest publicly funded Research & 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;

Or. en

Amendment 11

Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
A. whereas Horizon Europe (HEU) is the EU’s largest centrally managed funding programme and the largest publicly funded research and development (R&D) programme in the world;	A. whereas Horizon Europe (HEU) is the EU’s largest centrally managed funding programme and the largest publicly funded research and development (R&D) programme in the world, which can enable Europe to occupy a leading place in this field on the international scene;

Or. ro

Amendment 12

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Recital B

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
B. whereas investments in R&D are essential for EU competitiveness; whereas the report on the Future of European Competitiveness (the Draghi report) and the report by the Commission Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon Europe (the Heitor report) recommended a budget for the 10th framework programme for research and innovation (FP10) of EUR 200 billion and EUR 220 billion respectively;	B. whereas investments in R&D are essential for tackling major global challenges, environment and economic sustainability and climate changes as well as to improve people's life namely through better employment, access to health and education and social inclusion; whereas the report on the Future of European Competitiveness (the Draghi report) and the report by the Commission Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon Europe (the Heitor report) recommended a budget for the 10th framework programme for research and innovation (FP10) of EUR 200 billion and EUR 220 billion respectively;

Or. en

Amendment 13

René Repasi, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Recital B

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
B. whereas investments in R&D are essential for EU competitiveness; whereas the report on the Future of European Competitiveness (the Draghi report) and the report by the Commission Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon Europe (the Heitor report) recommended a budget for the 10th framework programme for research and innovation (FP10) of EUR 200 billion and EUR 220 billion respectively;	B. whereas investments in R&D are essential for EU societal progress, innovation and competitiveness; whereas the report on the Future of European Competitiveness (the Draghi report) and the report by the Commission Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon Europe (the Heitor report) recommended a budget for the 10th framework programme for research and innovation (FP10) of EUR 200 billion and EUR 220 billion respectively;

Or. en

Amendment 14

Motion for a resolution

Recital B a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Ba. whereas SMEs in the EU-27 are the backbone of the economy, representing 98.9 per cent of enterprises in the EU's non-financial business economy; whereas the resources allocated to SMEs within the Horizon Europe Programme 2021-2027 in the first three years are around 20% of the overall budget, according to the European Commission’s July 2024 Report “Horizon Europe and SMEs”; whereas the European Innovation Council (EIC) has achieved the set goal of allocating 70% of the budget to SMEs;

Or. en

Amendment 15

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Recital B a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Ba. whereas the Letta report proposes the establishment of a “Fifth Freedom” to encompass research, innovation and education as a new dimension of the Single Market as the four original freedoms are fundamentally based on 20th-century theoretical principals.

Or. en

Amendment 16

András Gyürk, András László, Auke Zijlstra, Paolo Borchia, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Barbara Bonte, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Recital B a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Ba. whereas the participation of all EU universities and companies, as well as their possibility to apply for funding in Horizon Europe is of fundamental importance to bridge the innovation gap and to maximise Europe's potential, wherever it comes from;

Or. en

Amendment 17

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Recital B a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 18

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Recital B a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Ba. Whereas the findings of the Draghi and Heitor reports indicate the increasing competition from other global players such as the US or China;

Or. en

Amendment 19

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha, Michalis Hadjipantela, Letizia Moratti

Motion for a resolution

Recital B b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 20

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, András Gyürk, András László, Jana Nagyová, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Recital B b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Bb. whereas creating a favourable environment for young researchers, to retain and attract talents within the European Union, is capital for the future of competitiveness;

Or. en

Amendment 21

Motion for a resolution

Recital B c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Bc. whereas funding for R&D is essential for the development of net-zero technologies; whereas nuclear energy, in particular, represents an important component of the future energy mix;

Or. en

Amendment 22

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulius Saudargas

Motion for a resolution

Recital B c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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.

Or. en

Amendment 23

Motion for a resolution

Recital B d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Bd. whereas the Euratom Research and Training Programme 2021-2025, the complementary funding programme to Horizon Europe covering nuclear research and innovation, consists of a budget of €1.38 billion to implement the new programme for the period from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2025, with direct and indirect actions, utilizing the same instruments and rules for participation as Horizon Europe;

Or. en

Amendment 24

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 1 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Observations on the participation of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Notes that the resources allocated to SMEs within the Horizon Europe Programme 2021-2027 in the first three years are around 20% of the overall budget; Observes that, despite the portion of Horizon funds being allocated to SMEs and the EIC having met its target for funds allocation to these, the overall participation of the category remains lower compared to Horizon 2020 and, in general, compared to the number of potentially interested and eligible SMEs; Underlines, therefore, that there are still untapped potentials and administrative barriers to be overcome in order to ensure greater participation of a wider range of subjects;

Or. en

Amendment 25

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph -1 (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	-1. Recalls that we are at a crucial moment for R&I, and President Ursula Von der Leyen stated that Europe needs to put “research and innovation at the heart of our economy” during the presentation of her program in the European Parliament in July 2024 for her second term as president of the European Commission.

Or. en

Amendment 26

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph -1 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	-1a. Notes that the Draghi, Letta and Heitor reports put R&I in a central place to achieve European competitiveness and stress the urgency to act not to fall behind. Thus, a strong commitment is needed to achieve a future Framework Programme that constitutes a crucial contribution to the competitiveness of Europe and the well-being of the entire European project.

Or. en

Amendment 27

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls that the Draghi and the Heitor reports are a wake-up call for Europe to face global competition and the significant rise of Chinese science in recent years; welcomes the higher success rate of HEU compared to Horizon 2020 (H2020); appreciates HEU’s responsiveness in crises, such as COVID-19 and geopolitical challenges, but regrets the lack of additional funding, which compromises original priorities;	1. Recalls that the Draghi and the Heitor reports are a wake-up call for Europe to face global competition and the significant rise of Chinese science in recent years; welcomes the higher success rate of HEU compared to Horizon 2020 (H2020); appreciates HEU’s responsiveness in crises, such as COVID-19 and geopolitical challenges, but regrets not only the lack of additional funding but also the continuous funding cuts , which compromises original priorities; notes that national spending for research should not be cut with reference to EU research funding; highlights that a joint effort of European and national funding for research and innovation is needed;

Or. en

Amendment 28

Georgiana Teodorescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls that the Draghi and the Heitor reports are a wake-up call for Europe to face global competition and the significant rise of Chinese science in recent years; welcomes the higher success rate of HEU compared to Horizon 2020 (H2020); appreciates HEU’s responsiveness in crises, such as COVID-19 and geopolitical challenges, but regrets the lack of additional funding, which compromises original priorities;	1. Recalls that the Draghi and the Heitor reports are a wake-up call for Europe to face global competition and the significant rise of Chinese science in recent years; welcomes the higher success rate of HEU compared to Horizon 2020 (H2020); appreciates HEU’s responsiveness in crises, such as COVID-19 and geopolitical challenges, but regrets the lack of additional funding, which compromises original priorities; stresses the need to find additional sources of funding to address competition from other global actors and the challenges that ensue, and to set much clearer targets;

Or. ro

Amendment 29

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls that the Draghi and the Heitor reports are a wake-up call for Europe to face global competition and the significant rise of Chinese science in recent years; welcomes the higher success rate of HEU compared to Horizon 2020 (H2020); appreciates HEU’s responsiveness in crises, such as COVID-19 and geopolitical challenges, but regrets the lack of additional funding, which compromises original priorities;	1. Welcomes the higher success rate of HEU compared to Horizon 2020 (H2020); appreciates HEU’s responsiveness in crises, such as COVID-19 and geopolitical challenges, but regrets the lack of additional funding, which compromises original priorities;

Or. en

Amendment 30

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls that the Draghi and the Heitor reports are a wake-up call for Europe to face global competition and the significant rise of Chinese science in recent years; welcomes the higher success rate of HEU compared to Horizon 2020 (H2020); appreciates HEU’s responsiveness in crises, such as COVID-19 and geopolitical challenges, but regrets the lack of additional funding, which compromises original priorities;	1. Recalls that the Draghi and the Heitor reports are a wake-up call for Europe to face global competition and the significant rise of Chinese science in recent years; welcomes the higher success rate of HEU compared to Horizon 2020 (H2020); appreciates HEU’s responsiveness in crises, such as COVID-19 and geopolitical challenges, but regrets the lack of additional funding, which compromises original priorities; underlines as well the important role of private investments in research and innovation in order to balance the public funding;

Or. en

Amendment 31

Sarah Knafo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Recalls that the Draghi and the Heitor reports are a wake-up call for Europe to face global competition and the significant rise of Chinese science in recent years; welcomes the higher success rate of HEU compared to Horizon 2020 (H2020); appreciates HEU’s responsiveness in crises, such as COVID-19 and geopolitical challenges, but regrets the lack of additional funding, which compromises original priorities;	1. Recalls that the Draghi and the Heitor reports are a wake-up call for Europe to face global competition and the significant rise of Chinese science in recent years; welcomes the higher success rate of HEU compared to Horizon 2020 (H2020); regrets that the lack of additional funding for research in critical sectors exacerbates the EU’s technological dependence on China and the US;

Or. fr

Amendment 32

Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Regrets that there have been negative experiences with the implementation of HEU because the shift from H2020 to HEU has mostly been experienced as an increase in complexity and bureaucracy; underlines that the success rates in some parts of the programme are still so low as to discourage potentially excellent applications; considers that the high cost of strategic planning (due to increased complexity, time and resources invested, as well as slowed-down implementation of the framework programme (FP)) is not compensated by any substantial benefits;	2. Regrets that there have been negative experiences with the implementation of HEU because the shift from H2020 to HEU has mostly been experienced as an increase in complexity and bureaucracy, a bureaucracy which continues to be the main cause of the low uptake of research funding, especially in the countries in the east of Europe; underlines that the success rates in some parts of the programme are still so low as to discourage potentially excellent applications; considers that the high cost of strategic planning (due to increased complexity, time and resources invested, as well as slowed-down implementation of the framework programme (FP)) is not compensated by any substantial benefits, while European researchers are leaving Europe for countries which allocate suitable funding for research;

Or. ro

Amendment 33

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Regrets that there have been negative experiences with the implementation of HEU because the shift from H2020 to HEU has mostly been experienced as an increase in complexity and bureaucracy; underlines that the success rates in some parts of the programme are still so low as to discourage potentially excellent applications; considers that the high cost of strategic planning (due to increased complexity, time and resources invested, as well as slowed-down implementation of the framework programme (FP)) is not compensated by any substantial benefits;	2. Regrets that there have been negative experiences with the implementation of HEU because the shift from H2020 to HEU has mostly been experienced as an increase in complexity and bureaucracy; underlines that the success rates in some parts of the programme are still so low as to discourage potentially excellent applications; considers that the high cost of strategic planning (due to increased complexity, time and resources invested, as well as slowed-down implementation of the framework programme (FP)) is not compensated by any substantial benefits; believes that the next FP10 should be based on already well-established instruments under Horizon Europe that have proven to be functional and furthermore to stabilise them under the next FP10;

Or. en

Amendment 34

René Repasi, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Elisabetta Gualmini, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Regrets that there have been negative experiences with the implementation of HEU because the shift from H2020 to HEU has mostly been experienced as an increase in complexity and bureaucracy; underlines that the success rates in some parts of the programme are still so low as to discourage potentially excellent applications; considers that the high cost of strategic planning (due to increased complexity, time and resources invested, as well as slowed-down implementation of the framework programme (FP)) is not compensated by any substantial benefits;	2. Regrets that there have been negative experiences with the implementation of HEU because the shift from H2020 to HEU has mostly been experienced as an increase in complexity and bureaucracy; underlines that the success rates in some parts of the programme are still so low as to discourage potentially excellent applications;, especially from researchers of research institutions with smaller budgets and SMEs considers that the high cost of strategic planning (due to increased complexity, time and resources invested, as well as slowed-down implementation of the framework programme (FP)) is not compensated by any substantial benefits;

Or. en

Amendment 35

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Regrets that there have been negative experiences with the implementation of HEU because the shift from H2020 to HEU has mostly been experienced as an increase in complexity and bureaucracy; underlines that the success rates in some parts of the programme are still so low as to discourage potentially excellent applications; considers that the high cost of strategic planning (due to increased complexity, time and resources invested, as well as slowed-down implementation of the framework programme (FP)) is not compensated by any substantial benefits;	2. Regrets that there have been negative experiences with the implementation of HEU because the shift from H2020 to HEU has mostly been experienced as an increase in complexity and bureaucracy, especially for financial reporting ; underlines that the success rates in some parts of the programme are still so low as to discourage potentially excellent applications; considers that the high cost of strategic planning (due to increased complexity, time and resources invested, as well as slowed-down implementation of the framework programme (FP)) is not compensated by any substantial benefits;

Or. en

Amendment 36

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Regrets that there have been negative experiences with the implementation of HEU because the shift from H2020 to HEU has mostly been experienced as an increase in complexity and bureaucracy; underlines that the success rates in some parts of the programme are still so low as to discourage potentially excellent applications; considers that the high cost of strategic planning (due to increased complexity, time and resources invested, as well as slowed-down implementation of the framework programme (FP)) is not compensated by any substantial benefits;	2. Regrets that there have been negative experiences with the implementation of HEU because the shift from H2020 to HEU has mostly been experienced as an increase in complexity and bureaucracy; underlines that the success rates in some parts of the programme are still so low as to discourage potentially excellent applications; considers that strategic planning should lead to more substantial benefits for the quality of the programming and a strengthened commitment of all R&;I stakeholders;

Or. en

Amendment 37

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 38

René Repasi, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;	3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation; notes that innovative ideas can not always be predicted and programmed and underlines the need for sufficient funding that is not pre-programmed in order to tap the full potential of developing innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 39

Georgiana Teodorescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;	3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation; stresses the importance of cutting red tape and focusing instead on a multi-disciplinary approach, based on critical thinking, which places excellence to the fore;

Or. ro

Amendment 40

Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;	3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP, with that agility being real time and based on concrete guidelines and priorities; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;

Or. ro

Amendment 41

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;	3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 42

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;	3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the governance of the FP is too slow and bureaucratic to answer to emerging societal challenges, and that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by “top experts”;

Or. en

Amendment 43

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;	3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts, preferably coming from Universities and public research institutes, and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 44

Eszter Lakos

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;	3. Highlights the importance of an agile FP; notes that the Heitor report outlines the importance of responding to the fast-changing field of science and innovation and recommends more self-governance in the FP through the establishment of councils as well as less prescriptive calls; recalls that the Draghi report notes that the current governance of the FP is slow and bureaucratic, that its organisation should be redesigned to be more outcome-based and evaluated by top experts and that the future FP should be governed by people from across all Member States with a proven track record at the frontier of research or innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 45

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha, Letizia Moratti

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 46

Christophe Clergeau

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3a. Recalls the need for better articulation between smart specialization strategies and Horizon Europe in order to better mobilize local and regional ecosystems of R&I and contribute to tackle innovation divide; salutes the efforts to connect ecosystems created within the framework of the EIE/European Innovation Ecosystems component and welcomes the establishment of the Regional Innovation Valleys (RIV);

Or. en

Amendment 47

András Gyürk, András László, Auke Zijlstra, Paolo Borchia, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Barbara Bonte, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3a. Notes with concern that according to Council Implementing Decision 2022/2056 the entities maintained by Hungarian public interest trust foundations, including 21 Hungarian universities, cannot receive direct EU funding, including Horizon Europe funds, thus, other than consortia members, they are excluded from Horizon Europe participation;

Or. en

Amendment 48

Julie Rechagneux, Paolo Borchia, Aleksandar Nikolic, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3a. Stresses the importance of greater reciprocity in association agreements with third countries to give European entities, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, equivalent access to the research programmes of associated third countries;

Or. fr

Amendment 49

Sofie Eriksson, Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3a. Regrets that European private investment into research, development and innovation is lagging behind China and the US; notes that the scale-up and commercialisation of research results remains a big challenge in Europe;

Or. en

Amendment 50

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Christophe Grudler, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Sophie Wilmès, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3a. Highlights the importance of having a Framework Programme based on excellence in order to ensure participation of the best researchers in Europe through the whole programme.

Or. en

Amendment 51

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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.

Or. en

Amendment 52

Julie Rechagneux, Paolo Borchia, Aleksandar Nikolic, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3b. Calls for greater consideration to be given to the risks to economic security, particularly when entities from associated and non-associated third countries are involved; stresses, in this regard, the importance of effective monitoring and restriction tools in order to protect the Union’s strategic interests, particularly in the critical technology and infrastructure sectors;

Or. fr

Amendment 53

Christophe Clergeau, René Repasi

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3b. Alerts on the persisting innovation divide through Europe, between Member States but also between regions from the same Member State; acknowledges the excessive concentration of funding on a few key actors and research ecosystems; considers that these disparities are undermining the European research area, the trust in European research policies, and their efficiency;

Or. en

Amendment 54

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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

Or. en

Amendment 55

Julie Rechagneux, Paolo Borchia, Aleksandar Nikolic, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3c. Calls for better use of the tools for adjusting the financial contributions of associated countries in the event of a significant imbalance as regards the amount that the entities established in the associated country receive for participating in the programme;

Or. fr

Amendment 56

Christophe Clergeau, René Repasi

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3c. Insists on the absolute necessity that Member States adopt concrete commitments to reach a target of 3% of GDP spending by 2035, including through significative increases of public direct funding;

Or. en

Amendment 57

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulius Saudargas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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.

Or. en

Amendment 58

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulius Saudargas, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 e (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 59

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 f (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 60

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 g (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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));

Or. en

Amendment 61

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 h (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 62

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Observations on competitiveness	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 63

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha, Michalis Hadjipantela, Letizia Moratti

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 i (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 64

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this;	4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness through strengthening of the European Research Council and EIC, ensuring their independence, well aware that research is the fuel for future innovation; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this; emphasises the importance of R&I in reducing EU's productivity gap with competing economies, in particular U.S. and China; underlines the existing weaknesses in the research sector, such as insufficient funding, inefficient public investment, fragmented regulatory framework, limited academic excellence and innovation clusters, and underdeveloped capital markets;

Or. en

Amendment 65

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Sophie Wilmès, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this;	4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated, meaning properly aligning investments with the EU strategic priorities, focusing on funding initiatives that achieve relevant impact and create added value; and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this; at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this; Recognizes that investments in research, development, and innovation in Europe are lagging behind China and the US, and that technology transfer is essential to address current EU innovations gaps.

Or. en

Amendment 66

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this;	4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this; underlines that, in order to ensure a real added value, R&D spending should also be better coordinated at national level between member states; reiterates that the reformed fiscal rules exclude national co-funding of programmes funded by the Union to be excluded from its scope; calls on the Member States to make fully use of this possibility in order to boost EU research funding.

Or. en

Amendment 67

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this;	4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness and successfully closing the innovation gap; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level, taking into consideration, at the same time, specificities at regional and national level, in order to avoid creating disparities in access to funding opportunities among researchers from different Member States, and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this;

Or. en

Amendment 68

Merja Kyllönen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this;	4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this. It also acknowledges that European private investments in research, development and innovation are lagging behind in comparison to China and US. The scale-up and commercialisation of research results remain the biggest challenge in Europe.

Or. en

Amendment 69

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this;	4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our European future and for tackling major global challenges, environment and economic sustainability and climate changes as well as to improve people's life namely through better employment, access to health and education and social inclusion; agrees with Mr Draghi that public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this;

Or. en

Amendment 70

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing competitiveness; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this;	4. Is deeply convinced that EU spending on science, research and innovation is the best investment in our common European future and for increasing societal progress and competitiveness; agrees with Mr Draghi that all public R&D spending in the EU should be better coordinated at EU level and that a reformed and strengthened FP is crucial in achieving this;

Or. en

Amendment 71

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4a. Stresses the crucial role of public funding of the research and thus proposes a more balanced approach to funding by shifting emphasis from private companies to public sector investments as relying solely on grants for private companies will not resolve Europe’s competitiveness challenges. Instead, greater focus should be placed on public sector investments and collaborative projects that foster innovation, inclusivity, and a stronger competitive edge for Europe on the global stage;

Or. en

Amendment 72

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4a. Underlines the significant role of research and innovation across different industrial fields that contributes to creating jobs and increasing the European competitiveness compared to third countries; highlights in this regard the importance of respecting the principle of technological neutrality;

Or. en

Amendment 73

Jana Nagyová, Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4a. Considers, in line with the Draghi and Heitor reports, that the State aid rules are very complex and adversely affecting innovations, and that a comprehensive simplification is needed;

Or. en

Amendment 74

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4a. Underlines the importance of standardisation activities to ensure that European companies can effectively capitalise on the competitive advantage from research and innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 75

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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

Or. en

Amendment 76

Jana Nagyová, Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4b. Welcomes the implementation of the EIC, where mixed financing and investment in technology companies with global ambitions contribute to European competitiveness;

Or. en

Amendment 77

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 78

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	4c. Points out that the Euratom Research and Training Programme still has limited funds, especially to finance actions on nuclear fission;

Or. en

Amendment 79

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Considers that administrative simplification stagnated under HEU and might even have reversed, given that transaction costs rose significantly;	5. Considers that the administrative simplification stagnated under HEU and might even have reversed 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;

Or. en

Amendment 80

Georgiana Teodorescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Considers that administrative simplification stagnated under HEU and might even have reversed, given that transaction costs rose significantly;	5. Considers that administrative simplification stagnated under HEU and might even have reversed, given that transaction costs rose significantly; believes, therefore, that simplification must play a central role from now on in the implementation of the programme;

Or. ro

Amendment 81

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Considers that administrative simplification stagnated under HEU and might even have reversed, given that transaction costs rose significantly;	5. Considers that administrative simplification stagnated under HEU and might even have reversed, given that transaction costs rose significantly; underlines that simplification must be for the benefit of the applicants;

Or. en

Amendment 82

Morten Løkkegaard, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Sophie Wilmès, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Considers that administrative simplification stagnated under HEU and might even have reversed, given that transaction costs rose significantly;	5. Considers that administrative simplification stagnated under HEU; insists on further administrative simplification, streamlining of the relevant procedures, cutting costs and focusing on applicants.

Or. en

Amendment 83

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 84

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	5a. Recalls that, while acknowledging concerns about the perceived complexity and bureaucracy of some Horizon Europe requirements, gender equality measures are a critical mechanism for fostering inclusivity, which in turn delivers higher excellence research results.

Or. en

Amendment 85

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 86

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Notes that a large number of beneficiaries do not consider the introduction of lump-sum funding to be a simplification;	6. Notes that an important share of beneficiaries do not consider the introduction of lump sum funding as 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;

Or. en

Amendment 87

René Repasi, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Elisabetta Gualmini, Christophe Clergeau, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Notes that a large number of beneficiaries do not consider the introduction of lump-sum funding to be a simplification;	6. Notes that the introduction of lump-sum funding received different assessment from different beneficiaries; also notes that simplification efforts at EU level should be implemented with coherence at national level;

Or. en

Amendment 88

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Notes that a large number of beneficiaries do not consider the introduction of lump-sum funding to be a simplification;	6. Notes that a number of beneficiaries do not consider the introduction of lump-sum funding to be a simplification, and welcomes in this regard the Commission’s commitment to monitor lump sum grants further;

Or. en

Amendment 89

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Notes that a large number of beneficiaries do not consider the introduction of lump-sum funding to be a simplification;	6. Notes that some beneficiaries, in particular large RTOs and organisations involved in very large consortia, do not consider the introduction of lump-sum funding to be a simplification for them;

Or. en

Amendment 90

Elena Donazzan, Nicola Procaccini, Carlo Ciccioli, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Pietro Fiocchi, Giovanni Crosetto, Francesco Torselli, Chiara Gemma, Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Notes that a large number of beneficiaries do not consider the introduction of lump-sum funding to be a simplification;	6. Notes that a number of beneficiaries do consider the introduction of lump-sum funding to be a simplification and therefore meets the expected positive outcome since its introduction under HEU;

Or. en

Amendment 91

Morten Løkkegaard, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Sophie Wilmès, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Notes that a large number of beneficiaries do not consider the introduction of lump-sum funding to be a simplification;	6. Notes that there are various opinions and experiences among different beneficiaries regarding the functionality of lump sums.

Or. en

Amendment 92

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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)

Or. en

Amendment 93

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Considers that the Commission has not succeeded in creating agile but strong management of HEU, which has led to complex implementation;	7. Notes that the Commission has struggled to establish both agile and robust management of HEU, resulting in significant complexities in implementation, and stresses that it is crucial for the Commission to address these shortcomings and ensure more effective management going forward;

Or. en

Amendment 94

Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Considers that the Commission has not succeeded in creating agile but strong management of HEU, which has led to complex implementation;	7. Considers that the Commission has not succeeded in creating agile but strong management of HEU, and has not allowed for sufficient agility to keep pace with the rapid technological developments taking place in all fields, which has led to complex implementation;

Or. ro

Amendment 95

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Considers that the Commission has not succeeded in creating agile but strong management of HEU, which has led to complex implementation;	7. Considers that the Commission has not succeeded in creating agile but strong management of HEU, which has led to complex implementation; expects that the interim evaluation report should address shortages and possible solutions;

Or. en

Amendment 96

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. Considers that the Commission has not succeeded in creating agile but strong management of HEU, which has led to complex implementation;	7. Considers that the management of HEU is not agile enough, which has led to complex implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 97

Sarah Knafo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Stresses the need for simpler funding criteria and faster award decisions to ensure that projects are successful;

Or. fr

Amendment 98

René Repasi, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7a. Underlines that research projects funded under Pillar 1 should adhere to the principle of ‘high risk/high gain’; suggests clarifying evaluation criteria to strictly ensure the realization of ‘high risk/high gain’ when evaluating research proposals; observes that ‘high risk’ also means employing new research methods; highlights the need for low-threshold applications in order to attract talent; suggests introducing a new anonymized evaluation method for individual research grants, according to which only research proposals are evaluated without considering the person of the applicant and the research institution s/he belongs to;

Or. en

Amendment 99

András Gyürk, András László, Auke Zijlstra, Paolo Borchia, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Barbara Bonte, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7a. Notes with concern that the European Commission has not succeeded in communicating clearly which entities are eligible to participate in HEU, which has led to misunderstandings and further complexities in the R&I community;

Or. en

Amendment 100

Sarah Knafo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7a. Notes that the Commission must publish results within a maximum period of six months when funding is being awarded and reduce the volume of administrative documents to be provided by project owners;

Or. fr

Amendment 101

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7a. Considers establishing regular consultation forums with researchers, innovators, and industry leaders to align program objectives with real-world needs and emerging trends;

Or. en

Amendment 102

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7b. Welcomes the Draghi Report proposal for a “ERC for Institutions”, with the aim to make European research institutions even stronger and more competitive; proposes, to this end, to establish this program in Horizon Europe as a pilot project;

Or. en

Amendment 103

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7c. Highlights that although EIC was created with the goal of combining support for research on emerging technologies with acceleration tools for start-ups, SMEs, and scale-ups, it is evident that this instrument has marked a clear shift in investment orientation towards a purely “deep-tech” and disruptive type of innovation; therefore, this shift, combined with the high complexity in project design, the use of blended finance funding mechanisms, and the requirement for high TRLs, has made the instrument entirely inadequate and inaccessible for micro enterprises and SMEs;

Or. en

Amendment 104

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7a. Estimates that Pillar 1 plays a crucial role in maintaining Europe’s scientific leadership by supporting groundbreaking research through the European Research Council (ERC), enhancing researcher mobility via the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), and developing world-class research infrastructures; Notes that its bottom-up calls and independent governance (ERC Scientific Council) have proven highly effective. Recognizes, however, that the reduced budget allocation in Horizon Europe (26.17% compared to 30.5% in Horizon 2020) limits its potential and to fully capitalize on its success and ensure more excellent projects receive support; therefore considers that the most effective way tackling the low success rates is to increase the budget available for ERC and MSCA sufficiently, enabling these programmes to directly fund all projects deemed excellent through evaluation;

Or. en

Amendment 105

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 106

Sarah Knafo

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Considers that funding for Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions should as a priority be awarded to European doctoral candidates and researchers working in EU territory; recommends that these funds be redirected towards tackling the brain drain in order to bolster the Union’s scientific excellence;

Or. fr

Amendment 107

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Sophie Wilmès, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Recognises the importance of Pillar 1 in promoting scientific excellence and attracting highly-skilled research, through European Research Council (ERC), and programs such as the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) and the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET).

Or. en

Amendment 108

Lina Gálvez, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7a. Asks for an adequate share of the budget for Pillar 1, amounting to at least 30% of the total programme’s budget, in line with the allocation in Horizon 2020.

Or. en

Amendment 109

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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

Or. en

Amendment 110

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7b. Is concerned that Horizon Europe has fallen short in fully integrating and leveraging research infrastructures (RIs) across the programme; Recommends enhancing the strategic and critical role of RIs in the remainder of HEU and in future Framework Programme 10 (FP10), in line with the recommendations of the Heitor, Draghi, and Letta reports; Emphasizes that digital research infrastructures, in particular, provide a vital platform for researchers and innovators across disciplines and sectors to share data, methods, and expertise, fostering the development and application of new technologies to strengthen Europe’s technological sovereignty;

Or. en

Amendment 111

Lina Gálvez, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 4 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7b. Supports the Letta report right to stay to avoid internal brain drain and the Heitor report initiative “Choose Europe” to foster research careers and turn the current “European Brain drain” into a “brain gain” by 2035. Notes that this pilot should be implemented from 2025 using the unique moment for Europe after the US elections.

Or. en

Amendment 112

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7c. Highlights the ability of both the ERC and the MSCAs to attract scientific talent to Europe

Or. en

Amendment 113

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7c. Recognises that Pillar 2 serves as a vital strategic tool, fostering pan-European collaboration by pooling resources and knowledge, and aligning public and private R&I agendas; Notes that such collaboration would not occur without EU funding, highlighting the unique added value of EU collaboration programs, enabling Europe to address complex societal challenges and integrate businesses into critical, continent-wide value chains;

Or. en

Amendment 114

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Tomas Tobé, Jörgen Warborn

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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.

Or. en

Amendment 115

Sarah Knafo

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 5 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Underlines its serious concerns that Horizon Europe-funded innovations could be transferred to third countries once their initial development has been completed;

Or. fr

Amendment 116

Sarah Knafo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7b. Recommends that the allocation and monitoring procedures be improved with a view to ensuring that the content of projects relates exclusively to research and innovation, and that the funding is not used to cover the operating costs of the entities involved;

Or. fr

Amendment 117

Sarah Knafo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	7c. Regrets that only 13 % of the total budget is currently earmarked for innovative start-ups;

Or. fr

Amendment 118

Merja Kyllönen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Concludes 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;	8. Acknowledges that Pillar 2 is a strategic tool that enable pan-European collaboration, pooling resources and knowledge, aligning the research and innovation agenda of public and private stakeholders across Europe and attracting private investments. This is something that does no happen without EU funding and it represents a true added value of the EU RDI programmes. It is crucial to continue and strengthen supporting these collaborations, as they allow Europe to tackle complex societal challenges and integrate businesses into European-wide critical value chains. However, it also notes 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;

Or. en

Amendment 119

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Concludes 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;	8. Recognises at the same time that Pillar 2 remains fragmented, notably with a multitude of PPPs despite the attempt of reducing their number since Horizon 2020; Considers that many institutional partnerships are perceived as exclusive networks, limiting broader participation and raising concerns about open access; Believes therefore that the implementation of this pillar should be improved, simplified and streamlined; notes that the number of instruments involved, the complex implementation of Missions, and the many budgetary shifts have resulted in complexity which could discourage applicants, and especially newcomers, from participating; Calls for a more balanced approach in Pillar 2 and collaborative projects, with greater emphasis on funding earlier-stage research, which would help achieve a better equilibrium between fundamental research and applied, market-oriented innovation, by introducing ‘Research Actions’;

Or. en

Amendment 120

Sofie Eriksson, Niels Fuglsang, Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Concludes 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;	8. Considers Pillar 2 a strategic tool for enabling pan-European collaboration and pooling of knowledge and resources, attracting private investments and for bringing together public and private stakeholders across Europe to tackle complex societal challenges; believes it is important to continue support for these collaborations; considers, 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 implementation of missions, and the many budgetary shifts have resulted in unnecessary complexity which discourages applicants, and especially newcomers, from participating;

Or. en

Amendment 121

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulius Saudargas, Paulo Cunha, Michalis Hadjipantela, Letizia Moratti

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Concludes 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;	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;

Or. en

Amendment 122

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Concludes 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;	8. Recognizes the importance of Pillar 2 in fostering collaboration in multi-stakeholder settings. Acknowledges the complexity; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 123

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Concludes 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;	8. Concludes that Pillar 2 remains too complex; believes that the implementation of this pillar should be improved, simplified and streamlined in light of addressing targeted results rather than solely on the expenditure; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 124

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Concludes 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;	8. Concludes 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 and the many budgetary shifts have resulted in unnecessary complexity which discourages applicants, and especially newcomers, from participating;

Or. en

Amendment 125

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Concludes 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;	8. Concludes 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 and the many budgetary shifts have resulted in unnecessary complexity which discourages applicants, and especially newcomers, from participating;

Or. en

Amendment 126

Christophe Clergeau

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Concludes 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;	8. Concludes 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 and the many budgetary shifts have resulted in unnecessary complexity which discourages applicants, and especially newcomers, from participating;

Or. en

Amendment 127

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. Concludes 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;	8. Concludes 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 implementation of missions, and the many budgetary shifts have resulted in unnecessary complexity which discourages applicants, and especially newcomers, from participating;

Or. en

Amendment 128

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	8a. Recommends that the 10th Framework Programme (FP10) include a dedicated section for Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) and the research in SSH is integrated from the outset, with funding directed towards projects that contribute to the development of a sustainable, socially responsible Europe, including affordable living standards, equitable pension systems, and access to education and healthcare for all. Stresses that research in these fields is critical for addressing the broader social, political, and economic structures that contribute to inequality, climate change, and other systemic problems;

Or. en

Amendment 129

Tomas Tobé, Jörgen Warborn

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	8a. Recognises that Pillar 2 strengthens Europe’s industrial innovation capacity; stresses that Pillar 2 bolsters industry participation and private R&D investments, by stimulating collaborative research between companies and research actors; emphasises that such collaborative research is key for European competitiveness, and benefits not only individual companies or researchers, but society at large;

Or. en

Amendment 130

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulius Saudargas, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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”.

Or. en

Amendment 131

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	8a. Calls for expanding initiatives like the European fellowship program for researchers at risk and prioritize integrating talent from diverse regions to enrich the European Research Area (ERA);

Or. en

Amendment 132

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	8a. Suggests to use a modern concept of innovation and that comprehensively consider the various facets of innovation, for example, social innovation.

Or. en

Amendment 133

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	8a. Notes that scaling up and commercialising research outcomes remains Europe's greatest challenge; Recalls the decisive role of entrepreneurship, for instance in the commercial and economic exploitation of excellent applied research into breakthrough innovation; Notes the generally positive assessments (in particular in terms of EU added value) made by independent experts of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities, whereas Heitor report and other voices call for discontinuing their activities; Urges the Commission to explore all possible avenues to pursue the public interest mission of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities of integrating the knowledge triangle around entrepreneurship to tackle key societal challenges, potentially in a new institutional set-up, towards a deeper integration of the KICs into the R&I and industrial policy landscape;

Or. en

Amendment 134

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 135

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Christophe Grudler, Ivars Ijabs, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Sophie Wilmès, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Agrees that streamlining and boosting the European Innovation Council (EIC), attracting private investments, and supporting the commercialization of research should be the center of the Pillar 3, as confirmed by the Heitor Report. Recognizes EIC should have the flexibility to strategically maximise its potential to support breakthrough technology.

Or. en

Amendment 136

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	8c. Notes that EIT contributes to strengthening links between Higher Education and Business closing the ‘skills gap’ and that synergies should be explored with the academies introduced in recent EU legislation (e.g. Net Zero Industry Act, Critical Raw Materials Act, Cybersecurity Package).

Or. en

Amendment 137

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 138

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 6 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	8d. Moreover, highlights that the EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS) activities contribute to reducing the European innovation capacity divide. Recalls that more synergies to bridge the innovation divide should be created between the EIT and other actions such as the EU Preparatory Action 'Innovation for place-based transformation'1a
	_________________
	1a https://place-based-innovation.ec.europa.eu/projects-0/preparatory-action-2024-2026_en

Or. en

Amendment 139

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 140

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 6 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	8b. Recognises the vital role of universities as drivers of place-based innovation.

Or. en

Amendment 141

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 e (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 142

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8 f (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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.

Or. en

Amendment 143

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU;	9. Welcomes that 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 disparities 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;

Or. en

Amendment 144

Adam Jarubas, Borys Budka, Mirosława Nykiel, Michał Szczerba, Krzysztof Hetman, Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU;	9. Recognizes the importance of the HEU Widening participation and spreading excellence' actions in building research and innovation capacities in countries which still need to strengthen their potential and calls for its comprehensive impact analysis in 2025. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU. Nonetheless, stresses that the structure of the actions could be reconsidered towards a more inclusive European RD&;I ecosystem as stated in the Heitor Report.

Or. en

Amendment 145

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU;	9. Observes that competitiveness in EU-level calls builds on prior national or regional investments in RDI, evident in the fact that two decades of widening efforts have not delivered the anticipated results; Recognises that new and more effective mechanisms to increase widening are needed, but that financing these actions should primarily come from national level and be complemented by cohesion policy funds;

Or. en

Amendment 146

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU;	9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU; Notes that there is a link between high participation and a high level of national public investments in Research and Development (R&D), and therefore any widening actions should be linked to increased national investment.

Or. en

Amendment 147

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU;	9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU; Acknowledges that the innovation divide persists despite a slight decrease in the disparities in innovation performance across Europe. Notes that Widening should be taken into account by region, not by member state.

Or. en

Amendment 148

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU;	9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU; encourages the continuous support of widening countries in order to improve their performances compared to frontrunner Member States across different instruments under the next FP10;

Or. en

Amendment 149

Eszter Lakos

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU;	9. Welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in the number of participants, from widening countries, in HEU; highlights the need of providing further support to all well performing widening measures at the country level.

Or. en

Amendment 150

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	9a. Notes that a thriving European innovation ecosystem requires strong and well-connected place-based innovation ecosystems. Better connected European innovation ecosystem will be essential for enhancing the competitiveness of Europe, its resilience and strategic autonomy. Collaboration among territorial ecosystems enables European regions to leverage their combined strengths to develop innovative solutions more efficiently. This collaboration also accelerates the commercialisation and scaling of technologies, bolstering the EU’s competitiveness also globally.

Or. en

Amendment 151

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Aura Salla

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 152

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ did not positively evaluate missions and concluded that missions had failed on core objectives such as crowding in external funding;	10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ made recommendations to improve the implementation of the EU Missions, recognising their uncontested societal relevance, and underlining the evident need of sustained R&I investment in all five related areas; Highlights in particular the stated need for all the mission areas for an increased focus on interdisciplinarity R&I including a greater integration of social science and humanities;

Or. en

Amendment 153

Christophe Clergeau

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ did not positively evaluate missions and concluded that missions had failed on core objectives such as crowding in external funding;	10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’1a did not positively evaluate missions and concluded that missions had failed on core objectives such as crowding in external funding; nevertheless considers that EU Missions are a new and innovative tool and that their achievement, in light of their implementation timeline, are positive and justify going forward with developing their activities and research programs;
	_________________
	1a https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A52023DC0457

Or. en

Amendment 154

Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ did not positively evaluate missions and concluded that missions had failed on core objectives such as crowding in external funding;	10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ did not positively evaluate missions, not justifying their activity, and concluded that missions had failed on core objectives such as crowding in external funding, notably through public-private partnerships that would allow for swift implementation of solutions from researchers, and especially young researchers;

Or. ro

Amendment 155

Sofie Eriksson, Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ did not positively evaluate missions and concluded that missions had failed on core objectives such as crowding in external funding;	10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ suggests that the Missions should be further developed to fully reach their potential; considers that the Missions have been a useful tool for local and regional actors, notably the initiatives concerning the green transition;

Or. en

Amendment 156

René Repasi, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Elisabetta Gualmini, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ did not positively evaluate missions and concluded that missions had failed on core objectives such as crowding in external funding;	10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ did not positively evaluate missions, hence their execution needs to be improved to fully access their potential to contribute to achieving climate-neutral cities by 2030 and on climate change adaptation in general;

Or. en

Amendment 157

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ did not positively evaluate missions and concluded that missions had failed on core objectives such as crowding in external funding;	10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ concluded that missions need to improve their governance, impact and crowding in external funding to live up to the potential of the concept to tackle ambitious societal challenges.

Or. en

Amendment 158

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ did not positively evaluate missions and concluded that missions had failed on core objectives such as crowding in external funding;	10. Recalls that missions as defined by the co-legislators, based on the EC communication, appear flexible enough to allow their adjustment to identifiable trends over the coming years;

Or. en

Amendment 159

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ did not positively evaluate missions and concluded that missions had failed on core objectives such as crowding in external funding;	10. Recalls that the Commission communication entitled ‘EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward’ did not positively evaluate missions and concluded that missions have not achieved the expected objectives such as crowding in external funding;

Or. en

Amendment 160

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 161

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Christophe Grudler, Ivars Ijabs, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Sophie Wilmès, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	10a. Recommends to expand and strengthen the public-private partnerships and co-funding mechanisms within FP10 to leverage resources, share risks, and accelerate technological developments. Further emphasizes that PPP governance structures should be streamlined and simplified to avoid unnecessary burdens and enhance focus on key priorities.

Or. en

Amendment 162

Jana Nagyová, Paolo Borchia, Auke Zijlstra, Barbara Bonte, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	10a. Notes that the European Partnerships have been achieving their purpose, however, the implementation aspect still needs to be improved, especially with regard to administrative and financial management by the European Commission;

Or. en

Amendment 163

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	10a. Recalls the fundamental role of partnerships in regard of bringing together the European Commission and private and/or public partners that must receive a continuous support with a defined target and scope;

Or. en

Amendment 164

Lina Gálvez, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	10a. Calls on the Commission for a thorough evaluation of the missions, including their governance and impact, to assess the next steps and before new missions are introduced in FP10.

Or. en

Amendment 165

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	10b. Supports the Heitor Report call for the need to “elevate” the “political ownership” of the current (and future) Missions and Partnerships, in order to facilitate the coordination among different DG’s and national administrations, as well as to attract funding beyond the framework programme.

Or. en

Amendment 166

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	10b. Recommends that FP10 does not exclusively focus on civil applications and creates a dedicated instrument with a specific focus on dual-use R&D to exploit the untapped potential for spinout from civil R&D to defence R&D and vice versa.

Or. en

Amendment 167

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	10c. Highlights the need to strengthen the science communication role of the missions. This will bring research results closer to society and help address the challenge of mistrust in R&I, while simultaneously helping gain societal approval for public investments in R&I.

Or. en

Amendment 168

Christophe Clergeau

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the missions since the publication of the communication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 work programmes 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 missions in other parts of the EU budget and at national level;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 169

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the missions since the publication of the communication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 work programmes 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 missions in other parts of the EU budget and at national level;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 170

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the missions since the publication of the communication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 work programmes 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 missions in other parts of the EU budget and at national level;	11. Believes that in order to ensure continuity and predictability of EU Missions, certain shortcomings such as governance, need to be further addressed and asks the Commission to do so without any delay;

Or. en

Amendment 171

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the missions since the publication of the communication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 work programmes 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 missions in other parts of the EU budget and at national level;	11. Notes that no significant changes in the implementation of the Missions took place since the publication of the Communication; concludes therefore that further funding of Missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 Work Programmes 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 the Missions in other parts of the Union 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;

Or. en

Amendment 172

René Repasi, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the missions since the publication of the communication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 work programmes 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 missions in other parts of the EU budget and at national level;	11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the missions since the publication of the communication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 work programmes remains valuable but adjustments of missions need to be made;

Or. en

Amendment 173

Sofie Eriksson, Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the missions since the publication of the communication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 work programmes 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 missions in other parts of the EU budget and at national level;	11. Invites the Commission and all relevant actors to implement the recommendations in the Communication notably regarding public awareness, governance and the mission initiative's ability to leverage other sources of funding, including private funding, to improve the implementation of Missions so as to ensure their success;

Or. en

Amendment 174

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the missions since the publication of the communication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 work programmes 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 missions in other parts of the EU budget and at national level;	11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the missions since the publication of the communication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 work programmes would not be an effective use of the limited resources available to HEU; encourages the Commission to find funding for the continuation of missions in other parts of the EU budget and at national level;

Or. en

Amendment 175

Eszter Lakos

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the missions since the publication of the communication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 work programmes 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 missions in other parts of the EU budget and at national level;	11. Notes that no significant changes have taken place in the implementation of the missions since the publication of the communication; concludes, therefore, that further funding of missions under the 2025, 2026 and 2027 work programmes would not be an effective use of the limited resources available to HEU; encourages the Commission to find funding for the continuation of missions in other parts of the EU budget and at national level;

Or. en

Amendment 176

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 177

Morten Løkkegaard, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 programme as a whole, reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries with lump-sum projects;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 178

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 programme as a whole, reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries with lump-sum projects;	12. Insists 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 Programme as a whole reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries in 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;

Or. en

Amendment 179

René Repasi, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 programme as a whole, reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries with lump-sum projects;	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 programme as a whole, reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries with lump-sum projects; ; supports the recommendation of the European Court of Auditor11a to define the scope of ex post controls for lump-sum grants;
	_________________
	11a https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/AIB-2022/AIB-2022_EN.pdf

Or. en

Amendment 180

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 programme as a whole, reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries with lump-sum projects;	12. Insists that the Commission should adopt a differentiated approach for the use of lump-sum funding under HEU and explore further improvement of the system to ensure 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 programme as a whole, reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries with lump-sum projects;

Or. en

Amendment 181

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 programme as a whole, reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries with lump-sum projects;	12. Asks the Commission to closely monitor the use of lump-sum funding under HEU so the benefits of simplification for the beneficiaries over the full life cycle of the project as well as for the programme as a whole, reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries with lump-sum projects can be fully materialised;

Or. en

Amendment 182

Elena Donazzan, Nicola Procaccini, Carlo Ciccioli, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Pietro Fiocchi, Giovanni Crosetto, Francesco Torselli, Chiara Gemma, Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 programme as a whole, reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries with lump-sum projects;	12. Recommends that the Commission carefully assess the use of lump-sum funding under HEU and its impact in terms of simplification for the beneficiaries over the full life cycle of the project, including the audit, as well as for the programme as a whole, reflected by lower administrative and transaction costs for beneficiaries with lump-sum projects;

Or. en

Amendment 183

Morten Løkkegaard, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Sophie Wilmès, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	12a. The Commission should use the conclusion of its Assessment of Lump Sum Funding in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe to further improve, simplify and reduce red tape related to lump-sum funding under HEU. Special attention should be paid to reducing administrative burdens and transaction costs for recipients throughout the entire life cycle of the project, from the application phase through project implementation and audit.

Or. en

Amendment 184

Elena Donazzan, Nicola Procaccini, Carlo Ciccioli, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Pietro Fiocchi, Giovanni Crosetto, Francesco Torselli, Chiara Gemma, Ondřej Krutílek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Supports the Heitor report’s urgent call to introduce a ‘Choose Europe’ co-funding line and to turn the current ‘European brain drain’ into a ‘brain gain’ by 2035, noting that this should be considered a major and unique opportunity for Europe following the recent US election and should therefore be implemented urgently from 2025;	13. Supports the Heitor report’s urgent call to introduce a ‘Choose Europe’ co-funding line and to turn the current ‘European brain drain’ into a ‘brain gain’ by 2035, noting that this should be considered a major and unique opportunity for Europe following the recent US election and should therefore be implemented urgently from 2025; recognizes that there are still significant obstacles to 'brain circulation' among Member States, including the recognition of qualifications and the diversity of tax, social security, and pension systems;

Or. en

Amendment 185

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Supports the Heitor report’s urgent call to introduce a ‘Choose Europe’ co-funding line and to turn the current ‘European brain drain’ into a ‘brain gain’ by 2035, noting that this should be considered a major and unique opportunity for Europe following the recent US election and should therefore be implemented urgently from 2025;	13. Supports the need to back young researchers and the Heitor report’s urgent call to introduce a ‘Choose Europe’ co-funding line and to turn the current ‘European brain drain’ into a ‘brain gain’ by 2035, including by increasing funding to Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions;

Or. en

Amendment 186

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Supports the Heitor report’s urgent call to introduce a ‘Choose Europe’ co-funding line and to turn the current ‘European brain drain’ into a ‘brain gain’ by 2035, noting that this should be considered a major and unique opportunity for Europe following the recent US election and should therefore be implemented urgently from 2025;	13. Supports the Heitor report’s urgent call to introduce a ‘Choose Europe’ co-funding line and to turn the current ‘European brain drain’ into a ‘brain gain’ by 2035, noting that this should be considered a major and unique opportunity for Europe in the current uncertain geopolitical context and should therefore be implemented urgently from 2025;

Or. en

Amendment 187

Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13a. Considers it necessary to include as a key priority in the framework programme the identification of solutions for the earliest possible return of researchers to their country of origin and to Europe, respectively, so as to enable Europe to develop and swiftly implement new solutions to reduce dependency on products from non-EU countries;

Or. ro

Amendment 188

András Gyürk, András László, Auke Zijlstra, Paolo Borchia, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Barbara Bonte, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13a. Recommends that the Commission, following constructive negotiations with all stakeholders concerned, immediately presents a proposal revising Council Implementing Decision 2022/2056, as it is our collective interest is to ensure the participation of all EU universities and companies in the HEU;

Or. en

Amendment 189

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13a. Although some efforts have already been made, regrets that synergies between the European Innovation Council (EIC), the European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT) and the European Research Council are not enough developed.

Or. en

Amendment 190

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 191

Christophe Clergeau, René Repasi

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13a. Calls on the Commission to restore without delay EIC autonomy and agility in order to get rid of existing complex processes leading to lower implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 192

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13b. Notes that inclusive gender equality in R&I is a crucial driver of a sustainable research environment that lays the foundation for high standards of the research profession in the European Research Area (ERA) with improved career prospects and working conditions. Without effective measures to promote inclusive gender equality in Europe, research quality and competitiveness suffer, hindering potential scientific advancement and resulting in the loss of valuable talent.

Or. en

Amendment 193

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 194

Lina Gálvez, Elisabetta Gualmini, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13c. Significant advances have been made in the framework of Horizon Europe with Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) as an eligibility criterion, the gender dimension in the content of R&I as an award criterion by default across the programme, and gender balance as a ranking criterion for ex aequo proposals. Recent analyses confirm that the GEP eligibility criterion has had a catalytic effect. Therefore, the Gender Equality Plans as eligibility criteria for funding should be kept in FP10 as a permanent and integral element of EU research funding requirements.

Or. en

Amendment 195

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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.

Or. en

Amendment 196

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13d. Recognising that inclusive science is foundational to excellent science, calls on the Commission to safeguard the requirements for sex and gender consideration in FP10 and further strengthen intersectional considerations; build upon existing policies to enhance participation of women and other population groups in science; and to fund research aimed at closing the gender health gap and delivering innovations in women’s health.

Or. en

Amendment 197

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 e (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13e. Considers that gender as a research topic from an intersectional perspective is essential for understanding the development of our gendered societies, addressing current societal challenges such as anti-gender discourse in Europe, and identifying effective solutions.

Or. en

Amendment 198

Lina Gálvez, Elisabetta Gualmini, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 f (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13f. Prioritising inclusive gender equality provisions in Framework Programme 10 will enhance the competitiveness and sustainability of the ERA. By embedding inclusive gender equality in R&I policies, we maximise the potential of diverse talents, ensuring that Europe remains at the forefront of scientific excellence. Promoting inclusive gender equality serves as a catalyst for innovation, driving creative solutions and enhancing the relevance of R&I outputs. The higher productivity and innovative outcomes produced by diverse teams can translate into potential economic benefits for the EU and an additional competitive edge in the global research environment. Primarily, however, promoting gender equality makes the fundamental values of the EU a reality. Therefore, a steadfast commitment to inclusive gender equality is both a matter of social justice and a strategic investment in the future of research and economic prosperity in Europe

Or. en

Amendment 199

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 g (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13g. Calls on the Commission to report on the Horizon Europe Key Impact Pathways, including the scientific, societal and economic/technological impacts, which analyse the overall societal impact of research and innovation projects in order to assess the Program's progress towards the achievement of its objectives.

Or. en

Amendment 200

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13a. Reminds that good policy making is necessarily grounded on transparent, broad, granular and user-friendly access to data on the implementation of past and current policies in a timely manner, notably for the proper monitoring and tracking of the contribution to main societal challenges; Urges in this regard the Commission to finally fulfil its past commitment to “continuously monitor the state of implementation of [climate spending] target and make this data publicly available on-line in an accessible manner”;

Or. en

Amendment 201

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13a. Insists on the need for strong political commitment to ensure adequate financial resources and a specified budget for FP10.

Or. en

Amendment 202

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13b. Notes that the Union is investing significantly less than other global powers, failing to reach the 3% of GDP target for R&D spending for more than two decades, investing 2.24% of its GDP on R&D in 2022, while for instance the United States spent 3.5% of its own GDP; Underlines that each year the Union under invests in R&D worsens the situation and deepens the gap with third countries; Specifies that major discrepancies exist between the R&D intensity of the 27 EU Member States, five of them reaching the 3% R&D’s spending target, while some others are below 1%; Recalls that, with less than 7%, the EU contribution to R&D spending is a very minor share of the overall public spending on R&D in the Union;
	Insists in consequence on the imperative catalytic role the EU intervention should play on R&D spending, and on the necessity of further coordinating and aligning national and Union R&D spending; Calls for firm and effective mechanisms in this direction, notably with the inclusion of the monitoring of R&D policy within the European Semester, which should provide detailed reporting on public and private RD&I investment across Member States, including synergies with European structural funds and support for European Seals of Excellence projects, both in terms of quantity and of potential reforms towards further integration of the R&D national systems, but also within the design and implementation of the future Framework Programme;
	Urges the Commission to ensure a maximum transparency in the most user-friendly way in the allocation of EU funds across various instruments supporting research, innovation, and demonstration activities, such as for example structural funds and the framework programme, to enable scale up and replication; Recommends therefore establishing a common database in order to give access to essential information and results to stakeholders and the public with a clear overview of EU-funded activities and results per societal challenge addressed;

Or. en

Amendment 203

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13c. Urges also the Commission to explore the feasibility of setting up a synergy mechanism inspired from the “plug-in” system under the EIC Accelerator, between some certified national R&D programmes and the EU Framework Programme in order to fast-track the access to the latter to excellent national projects and most promising SMEs;

Or. en

Amendment 204

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13d. Estimates also that relative budgetary constraint on the Framework Programme (7% of public R&D spending) not only impose an essential leverage effect on national resources, but also requires a strengthened strategic focusing on a limited number of common long-term societal challenges that provide significant spillover effects;

Or. en

Amendment 205

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 e (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13e. Urges the Commission to preserve the exclusive focus of the next FP on civilian R&D activities; points in addition that maintaining an exclusive focus on civilian R&D activities is a key prerequisite to administrative burden reduction for future applicants and beneficiaries of the Framework Programme;

Or. en

Amendment 206

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, innovation and competitiveness with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 focus on the general key objective of strengthening the scientific and technological bases of the Union, fostering the competitiveness of the Union in all Member States including in its industry and filling Europe’s innovation gap with key competitors and on four core objectives:
	(i) advancing scientific excellence, supporting the creation and diffusion of fundamental and applied knowledge, of skills, technologies and solutions, supporting training and mobility of researchers, to attracting talent at all levels;
	(ii) creating a European competition of ideas fostering all forms of innovation and strengthening the deployment and exploitation of innovative solutions;
	(iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research and innovation initiatives, enhancing the impact of R&I and supporting the development of priority innovative advanced technologies and their translation into concrete applications of innovative products, processes and services;
	(iv) advancing the European Research Area (ERA) with specific measures that address regional disparities and support underrepresented Member States in their innovation capacities;

Or. en

Amendment 207

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha, Letizia Moratti

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone Union Programme dedicated to EU research excellence and strategic technology development, with a substantially higher budget appropriate for achieving the 3% GDP spending target and sufficient to fund at least 75% of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends FP10 to focus on three core objectives: (i) advancing the European Research Area (ERA), including by addressing the innovation gap in Europe, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas 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 by three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives which should together effectively contribute to overcome the European Paradox;

Or. en

Amendment 208

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to advancing publicly funded research and innovation that serves the public good and addresses societal challenges, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their research and innovation capacities, (ii) supporting a European competition of ideas that is not based on market-driven competition, but rather on collaborative innovation that promotes the shared benefits of research for all, particularly marginalized communities , and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 209

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme, within highly anticipated Competitiveness Fund as announced by President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen in her speech on July 17, 2024, in Strasbourg, dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 focus on three core objectives: (i) creating a European competition of ideas (ii) supporting strategic collaborative research initiatives, which will be of utmost importance for European industry, startups and SMEs closing the competitiveness gap; (iii) advancing the European Research Area (ERA) to foster cooperation and strengthen synergies at the EU-level to ensure applicants for funding across Member States have the necessary knowledge to navigate the application processes effectively.

Or. en

Amendment 210

Sofie Eriksson, Niels Fuglsang, Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research, development and innovation excellence, contributing to achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, however, without compromising on excellence (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives; emphasizes that the future framework program should include similar frameworks such as pillar 2, focusing on collaboration and transforming basic research to future innovations and scale up.

Or. en

Amendment 211

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone and independent EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting the development of strategic technologies and strategic large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives; (iv) supporting the Research Infrastructures (RIs) and Technological Infrastructures (TIs) in the European Union;

Or. en

Amendment 212

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme with a ring-fenced, substantially higher budget, dedicated to EU research excellence, contributing to achieving and help exceeding the 3 % GDP spending target and enabling the funding of at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted without compromising nor stiffening the quality of the evaluation; recommends that FP10 focuses on:
	(i) advancing the European Research Area (ERA);
	(ii) improving the innovation landscape including by creating a European competition of ideas and by unleashing entrepreneurship;
	(iii) supporting collaborative applied research and development initiatives, including strategic and large-scale initiatives based on both prescriptive and less prescriptive calls in order to tackle societal challenges;

Or. en

Amendment 213

Christophe Clergeau

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives; further calls for full recognition of the place-based approach to research and innovation excellence;

Or. en

Amendment 214

Morten Løkkegaard, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives.

Or. en

Amendment 215

Eszter Lakos

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence with collaborative projects at the heart of it, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 216

Lina Gálvez, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget of at least EUR 220 billion that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 217

Merja Kyllönen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 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 in their innovation capacities, (ii) creating a European competition of ideas, and (iii) supporting strategic, large-scale collaborative research initiatives; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;	14. Calls for FP10 to be a stand-alone EU programme dedicated to EU research, development and innovation excellence, with a substantially higher budget that is sufficient for achieving the 3 % GDP spending target and for funding at least 75 % of the excellent proposals submitted; recommends that FP10 focus on three core objectives: (i) creating a European competition of ideas, and (ii) supporting strategic, collaborative research, development and innovation; (iii) advancing the European Research Area (ERA) by supporting researchers mobitly and coordinate investments in strategic research and technology infrastructures; recommends that FP10 be structured in three parts, each addressing one of the three core objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 218

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14a. Insists on the vital role of long-term public funding to support excellent basic research, driven by scientific curiosity with the only aim of advancing scientific knowledge and without an obvious nor immediate benefit, sometimes characterised by serendipity; Calls in this respect for a significant proportion of the next Framework Programme to be reserved for basic research activities;

Or. en

Amendment 219

Lina Gálvez, Elisabetta Gualmini, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14a. Considers that sustained investments in R&I at both EU and national levels are important to ensure adequate national investments in R&I. Moreover, firmly believes the need to mobilise more private investments in R&I all over the Union.

Or. en

Amendment 220

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14a. Highlights the need to build a program that addresses bureaucratic complexity, considering the costs and resources required to remain competitive, and the uncertainty regarding projects’ approval and funding timelines;

Or. en

Amendment 221

Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14a. Notes that regions, municipalities and cities are central R&I players; considers that a thriving European innovation ecosystem requires strong and well-connected place-based innovation ecosystems;

Or. en

Amendment 222

Sofie Eriksson

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14a. Notes that regions, municipalities and cities are central R&I players;

Or. en

Amendment 223

Sofie Eriksson, Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14b. Considers that increasing EU funding for research and innovation should not lead to a decrease in national investments as both are needed; calls for an increase in private investment into research, development and innovation to bridge the gap in relation to China and the US; notes that the scale-up and commercialisation of research results remains a big challenge in Europe and should be addressed in the next FP;

Or. en

Amendment 224

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14b. Stresses the importance of building a programme suitable to break down administrative barriers and to ensure a more meaningful participation of SMEs;

Or. en

Amendment 225

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14b. Considers crucial to keep funding basic research and applied research.

Or. en

Amendment 226

Paolo Borchia, Silvia Sardone, Isabella Tovaglieri, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera, Jana Nagyová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14c. Proposes to guarantee effective support for all types of innovation, so as to include forms of incremental innovation; suggests, to this end, that FP10 should be complemented by a new instrument specifically structured to respond more adequately to the needs of Micro and Small Enterprises and support their participation, through support for schemes dedicated to essential development phases; calls for support for funding schemes aimed at the involvement of MSMEs and led by research centres or universities, as well as for the creation and strengthening of concrete synergies with national and regional schemes to support Micro-SMEs innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 227

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14c. Recommends the improvement of synergies with cohesion funds. Also highlights to strengthen and coordinate synergies between innovation programmes managed by different administrations.

Or. en

Amendment 228

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14d. Urges the Commission to launch from 2025 a task force to guarantee a better efficacy of the European Semester, in line with the Union’s share towards the 3% target, as clearly described in the Draghi and Heitor reports;

Or. en

Amendment 229

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 e (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14e. Notes that Horizon Europe has seen an increase in bureaucracy compared to Horizon 2020 and efforts for simplification should be taken for FP10 for the benefit of beneficiaries and the contribution of excellent research. However, simplification cannot erode the progress made in previous framework programs such as the advances achieved thanks to green and gender conditionalities.

Or. en

Amendment 230

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Recommends that the Commission ensure user-oriented, science-led, effective and efficient implementation of the programme, including by:	deleted
(a) implementing a redesigned governance, in line with the findings of the Heitor expert group and the Draghi report, addressing the need to improve the programme’s agility, which should:
i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science and innovation;
ii. be less dominated by policy objectives;
iii. contribute to EU priorities, but on the terms of science and innovation rather than on the terms of policymakers;
iv. be based on the principle of self-governance, through which top experts from the relevant field can determine how research and innovation can best contribute to the achievement of the policy priorities set by policymakers;
(b) setting 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 European technology and industrial competitiveness council and a European societal challenges council;
(c) including positions for programme managers and external experts with a proven track record in the relevant field, who are appointed as special advisers to the Commissioner responsible for research and innovation to ensure their seniority in the Commission, to manage portfolios of projects across the whole programme and to set out challenges based on strategic intelligence with a view to fostering global leadership for Europe in specific areas of their field;

Or. en

Amendment 231

Lina Gálvez, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – introductory part

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Recommends that the Commission ensure user-oriented, science-led, effective and efficient implementation of the programme, including by:	15. Highlights that the 10th Framework Programme should be guided by the excellence principle in R&I. Recommends that the Commission ensure user-oriented, science-led, effective and efficient implementation of the programme, including by:

Or. en

Amendment 232

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – introductory part

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Recommends that the Commission ensure user-oriented, science-led, effective and efficient implementation of the programme, including by:	15. Recommends that the Commission ensure user-oriented, accessible, science-led, effective and efficient implementation of the programme, including by:

Or. en

Amendment 233

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(a) implementing a redesigned governance, in line with the findings of the Heitor expert group and the Draghi report, addressing the need to improve the programme’s agility, which should:	deleted
i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science and innovation;
ii. be less dominated by policy objectives;
iii. contribute to EU priorities, but on the terms of science and innovation rather than on the terms of policymakers;
iv. be based on the principle of self-governance, through which top experts from the relevant field can determine how research and innovation can best contribute to the achievement of the policy priorities set by policymakers;

Or. en

Amendment 234

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – introductory part

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(a) implementing a redesigned governance, in line with the findings of the Heitor expert group and the Draghi report, addressing the need to improve the programme’s agility, which should:	(a) addressing the need to improve the programme’s agility, which should:

Or. en

Amendment 235

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point i

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science and innovation;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 236

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point i

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science and innovation;	i. be oriented towards valorisation of the best science and innovation and towards synergies among businesses, Universities and public institutions;

Or. en

Amendment 237

Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point i

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science and innovation;	i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science and innovation, in order to keep pace with continuous and rapid progress in various fields;

Or. ro

Amendment 238

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point i

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science and innovation;	i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science and exploitation of knowledge into innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 239

Merja Kyllönen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point i

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science and innovation;	i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science, technology development and innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 240

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Sophie Wilmès

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point i

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science and innovation;	i. be oriented towards facilitating the best science, technology development and innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 241

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point ii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
ii. be less dominated by policy objectives;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 242

Christophe Clergeau

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point ii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
ii. be less dominated by policy objectives;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 243

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point ii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
ii. be less dominated by policy objectives;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 244

Morten Løkkegaard, Christophe Grudler, Ivars Ijabs, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point ii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
ii. be less dominated by policy objectives;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 245

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point ii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
ii. be less dominated by policy objectives;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 246

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point ii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
ii. be less dominated by policy objectives;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 247

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point ii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
ii. be less dominated by policy objectives;	ii. be inclusive, transparent, evidence-based, and not be dominated by arbitrary decisions and short-sighted objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 248

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point ii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
ii. be less dominated by policy objectives;	ii. be in line with the general policy objectives defined at EU level;

Or. en

Amendment 249

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point ii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
ii. be less dominated by policy objectives;	ii. Recalls the need to keep policy objectives as guiding principles

Or. en

Amendment 250

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iii. contribute to EU priorities, but on the terms of science and innovation rather than on the terms of policymakers;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 251

Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iii. contribute to EU priorities, but on the terms of science and innovation rather than on the terms of policymakers;	(iii) contribute to EU priorities, but on the terms of science and innovation rather than on the terms of policymakers, with a focus on the return of researchers to their countries of origin in Europe, so as to prevent Europe from backslippage visàvis other non-EU countries;

Or. ro

Amendment 252

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iii. contribute to EU priorities, but on the terms of science and innovation rather than on the terms of policymakers;	iii. contribute to EU priorities on the terms of science and innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 253

Sarah Knafo

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iii. contribute to EU priorities, but on the terms of science and innovation rather than on the terms of policymakers;	iii. contribute to EU and Member State priorities, but on the basis of scientific and economic criteria rather than ideological or political criteria;

Or. fr

Amendment 254

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iii. contribute to EU priorities, but on the terms of science and innovation rather than on the terms of policymakers;	iii. contribute to EU priorities and try to align science and innovations objectives with priorities set by policymakers;

Or. en

Amendment 255

Christophe Clergeau

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iii. contribute to EU priorities, but on the terms of science and innovation rather than on the terms of policymakers;	iii. contribute to EU priorities, building on the terms of science and innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 256

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iii. contribute to EU priorities, but on the terms of science and innovation rather than on the terms of policymakers;	iii. contribute to EU priorities and policy objectives, but on the terms of science and innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 257

Morten Løkkegaard, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Anna Stürgkh, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iii

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iii. contribute to EU priorities, but on the terms of science and innovation rather than on the terms of policymakers;	iii. contribute to EU priorities, on the terms of science and innovation rather than of policymakers;

Or. en

Amendment 258

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iv

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iv. be based on the principle of self-governance, through which top experts from the relevant field can determine how research and innovation can best contribute to the achievement of the policy priorities set by policymakers;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 259

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iv

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iv. be based on the principle of self-governance, through which top experts from the relevant field can determine how research and innovation can best contribute to the achievement of the policy priorities set by policymakers;	iv. be based on the principle of self-governance, through which recognized specialists from the relevant field that act in the public interest, excluding any sort of conflict of interest, can advise on how research and innovation can best contribute to the achievement of the policy priorities set by policymakers;

Or. en

Amendment 260

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iv

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iv. be based on the principle of self-governance, through which top experts from the relevant field can determine how research and innovation can best contribute to the achievement of the policy priorities set by policymakers;	iv. be based on the principle of openness, responsibility, and expertise through which top experts from the relevant field as well as civil society can advise on how research and innovation can best contribute to the achievement of the policy priorities set by policymakers;

Or. en

Amendment 261

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iv

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
iv. be based on the principle of self-governance, through which top experts from the relevant field can determine how research and innovation can best contribute to the achievement of the policy priorities set by policymakers;	iv. be based on the principle of cooperation among policymakers and top experts from the relevant field, who can determine how research and innovation can best contribute to the achievement of the policy priorities set by policymakers;

Or. en

Amendment 262

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iv a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	iva. be ambitious, focused on competitiveness needs, much more application-oriented and based on simpler and more efficient financial instruments;

Or. en

Amendment 263

Paolo Borchia, Auke Zijlstra, Barbara Bonte, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iv a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	iva. be based on pooling resources and expanding industrial access to overcome barriers, particularly the “middle-technology trap”;

Or. en

Amendment 264

Christophe Clergeau

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iv a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	iva. include every two years a report to policy makers from the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission;

Or. en

Amendment 265

Georgiana Teodorescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point a – point iv a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	iva. award greater attention to SMEs as beneficiaries of this programme;

Or. ro

Amendment 266

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point b

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(b) setting 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 European technology and industrial competitiveness council and a European societal challenges council;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 267

Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point b

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(b) setting 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 European technology and industrial competitiveness council and a European societal challenges council;	(b) setting 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 European technology and industrial competitiveness council and a European societal challenges council, and allocating these a limited time span in which to draw up viable and genuine proposals;

Or. ro

Amendment 268

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point b

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(b) setting 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 European technology and industrial competitiveness council and a European societal challenges council;	(b) setting up the four councils proposed by the Heitor expert group, composed of eminent experts from the field that act in the public interest, excluding any sort of conflict of interest, to recommend on the strategic direction of the different parts of FP10, and in particular a European technology and industrial competitiveness council and a European societal challenges council;

Or. en

Amendment 269

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point b

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(b) setting 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 European technology and industrial competitiveness council and a European societal challenges council;	(b) Set 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 Technology and Industrial Competitiveness Council and the European Societal Challenges Council to decide on the strategic direction and priorities of the different parts of FP10;

Or. en

Amendment 270

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point b

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(b) setting 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 European technology and industrial competitiveness council and a European societal challenges council;	(b) setting up a Council based on the inspiration from the Heitor report, composed of eminent experts with a proven outstanding recognition by their peers in the relevant field, as well as civil society representatives, to advise on the strategic long-term direction of the different parts of FP10 while ensuring stakeholder involvement through for e.g. strategic planning;

Or. en

Amendment 271

Eszter Lakos

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point b

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(b) setting 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 European technology and industrial competitiveness council and a European societal challenges council;	(b) setting up the councils proposed by the Heitor expert group, composed of eminent experts from the field stemming from across Europe, to decide on the strategic direction of the different parts of FP10, and in particular a European technology and industrial competitiveness council and a European societal challenges council;

Or. en

Amendment 272

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point b

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(b) setting 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 European technology and industrial competitiveness council and a European societal challenges council;	(b) setting up the three 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 European technology and industrial competitiveness council;

Or. en

Amendment 273

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point c

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(c) including positions for programme managers and external experts with a proven track record in the relevant field, who are appointed as special advisers to the Commissioner responsible for research and innovation to ensure their seniority in the Commission, to manage portfolios of projects across the whole programme and to set out challenges based on strategic intelligence with a view to fostering global leadership for Europe in specific areas of their field;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 274

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point c

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(c) including positions for programme managers and external experts with a proven track record in the relevant field, who are appointed as special advisers to the Commissioner responsible for research and innovation to ensure their seniority in the Commission, to manage portfolios of projects across the whole programme and to set out challenges based on strategic intelligence with a view to fostering global leadership for Europe in specific areas of their field;	(c) ensuring synergies and coordinated programming and implementation with other programmes dealing with research, development and innovation at national and EU level;

Or. en

Amendment 275

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point c

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(c) including positions for programme managers and external experts with a proven track record in the relevant field, who are appointed as special advisers to the Commissioner responsible for research and innovation to ensure their seniority in the Commission, to manage portfolios of projects across the whole programme and to set out challenges based on strategic intelligence with a view to fostering global leadership for Europe in specific areas of their field;	(c) Include positions for Programme Managers 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 which 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 set out challenges based on strategic intelligence and with a view to foster global leadership for Europe in specific areas of their field.

Or. en

Amendment 276

Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point c

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
(c) including positions for programme managers and external experts with a proven track record in the relevant field, who are appointed as special advisers to the Commissioner responsible for research and innovation to ensure their seniority in the Commission, to manage portfolios of projects across the whole programme and to set out challenges based on strategic intelligence with a view to fostering global leadership for Europe in specific areas of their field;	(c) including positions for programme managers and external experts with a proven track record in the relevant field, who are appointed as special advisers to the Commissioner responsible for research and innovation to ensure their seniority in the Commission, and who must come from all the EU countries, and not just the established EU Member States, to manage portfolios of projects across the whole programme and to set out swiftly and efficiently challenges based on strategic intelligence with a view to fostering global leadership for Europe in specific areas of their field;

Or. ro

Amendment 277

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulius Saudargas, Paulo Cunha, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point c a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	(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.

Or. en

Amendment 278

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 – point c a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	(ca) establishing an experimental unit to test new programmes and instruments with fast track to funding as recommended by the Heitor report;

Or. en

Amendment 279

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15a. Reminds that science, technology and social structures are involved in an inseparable relationship, their respective evolution being mutually shaped, influenced and interdependent;
	Recalls, in particular, that technological advancement and diffusion within social structures depend on social factors, and argues that social aspects of technological development is vastly under-investigated;
	Notes that technologies usually do not diffuse within and are adopted by society as anticipated initially, and can drastically and inadvertently alter social structures; Concludes that interdisciplinarity in general, and social sciences and humanities (SSH) in particular, must be significantly strengthened in the next Framework Programme, and advises specifically to systematically involve social science disciplines from the outset in technology-oriented activities, in order to better understand the coevolution of technology and society, and thus better design, plan, and accompany the deployment of technology in a fair and inclusive manner;
	Believes in particular that Missions could play a decisive role in this endeavour, which could prove to be a particularly well-suited instrument for promoting interdisciplinarity and enhanced inclusion of SSH;

Or. en

Amendment 280

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15a. Recommends the Commission to ensure a transparent governance structure with involvement of representatives from academia, research and technology organizations, NGOs, industry of all sizes, SMEs, Start Ups, national and local authorities, and relevant end-users representatives such as Trade Unions, Civil Society Organizations, Consumer Protection Organizations, among others;

Or. en

Amendment 281

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15b. Underlines as well that the main reason for lower EU’s R&D spending compared with other regions is caused by lower private R&D spending, reaching 1.3% of GDP in the Union when it reaches 2.4% in the United States and 1.9% in China;
	Notes that in some of the PPPs, EU public funds are directed toward projects that align closely with the interests of participating companies rather than societal needs and that there is a lack of transparency and fairness of industry contributions; Calls therefore for an increased oversight and a more balanced approach to ensure that public-private partnerships effectively serve both public and private interests;
	Calls therefore for conclusions to be drawn from this fact for the design of the next Framework Programme, in particular when revising the functioning of the Public-Private Partnerships and the implementation of the collaborative projects involving large enterprises; Invites the Commission to also explore options to set eligibility and/or award criteria on the basis of the share of private R&D spending for multinational enterprises above a certain threshold of turnover, in order to avoid the likelihood of crowding-out effect of public R&D or of windfall effect;
	Estimates, more generally, that crowding-in of resources from different sources, such as European philanthropy, local and regional public authorities, deserves to be explored by the Commission ahead of the next Framework Programme;

Or. en

Amendment 282

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. Recommends that the objective of the part of FP10 on advancing the ERA be to build an excellent, unified ERA; underlines that this requires attracting talent, integrating newcomers, providing access to leading research and technology infrastructures, supporting joint early research programmes with national funders, and developing European universities alliances into European scientific institutes;	16. Recommends that the objective of the part of FP10 on advancing the ERA should 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 University 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;

Or. en

Amendment 283

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. Recommends that the objective of the part of FP10 on advancing the ERA be to build an excellent, unified ERA; underlines that this requires attracting talent, integrating newcomers, providing access to leading research and technology infrastructures, supporting joint early research programmes with national funders, and developing European universities alliances into European scientific institutes;	16. Recommends that the objective of the part of FP10 on advancing the ERA be to build an excellent, unified ERA; underlines that this requires attracting talent, integrating newcomers, providing access and increased, sustained funding to world-leading research and technology infrastructures, supporting joint early research programmes with national funders, and developing European universities alliances into European scientific institutes;
	Stresses the need to strengthen the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions as the EU’s flagship program for attracting and retaining top talent from Europe and beyond, including supporting doctoral and postdoctoral training through research and mobility, fostering career development for researchers at all stages, enabling high-quality, bottom-up research, and promoting the creation of interdisciplinary, intersectoral, and global research collaborations;

Or. en

Amendment 284

Christophe Clergeau

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. Recommends that the objective of the part of FP10 on advancing the ERA be to build an excellent, unified ERA; underlines that this requires attracting talent, integrating newcomers, providing access to leading research and technology infrastructures, supporting joint early research programmes with national funders, and developing European universities alliances into European scientific institutes;	16. Recommends that the objective of the part of FP10 on advancing the ERA be to build an excellent, unified ERA; underlines that this requires attracting talent, integrating newcomers, providing access to leading research and technology infrastructures, defending academic freedom and promoting gender mainstreaming, supporting joint research programmes with national and regional funders, achieving identification and direct support to local and regional ecosystems of R&I and their initiatives, and developing European universities alliances into European scientific institutes; this new pillar should mobilize no less than 25% of the FP and aim to improve coordination between ERA and the European Education Area

Or. en

Amendment 285

Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. Recommends that the objective of the part of FP10 on advancing the ERA be to build an excellent, unified ERA; underlines that this requires attracting talent, integrating newcomers, providing access to leading research and technology infrastructures, supporting joint early research programmes with national funders, and developing European universities alliances into European scientific institutes;	16. Recommends that the objective of the part of FP10 on advancing the ERA be to build an excellent, unified ERA; underlines that this requires attracting talent, including by proposing viable solutions for the return of European researchers to Europe, integrating newcomers, providing access to leading research and technology infrastructures, supporting joint early research programmes with national funders, and developing European universities alliances into European scientific institutes, so as also to attract other researchers to Europe;

Or. ro

Amendment 286

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. Recommends that the objective of the part of FP10 on advancing the ERA be to build an excellent, unified ERA; underlines that this requires attracting talent, integrating newcomers, providing access to leading research and technology infrastructures, supporting joint early research programmes with national funders, and developing European universities alliances into European scientific institutes;	16. Recommends that the objective of the part of FP10 on advancing the ERA be to build an excellent, unified ERA; underlines that this requires attracting talent, integrating newcomers, providing access to leading research and technology infrastructures whilst remaining open for excellent research proposals irrespective of the supporting research institution, supporting joint early research programmes with national funders, and developing European universities alliances into European scientific institutes;

Or. en

Amendment 287

Paolo Borchia, Isabella Tovaglieri, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Julie Rechagneux, Silvia Sardone, Raffaele Stancanelli, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16a. Affirms that FP10 should strengthen the network of RIs, supporting their long-term sustainability and transnational access, recognising their role as pivotal locations for science and innovation; recommends developing the ecosystem of research infrastructures in European Union;

Or. en

Amendment 288

Lina Gálvez, Elisabetta Gualmini, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16a. Calls for a strong ecosystem of research and technology infrastructures (RIs) throughout the Union as a fundamental prerequisite for excellent R&I to be performed in Europe.

Or. en

Amendment 289

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 action;	17. Continues 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;

Or. en

Amendment 290

Eszter Lakos

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	17a. Reaffirms its support for the EIT's knowledge triangle approach as a driver of innovation and a tool to address gaps in the European innovation ecosystem; calls for enhanced alignment and synergies with the European Innovation Council (EIC) to maximize impact and coherence.

Or. en

Amendment 291

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 292

René Repasi, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Jens Geier, Christophe Clergeau, Elisabetta Gualmini, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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; holds the opinion that basic research should go beyond ERC and EIC and that funding basic research must also be considered when tackling the EU’s strategic objectives; is therefore convinced that the ultimate source of innovation is the creation of new information through basic research, which must coexist (with other forms of research) with an emphasis on high-risk breakthrough research and innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 293

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	18. Believes that FP10 should grant more space for bottom up research and innovation; in that context calls for an expanded ERC and European Innovation Council (EIC) to be at the heart of the FP10 part on European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the budget of FP10; recommends that these programmes should be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to accelerate from fundamental science to innovation scale-up;

Or. en

Amendment 294

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Sigrid Friis, Sophie Wilmès, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	18. Believes that European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas; recommends that cross-border collaboration should be encouraged and these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly from fundamental science to innovation scale-up; as well as innovative ecosystems, consisting of universities, research and technology organisations, industry, startups, SMEs and investors, to translate results of research and development into the market in terms of products and value creation; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 295

Giorgio Gori, René Repasi

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly from fundamental science to innovation scale-up, including by providing innovators with access to a wide range of Business Acceleration Services and ecosystems of innovation such as Science and Technology Parks; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 296

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should receive a commensurate amount of FP10 budget in tunes with necessary high EU ambitions to address the corresponding societal challenges; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly from fundamental science to innovation scale-up; believes that the EIC could better perform if it could offer blended finance as a single project and act with the same speed and agility as private actors on the venture capitalist market without compromising the quality of the due-diligence; underlines that the strengthened autonomy of both the ERC and the EIC are crucial to achieving this, while taking great care of not undermining the necessary accountability;

Or. en

Amendment 297

Sofie Eriksson, Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;

Or. en

Amendment 298

Christophe Clergeau

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;

Or. en

Amendment 299

Merja Kyllönen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas ; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;

Or. en

Amendment 300

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive an adequate amount of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;

Or. en

Amendment 301

Eszter Lakos

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be the corner stone part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas with traditional collaborative projects at its' heart; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;

Or. en

Amendment 302

Lina Gálvez, Elisabetta Gualmini, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas and that this part should receive half of the FP10 budget; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;	18. Believes that an expanded European Research Council (ERC), the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) and European Innovation Council (EIC) should be at the heart of the part of FP10 dealing with a European competition of ideas; recommends that these programmes be designed so that they create a European, bottom-up funnel for innovation to develop quickly 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;

Or. en

Amendment 303

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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.

Or. en

Amendment 304

Letizia Moratti

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	18a. Recommends to expand the scope to found the transfer of good research into innovative technologies, and allocate resources to promote and facilitate Public-Private Partnerships, which are key for EU’s long-term competitiveness

Or. en

Amendment 305

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Ivars Ijabs, Christophe Grudler, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Sophie Wilmès, Yvan Verougstraete

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	18a. Urges the Commission to improve the synergies between FP10 and European sectoral policies, in particular with the future new Industrial Policy and the next Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEIs).

Or. en

Amendment 306

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha, Tomas Tobé, Jörgen Warborn

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 307

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU 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;	19. Urges the Commission to design the part on strategic deployment such that it focuses on a limited number of pan-European research initiatives with 2040 as time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue at 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, and (3) Joint Undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the Union to support research-based competitiveness and resilience of key sectors in the European economy; believes all of these initiatives should receive a budget 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;

Or. en

Amendment 308

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU 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;	19. Strongly believes that, beyond its key role for long-term and sustainable competitiveness, applied research, development and innovation policies must have a directionality, and be instrumental to avoid, anticipate and cope with the main global and societal challenges, including related to climate change, biodiversity loss, health and ageing, and food; Urges the Commission to design a limited number of pan-European research initiatives with 2040 and beyond set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that such initiatives could take the form of Missions which address jointly the three dimensions of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental including the possible technological dimension involved for the development and diffusion of strategic technologies in European society and diverse social structures, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU to support research-based resilience of key sectors in the European economy;

Or. en

Amendment 309

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU 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;	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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges and technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe;

Or. en

Amendment 310

Sofie Eriksson, Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU 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;	19. Urges the Commission to design a limited number of pan-European research initiatives with 2040 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU to support research-based competitiveness and the resilience of key sectors in the European economy;

Or. en

Amendment 311

Merja Kyllönen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU 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;	19. Urges the Commission to design a limited number of pan-European research initiatives with 2040 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU to support research-based competitiveness and the resilience of key sectors in the European economy;

Or. en

Amendment 312

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Paolo Borchia, Jana Nagyová, Barbara Bonte, Julie Rechagneux, Ondřej Knotek, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU 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;	19. Urges the Commission to design the part of FP10 on strategic deployment such that it focuses on a number of pan-European research initiatives, taking into account the scientific experts, industry opinions and lessons learned from the implementation of Horizon Europe, with 2040 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU 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;

Or. en

Amendment 313

René Repasi, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU 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;	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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU to support research-based competitiveness and the resilience of key sectors in the European economy;

Or. en

Amendment 314

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU 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;	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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU to support research-based competitiveness and the resilience of key sectors in the European economy;

Or. en

Amendment 315

Christophe Clergeau

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU 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;	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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that these initiatives should be closely linked to main European challenges such as climate neutrality, the green and digital transitions, industrial sovereignty and competitiveness, health and well-being, European security and preparedness, combining technological and socio-economic challenges; believes that these initiatives could be set through direct programming, missions or joint investments by sectoral private and public actors, Member States and the European Union; believes that all of these initiatives should receive a budget of between EUR 2.5 and 5 billion;

Or. en

Amendment 316

Morten Løkkegaard, Anna Stürgkh, Christophe Grudler, Ivars Ijabs, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Sophie Wilmès

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
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 set as the time horizon and which require cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States and the EU 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;	19. Urges the Commission to design the part of FP10 on strategic research, technology development and deployment, and to focus on pan-European research initiatives; strengthening the European competitiveness and societal resilience requires cross-border collaboration due to the scale and complexity of the issue in question; believes that this part should consider that these initiatives could take the form of societal missions which address socio-economic and/or ecological challenges, technology missions to accelerate the development of strategic technologies in Europe, or joint undertakings to secure joint investments by industry, Member States, the EU and other relevant partnerships to support research-based competitiveness and the resilience of key sectors in the European economy; believes that all of these initiatives should receive a adequate financing.

Or. en

Amendment 317

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19a. Recommends that Horizon Europe explicitly excludes funding for any research or innovation projects involving Israeli universities, research institutions, or companies operating in occupied territories or collaborating with military entities. In this regard, stresses that an exclusion should apply to all entities involved in projects contributing to military or defence activities, directly or indirectly, and particularly those that may lead to human rights abuses, as highlighted by the UN and other human rights organizations. Furthermore, calls for the creation of a strict oversight mechanism within Horizon Europe to ensure that no funds are allocated to projects with links to military operations, including technologies used in warfare. This should be accompanied by transparent reporting and accountability mechanisms to prevent misuse of EU funding for defence-relevant research. Furthermore reiterates that international cooperation participation and agreements should be subject to the full compliance of human rights' respect and duly observation of the principles acknowledged by the Charter of Fundamental rights of the EU;

Or. en

Amendment 318

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Paolo Borchia, Jana Nagyová, Barbara Bonte, Ondřej Knotek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19a. Agrees on the remarks of the Heitor report’s that states that addressing societal challenges through research and innovation is essential both for the ability to tackle these challenges and for safeguarding societal acceptance and democratizing science, since they represent an opportunity to empower citizens and regions, increase European well-being, resilience, inclusiveness, and competitiveness. In many cases, they must engage industry, to address challenges effectively and because they provide significant business opportunities. For example, by improving mental health, together with preventing cancer, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, private and public sectors will benefit from healthy citizens, boosting economic productivity and wellbeing. Research and innovation are a fundamental part of the European fabric and society and as such have a fundamental responsibility to address societal challenges; Requests to the European Commission to take into account these ideas at the design of the FP10 Programme;

Or. en

Amendment 319

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19a. Calls in particular to pursue and amplify the role of the Framework Programme in addressing climate change crisis, biodiversity loss and nature degradation, especially by gearing up the climate spending target of the Framework Programme beyond the current 35% and by including a biodiversity target of at least 15% in the next Framework Programme; Emphasises that FP10 must play a key role in advancing environmental sustainability and the green transition by addressing two critical aspects: first, by fostering research and the development of green technologies to tackle environmental and climate challenges; and second, by ensuring that research and innovation activities themselves adopt more ambitious sustainability practices, including stricter energy and resource efficiency standards for projects and research infrastructures and zero pollution ambition in our environment;

Or. en

Amendment 320

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 321

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19a. Recommends that not only fundamental research and disruptive innovations in targeted sectors matter, but ‘incremental’ steps across all industrial strategic sectors and all types of company should be adequately supported; highlights that SMEs, Mid-Caps and microenterprises must be considered, alongside large companies, as key players in the R&I activities; believes in this regard that manufacturing SMEs and Mid-Caps should be able to rely on mechanisms that are easier to access and simpler to manage;

Or. en

Amendment 322

Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Giorgio Gori, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19a. Notes that the allocation of at least 35% of the programme Horizon Europe expenditures to climate objectives served the general EU objective of mainstreaming climate actions into its sectoral policies and funds. Calls to ensure that FP10 pursues the effort to fund adequately science research and innovation that support the EU climate objectives

Or. en

Amendment 323

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19a. Affirms the importance of consolidating and strengthening funding for the achievement of technology neutrality; is convinced that actions related to the development of strategic technologies, as set out in the Net-Zero Industry Act, in particular nuclear technology, should be covered under the new FP10;

Or. en

Amendment 324

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19a. Considers that collaboration is key for excellent research and innovation and highlights that international collaboration should continue in the next FP10, as open as possible and as closed as necessary to tackle global challenges jointly.

Or. en

Amendment 325

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19a. Reiterates the need for sufficient funding for research projects that address societal challenges and that fall within the area of social sciences;

Or. en

Amendment 326

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Paulo Cunha

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 327

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19b. Believes as well that, beyond the agility of the Framework Programme itself, delivering resilience must be mainstreamed to become an integral part of all the applied research, development and innovation activities of the next Framework Programme, in a differentiated manner depending on the topic and the type of activity;
	Estimates in particular that innovation activities close to the market must take into account the risk of increased dependency on third countries stemming from them, and the necessary enhanced strategic autonomy of the Union;
	Believes for the same reason that considerations related to circular economy like resource efficiency (raw materials, energy, water, land, …), as well as “low-tech” innovation and frugal innovation must be part of the next Framework Programme;

Or. en

Amendment 328

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19b. Urges the Commission to prioritize gender equality in Horizon Europe by increasing funding for projects that aim to reverse existing gender biases in research. Additionally, calls for targeted initiatives to enhance the participation of women scientists, with a particular focus on addressing the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in scientific research. Additionally, emphasizes the need for increased investment in studies that address the gender gap in women’s health, ensuring equitable research opportunities and outcomes for women in the scientific and healthcare fields;

Or. en

Amendment 329

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19b. Calls the European Commission to continue the simplification of access procedures and rules for participation must continue: regulatory barriers must be removed, administrative burdens for applicants reduced, processes streamlined; highlights that a simplification of procedures should concern both the EU level and the national level, when applicable;

Or. en

Amendment 330

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Paolo Borchia, Auke Zijlstra, Jana Nagyová, Barbara Bonte, Julie Rechagneux, Ondřej Knotek, Pascale Piera

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19b. Affirms that FP10 should continue supporting actions to promote health and to fight against cardiovascular diseases that are the number one cause of death in the EU; therefore considers that cardiovascular diseases should be included as one of the missions of the future Framework Programme and to create a European Cardiovascular Diseases Plan;

Or. en

Amendment 331

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19b. Notes that to date many funding lines are not accessible when it comes to nuclear R&D; believes, in this regard, that the funds currently available under Euratom Research and Training Programme should be increased and be accessible to a wider range of subjects;

Or. en

Amendment 332

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19b. Recalls the important participation of SMEs in Horizon Europe and their central role in the European R&I ecosystem and highlights the need to maintain measures reinforce their presence in the next Framework Programme.

Or. en

Amendment 333

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19b. Calls for making data from FP10 funded projects more accessible in order to maximise the research impact of FP10;

Or. en

Amendment 334

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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.

Or. en

Amendment 335

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19c. Stresses the importance of reinforcing research collaboration with low- and middle-income countries. FP10 should include a specific framework to prevent the further widening of the innovation gap between core and peripheral EU regions, particularly in terms of talent retention and research mobility, to tackle the ongoing 'brain drain' problem. Is of the opinion that collaborative research that truly empowers low- and middle-income countries, supporting their own scientific and technological capacities rather than perpetuating dependency on Europe, is essential and that research collaboration should aim at mutual benefits, with an emphasis on equitable partnerships and shared knowledge;

Or. en

Amendment 336

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19c. Argues that one of the critical weakness of the EU R&I policy landscape is also linked to the lack of meaningful integrated and complementary approach between place-based and excellence-driven R&I activities, in particular between the Framework Programme and the R&I window of the Cohesion policy which are of the same order of magnitude in terms of EU budget; Calls for investigating options for structural and systemic synergies, in particular for bridging the gap between low-performers and most-performing R&I national systems and for the necessary articulation between the R&I policy and the industrial policy;

Or. en

Amendment 337

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19c. Believes that more emphasis should be given on impact and transfer of research results to the market; considers therefore essential to evaluate project proposals by adopting a result-oriented approach, ensure a greater role for industry in defining R&I priorities and topics and focuse on calls for proposals based on business needs;

Or. en

Amendment 338

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19c. Calls for additional measures to reduce the geographic divide, making the programme more accessible for entities located in low-income countries and promoting interest and capacity for applying to the EIC for companies in less advanced regions.

Or. en

Amendment 339

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19c. The programme should recognise the role of interdisciplinary research in addressing societal challenges, also including a better integration of Social Sciences, Humanities and the Arts (SSHA).

Or. en

Amendment 340

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19d. Recommends to preserve the Public-Private Partnerships approach, possibly expanding the scope and funding of the existing Public-Private Partnerships as they play a central role in the implementation of long-term RD&I agendas, and thus for the EU’s long-term competitiveness;

Or. en

Amendment 341

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19d. Recommends that all research projects funded under FP10 comply with the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle, ensuring that no investment or economic activity funded by Horizon Europe negatively impacts the environment or ecological objectives, in line with the EU's climate ambitions;

Or. en

Amendment 342

Ville Niinistö

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19d. Claims that expanding the use of two-stage proposals in FP10 would make the process more efficient, equitable, and aligned with strategic objectives, reduce administrative burden for applicants and result in higher success rate for applicants submitting a full project proposal;

Or. en

Amendment 343

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19d. Leverage the programme’s capacity to strengthen society’s trust in science. FP10 should provide more opportunities for the engagement of citizens and society as a whole, raising awareness of the role they can play in contributing to research activities.

Or. en

Amendment 344

René Repasi, Elisabetta Gualmini, Bruno Tobback, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Mohammed Chahim, Elena Sancho Murillo, Matthias Ecke, Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Giorgio Gori

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19d. Urges the European Commission to increase efforts to boost women's involvement in high-risk innovation by expanding targeted initiatives such as Women TechEU and the Women Leadership Programme.

Or. en

Amendment 345

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19d. Recommends the introduction of Research Actions in order to foster and encourage more lower TRL research;

Or. en

Amendment 346

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 e (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 347

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 e (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19e. Believes that the European Innovation Council (EIC) should aim to identify, develop, and deploy high-risk innovations of all kinds, guaranteeing access to all Start-ups and innovative SMEs; underlines that the action of the EIC should be oriented towards supporting start-ups projects with spill-over effects on the manufacturing industrial system; calls on the European Commission to align the EIC’s objectives and priorities much more with European industrial needs than with investors’ interests;

Or. en

Amendment 348

Rudi Kennes

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 e (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19e. Encourages enhanced collaboration across various research projects and between countries to optimize the use of available funding. Stresses the importance of fostering shared knowledge and best practices to ensure more efficient and impactful outcomes, while promoting a collaborative approach to solving global challenges;

Or. en

Amendment 349

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 f (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19f. Underlines that financing instruments must be adapted to companies’ needs: to this end, an industry-driven instrument, building on the experience of the Fast Track to Innovation from Horizon 2020, should be introduced; believes that such instrument should become the main implementation mechanism of the pillar dedicated to industrial innovation as it also should strengthen industrial participation in PPPs within which it should equally be promoted;

Or. en

Amendment 350

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 f (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 351

Elena Donazzan, Nicola Procaccini, Carlo Ciccioli, Alessandro Ciriani, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Pietro Fiocchi, Giovanni Crosetto, Francesco Torselli, Chiara Gemma, Ondřej Krutílek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 g (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19g. Recognizes that, as mentioned in the Draghi Report, strengthening EU’s competitiveness in relation to its competitors cannot be separated from the preservation of its fundamental values such as prosperity, social inclusion, freedom, peace, democracy, and sustainability; enhances the funding for research in the humanities, since it is about promoting social and cultural development alongside technological advancement;

Or. en

Amendment 352

Christian Ehler

on behalf of the EPP Group

Stefan Berger, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Angelika Winzig, Matej Tonin, Dimitris Tsiodras, Radan Kanev, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Michalis Hadjipantela

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 g (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	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;

Or. en

Amendment 353

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 h (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19h. Recommends that the forthcoming FP10 prioritizes the allocation of dedicated funding and strategic support for research and innovation in dual-use technologies; enhances that by fostering dual-use research, FP10 can unlock significant synergies between civilian advancements and security needs, ensuring that Europe remains at the forefront of technological innovation while strengthening its strategic autonomy and resilience; to this end, recommends better coordination and cooperation with other funds dedicated to dual-use technologies, such as the European Defence Fund;

Or. en

Amendment 354

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 i (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19i. Emphasizes, in the context of the next FP10, the fundamental role of space and space-related research; recognizes the numerous civilian applications of space research and the need of implementing ambitious research programme in the field of space in line with the European Space Programme;

Or. en

Amendment 355

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 j (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19j. Recommends that the next FP10 to be aligned with the work of the Community for European Research and Innovation for Security (CERIS); underlines how research and innovation can support EU policy response to different security challenges;

Or. en

Amendment 356

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 k (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19k. Underlines the importance of nuclear research to be strengthen in the next FP10; underlines the fundamental role of nuclear start-ups but acknowledges, at the same time, a shortage of skills in this sector; calls for the next FP10 to focus on research oriented towards new solution in nuclear energy, including small modular reactors (SMRs) and nuclear fusion;

Or. en

Amendment 357

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 l (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19l. Recommends that the upcoming FP10 explicitly embed the principle of technological neutrality as a cornerstone of its research and innovation strategy; recalls that this principle should guide the selection, development, and implementation of projects, ensuring that FP10 supports a diverse range of solutions without favouring specific technologies, thereby fostering innovation, competitiveness, and adaptability across sectors;

Or. en

Amendment 358

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 m (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19m. Acknowledges the role of research in the field of agriculture, in particular to enhance our food sovereignty; highlights that research in agriculture is fundamental to enhance crops resilience and to develop technologies directly linked to benefit European citizens’ everyday life;

Or. en

Amendment 359

Lina Gálvez, Christophe Clergeau, Nicolás González Casares, Elena Sancho Murillo, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	20a. Notes that FP10 should take into account the use of AI as a way to foster European research development while identifying specific risks of an abusive use of AI in the scientific environment and the corresponding mitigation measures.

Or. en