EN

|| COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 20.3.2003

COM(2003) 124 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

Research and technological development activities of the European Union 2002 Annual Report

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

Research and technological development activities of the European Union 2002 Annual Report

Summary..................................................................................................................................... 5

1. A European research area under construction.............................................................. 6

1.1. Coordination of research policies................................................................................. 6

1.2. Mobility of researchers................................................................................................. 7

1.3. The link between research and innovation.................................................................... 8

1.4. Research infrastructure............................................................................................... 11

1.5. Science and society..................................................................................................... 12

1.6. International and regional dimensions........................................................................ 14

2. preparation of the sixth Framework Programme........................................................ 16

2.1 Interinstitutional negotiation...................................................................................... 16

2.2. Instruments................................................................................................................. 18

3. Implementation and impact of the Fifth Framework Programme in 2001................. 20

3.1. Implementation of the Framework Programme.......................................................... 20

3.2 Impact of Community research.................................................................................. 21

3.3. International cooperation............................................................................................ 24

3.4. Assessment of the Framework Programme................................................................ 27

4. Consultation and monitoring procedures.................................................................... 29

4.1. Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST)........................................... 29

4.2. External Advisory Groups.......................................................................................... 29

4.3. Programme Committees.............................................................................................. 29

4.4. High-Level Groups..................................................................................................... 30

4.5. The Scientific Council................................................................................................ 30

5. Outlook....................................................................................................................... 32

Annex I ........................................................................................................................................ 33

Annex II.................................................................................................................................... 61

Legal bases for the annual report

Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 173: “At the beginning of each year the Commission shall send a report to the European Parliament and the Council. The report shall include information on research and technological development activities and the dissemination of results during the previous year, and the work programme for the current year.”

Decision No 182/1999/EC concerning the fifth framework programme (OJ L 26, 1 February 1999), Article 5: “The Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament and the Council of the overall progress of the implementation of the framework programme and the specific programmes.”

Decision No 1999/65/EC concerning the rules for participation (OJ L 26, 1 February 1999), Article 24: “The annual report which the Commission sends to the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 173 of the Treaty shall contain information on the implementation of this Decision.”

Sources of further information

– Annual Monitoring Reports published each year for the Framework Programme and each specific programme, which provide a concise, independent summary of the progress and quality of the measures taken to implement the programmes.

– Five-year Assessment Reports published every fourth year, both for the Framework Programme and for each specific programme, which present an independent retrospective evaluation of the relevance, efficiency, results and impact of the European Union RTD programmes during the previous five years.

– The European Report on Science and Technology Indicators, which contains descriptions, statistics and detailed analyses of European and national RTD activities in the world context.

– Research and Development: Annual Statistics (Eurostat): an annual publication containing comparable international statistics on R&D budgets, R&D expenditure, R&D personnel and patents in the Member States, broken down by region.

– R&D and Innovation Statistics for the Candidate Countries and the Russian Federation (Eurostat).

– Statistics on Science and Technology in Europe, published as part of the “Panorama of the European Union” collection (Eurostat).

– Statistics in Focus under the theme “Science and technology” (Eurostat).

– The Commission’s annual budgetary documents, i.e. the preliminary draft budget, the budget, the consolidated revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet.

– Studies and analyses published in connection with the Community RTD programmes and addressing issues specific to the fields of RTD which they cover.

Most of these documents can be obtained or ordered from the Commission’s Internet sites:

– The Commission’s general EUROPA site: http://europa.eu.int

– The CORDIS site containing information on the RTD Framework Programme: http://www.cordis.lu

– The site of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Research: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research

– The site of the Commission’s Directorate-General for the Information Society: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/

– The site of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Enterprise: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/

– The Joint Research Centre (JRC) site: http://www.jrc.org

– The Eurostat site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat

Extensive information on European Union policies can be found on these sites, including —on the CORDIS site, which is devoted to the RTD Framework Programme, and on the sites of the Directorate-General for Research and of the other relevant Commission departments — all the reference documents, the texts of calls for proposals and a host of other information, in line with the Commission's transparency and information policy.

An annex that sums up the science and technology activities in 2001 and the outlook for 2002 for each of the specific programmes under the Fifth Framework Programme can be consulted on line at http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/report2002.html.

Summary

This annual report covers the period from January 2001 to March 2002, which was marked by unprecedented development of the Community’s research policy. The Commission has given further thought to all aspects of the European Research Area (ERA) and has drawn up a framework programme that can contribute fully to making it a reality.

The Commission adopted the proposals for the Sixth framework programme and the means for implementing it between February and September 2001. Following the first reading of the framework document, the Council and the Parliament reached broad agreement on the overall amount, the structure, the priorities and the instruments. The Commission amended its proposals relating to the means of implementation to reflect that agreement, with a view to the rapid adoption of the programme.

At the same time, the Commission drew up the procedures for implementing the various instruments, including integrated projects, networks of excellence, and participation in research programmes implemented by several Member States. For the latter, the Commission, in response to a request from the Council, collected suggestions from the Member States concerning the areas which should be eligible for Community financial support.

Major milestones in the construction of the European Research Area were reached with the publication of the first results of the benchmarking of national RTD policies and the mapping of scientific excellence in Europe and the adoption of a mobility strategy for researchers, the European innovation scoreboard, the action plan for science and society, and communications on the international and regional dimensions of the European Research Area.

A framework agreement on cooperation in the field of research was signed between the Commission and the European Investment Bank, and the GEANT European Scientific Communications Network became operational.

Implementation of the Fifth Framework Programme continued successfully in 2001 with the signing of nearly 5 000 contracts involving more than 23 000 participants and Community financial support of more than 3.7 million euros. Tools were developed and the analysis deepened with a view to better quantifying the socio-economic impact of Community research, resulting in further progress towards the objectives of increasing the share of small and medium-sized enterprises and the participation of women in research and paying greater attention to ethical aspects.

International cooperation was stepped up: agreements were signed with Malta, Ukraine, Russia and India and “bi-regional” relations were developed with Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Balkans.

The various advisory groups which assist the Commission in the implementation of its research activities played their role to the full, with reports and opinions from the Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST), external advisory groups and the high-level groups set up by Commissioner Busquin in 2001. The EU Research Advisory Board (EURAB) was set up and started work in the second half of 2001.

1. A European research area under construction

The European research area project is the fruit of a Commission initiative[1] and the European Council’s wish, expressed for the first time at Lisbon, that research activities and policies should be better integrated and coordinated at both national and European level. It is implemented by the “open coordination method”, under which varying groups of Member States join forces with the Commission to take specific steps towards the achievement of the objectives listed below.

A first progress report[2] on the construction of the European research and innovation area was drawn up for the European Council meeting in Stockholm in March 2001.

1.1. Coordination of research policies

1.1.1. Benchmarking of research policies

Based on a methodology and twenty indicators drawn up in partnership with the Member States, [3] the benchmarking of national research policies focused on the five themes selected by the Council in June 2000: public and private investment in research and development; scientific and technological productivity; the impact of research on economic competitiveness and employment; human resources; and the promotion of a scientific culture and public understanding of science. Five expert groups were given the task of analysing these themes. The data on the first fifteen indicators to be made available were published in June 2001[4], and work on the other five has continued in cooperation with Eurostat. The first progress report was published in June 2001[5]. The first results of the benchmarking exercise[6] were circulated during the seminar of research and industry ministers held in Gerona on 1 February 2002 and presented to the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (ITRE) on 26 February 2002; they were published on CORDIS[7] so that they could be widely discussed and enriched.

The benchmarking of national research policies is carried out in parallel with that of the European Trend Chart on Innovation, which each year publishes the European Innovation Scoreboard (see 1.3.1 below).

1.1.2. Mapping scientific excellence in Europe

The mapping of scientific excellence is intended to identify specific RTD capabilities existing in Europe, including less known and/or small ones and to assess their excellence. This should allow visibility-raising across borders, by disseminating the mapping results widely to policy makers, the scientific community, industry and investors. Intensified networking, increased intra-European mobility and knowledge transfer, and greater attractiveness of Europe could emerge as additional effects. At the instigation of the Lisbon European Council and to follow up the Council meeting of 15 June 2000, the Commission and the Member States defined a methodology[8] for a pilot exercise of mapping scientific excellence in Europe, initially in three areas: life sciences, nanotechnologies and economics. The exercise was extended to countries associated with the Framework Programme. The objective of the pilot exercise is to evaluate the methodological advantages and disadvantages and incorporate the learning effects into a consolidated and generalised methodology, which can then be used to continue the mapping from 2003 on. Of course, a limited number of maps will also be produced in a first stage leading to usable and interesting results.

First results for economics are already available and were discussed with stakeholders in November 2001. For the mapping of life sciences and nanotechnologies, preparatory studies have been conducted with the help of expert groups by exploring various alternatives, and these provide a sound basis for the implementation of the pilot methodology. A stakeholder panel was appointed in March 2002 to assist the Commission in steering the remainder of the pilot exercise and make recommendations for the possible generalisation of the methodology. Contractors selected on the basis of an open call for tenders[9] are carrying out the bibliometric and patent analyses in life sciences and nanotechnologies and developing tools to present the results in a format that can be fit for purpose for various categories of users. Final results for the mapping of excellence pilot exercise are expected for the end of 2002. The generalisation of the methodology and the strategy for implementing the next cycle of the mapping of excellence will be addressed in the fourth quarter of 2002 in close cooperation with the Member States, in the light of user needs and the outcome of the pilot exercise.

1.1.3. Networking of national research programmes

The networking of research activities undertaken at national and regional levels and the mutual opening-up of programmes are one of the objectives pursued by the European Research Area. As a first step, the Commission has launched a study of the feasibility of setting up an integrated information system on research in Europe, which should facilitate implementation of the coordination activities. Moreover, a communication on the application of Article 169 and the networking of national programmes was published on 30 May 2001[10]. The Commission has stepped up the dialogue with the national and international authorities in order to agree procedures for applying the coordination support activities provided for in the Sixth Framework Programme and to define pilot programmes for which the use of Article 169 would be appropriate in accordance with the conclusions of the Council of 30 October 2001.

Concrete proposals for starting the mutual opening-up of national RTD programmes were discussed at an informal seminar of research and industry ministers held in Gerona on 1 and 2 February 2002. The first themes selected were marine sciences; plant genomes; complexity and complex systems; and chemistry. Their progressive implementation has since been the subject of complementary work within CREST.

1.2. Mobility of researchers

Further to the report[11] of a high-level group of representatives of Research Ministers, in June 2001 the Commission adopted a Communication on “a mobility strategy for the ERA”[12], i.e. a strategy to create a favourable environment for the mobility of researchers in the ERA.

The communication proposes a first group of actions in order to improve information on vacancies and on administrative and legislative conditions in each country (e.g. web portal), provide assistance to mobile researchers and their families (e.g. network of mobility centres) and improve the situation of researchers and their families in matters which concern them directly (conditions of entry, social security, taxation, etc.). To this end, a Steering Group was set up with the Member States and Candidate Countries in order to have a regular exchange of views on the implementation of the initiatives announced in the Communication. It met for the first time in March 2002.

A major conference on “an enlarged Europe for researchers” and a round table on researchers’ mobility were held in Brussels in 2001. The Commission also supported the conference “for a European research opened on the world” organised by the Belgian Presidency.

1.3. The link between research and innovation

Discussions of ways of strengthening the link between research and innovation continued in 2001, with a view to establishing favourable conditions in the Union for a more dynamic private research sector and improved economic application of the knowledge produced.

1.3.1. The European Innovation Scoreboard

At the request of the European Council, in September 2001 the Commission published the first fully-fledged version of the annual “European Innovation Scoreboard”[13], one of the three building blocks of the European Trend Chart on Innovation that implements the “open coordination approach” in the area of innovation.

It assesses the innovating capacity of Member States individually and of the Union as a whole, covering four main themes: human resources for innovation; knowledge creation; the transmission and application of knowledge; and innovation finance, outputs and markets.

The 17 Scoreboard indicators were selected to capture some of the most important measures of innovation: the fundamental prerequisites, such as the supply of trained scientists and venture capital; intermediate outputs, such as high technology patents; final outputs, such as the sales share for innovative products, and markets for high technology products such as information and communication technology (ICT) equipment and Internet access[14].

The second edition of the scoreboard was published in October 2001[15], and is also available as an interactive tool on the Trend Chart website[16]. The compilation of figures is accompanied by in-depth analysis covering achievements and trends, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the performance of individual countries, and evaluating the convergence or divergence of each indicator across Europe.

– For many of the 17 innovation indicators, the leading countries of the European Union exhibit significant advances over the US and Japan[17], demonstrating great potential for the exchange of good policy practice and learning within the European Union. Variations between Member States are particularly high for four indicators: life-long learning; business R&D; high technology patents; and the share of SMEs involved in innovation cooperation. Interestingly, the differences are greater in areas affected by private decision-making, with less variability between countries for indicators that are strongly influenced by public policy, such as tertiary education or public R&D investment. This creates a much more difficult challenge for policy: how to encourage private investment and business strategies to focus on innovation.

– In addition to identifying problems at national level, the Innovation Scoreboard highlights two key areas where the European Union as a whole does relatively poorly compared to the United States and Japan: business R&D and high technology patenting. In response, the documentation accompanying the Innovation Scoreboard suggests two policy actions. Firstly, EU Member States need to initiate or increase incentives for business R&D. Secondly, research into the causes of the poor European performance in high technology patenting is needed to determine if this poor performance is due to a lack of basic capabilities in high technology sectors or to the appropriation strategies of European firms. One possible cause of the weakness in high technology patenting could be inadequate rates of patenting and technology commercialisation by European universities and public research institutes.

1.3.2. Stimulating investment in research

Following up the impetus given by the Lisbon European Council, work aimed at stimulating private investment in research progressed in 2001 along two different strands:

– Building on the existing work on the benchmarking of public and private investment in research, an exercise was initiated to identify the means of improving the effectiveness of public financing mechanisms for supporting private investment in research.

Public authorities have a number of instruments at their disposal which, when applied effectively and in an appropriate mix, can help to stimulate increased private investment. These instruments include direct measures such as subsidies; fiscal measures; guarantees for both loans and equity; and support for venture capital. The objective of the exercise being undertaken is to identify good practices in using these instruments, both individually and in combination.

On the basis of the preliminary work on this exercise, the Commission proposed in its Communication to the Barcelona European Council that a target of 3% of GDP be set for the overall level of public and private spending on research and development by the end of the decade. Within that total, the amount funded by business should rise to around two thirds, as against 55% today. This work also provided input for the note prepared to stimulate discussion at the Informal Seminar of Research and Industry Ministers held in Gerona on 1-2 February 2002. This note set out the means by which the goal of increasing R&D spending to 3% of GDP by 2010 could be achieved.

– Based on the key role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF) in providing investment for the research and innovation process, discussions have taken place to identify possible synergies to further this process, leading to a cooperation agreement between the Commission and the EIB.

Structured cooperation between the Commission and the EIB should make it easier for the Commission, the EIB, and the EIF to combine their funding, to maximise the impact of their actions at Community level, and to attract private investment in research. The Commission and the EIB Group are working to give themselves the means to do so.

On 7 June 2001, Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin and European Investment Bank (EIB) President Philippe Maystadt signed a joint memorandum in the field of research[18]. The joint memorandum establishes a framework for cooperation aimed at improving the complementarity of the financing sources between the Community research framework program (FP) and the “Innovation 2000 Initiative” (i2i) of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF).

The EIB has taken part in targeted seminars, for example on biotechnology, and is participating in the preparation of the Sixth Framework Programme. Regarding new research and innovation financing schemes, progress has been made in identifying existing financial products suited to the financing of research and innovation and in developing ways to combine them.

1.3.3. Intellectual property

The objective of improving the transformation of knowledge into economic value through improved protection, management and transfer of intellectual property rights (IPR) such as patents and copyright was actively pursued in 2001.

– Legislative proposals were prepared on IPR on biotechnology and on computer-implemented inventions protection, and negotiations on a Community patent[19] made some progress, although key issues such as the choice of a jurisdiction for settling disputes, the linguistic regime and the role of National Patent Offices were left open.

– The identification, promotion and dissemination of best practices for the use of IPR in the research & innovation process progressed by means of workshops and expert groups. Consultations were held, leading to three reports prepared by experts. These reports provided input to EU policy formulation (e.g. to communications and action plans for life sciences and biotechnology) and guidance to researchers. New activities (studies and expert groups) were initiated on the coherence of national IPR rules for publicly funded research; the optimum use of IPR in university-industry research cooperation; and the role of IPR in ICT-based research. As part of this process, cooperation was stepped up with both the European Patent Office and the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

– Work started on the preparation of explanatory guidelines for knowledge management on the basis of the results of expert groups and workshops, to support the definition of IPR provisions in the Sixth Framework Programme.

1.4. Research infrastructure

1.4.1. Developing a European approach to research infrastructure

Pursuant to the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council and further support from the Research Council, the Commission staff working paper "A European research area for infrastructures"[20] proposed guidelines for a European policy on research infrastructure based on an analysis of past achievements and current shortcomings. It recommended establishing new mechanisms for Europe-wide scientific advice and infrastructure policy decisions and combining resources for the development of new key infrastructures, and examined how to better exploit existing infrastructure.

In June 2001, the Council, recognising the benefits of a European approach to research infrastructure in the context of the European Research Area, invited the Commission, in close collaboration with the Member States, to explore the need for new arrangements to support policies related to research infrastructure. Responding to this invitation, the Commission convened a group of experts designated by all Member States.

The expert group concluded that policy-making on research infrastructure of European significance had steadily become more complex and less effective and that a more collective approach was now needed to guide policy-making in the Member States. The expert group met several times in 2001. In its final report published early 2002, it recommended that Member States set up a European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures in order to support a coherent and strategy-led approach to policy making on research infrastructure in Europe and to facilitate multilateral initiatives leading to better use and development of research infrastructure.

1.4.2. Developing high-speed electronic networks for scientific communications

The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, actively pursued the objective stated by the European Council in Lisbon. Europe has now reached a world leading position in terms of networks for research.

Since 1 November 2001 Europe has had a fully operational trans-European network (GEANT) running at 10 Gbps and interconnecting thirty-two National Research and Education Networks (NRENs). This corresponds to an increase by a factor of sixteen since 2000. The NRENs have also been upgraded, leading to a significant increase in the access capacities of all European research institutes and universities. The improvement in the access of the various NRENs to the trans-European networks from June to December 2001 is depicted in Graph 1.

Graph 1 : NRENs Access Capacity to the GEANT Backbone (June and December 2001)

GEANT and other projects are also promoting the widespread introduction of the new Internet Protocol IPv6 in Europe, by deploying large-scale test beds involving academia and industry in a collaborative effort that actively supports European policies in this area.

For highly demanding research communities (e.g. high energy physics, astronomy, molecular biology, environment, etc.), complementary experimental GRIDS infrastructure is also being deployed. The GRIDS concept concerns a middle-ware technology layer aimed at effectively harnessing computing and data resources available world-wide and making them seamlessly accessible as a single resource for any user on the web. GEANT and GRIDS are seen as major building blocks for the Next Generation Internet.

1.5. Science and society

Following the publication of the Commission staff working paper "Science, Society and the Citizen in Europe" in November 2000, a wide consultation on the relations between science and society was launched through an on-line forum[21]. It addressed in particular the link between research policies and society’s aims; risk management and the precautionary principle; ethics in science and research; the dialogue between researchers and citizens; public understanding of science; and the place and role of women in science. By the closing date of the public debate (20 June 2001), 182 people had registered and 69 messages had been submitted, many covering more than one subject.

1.5.1. Science and Society Action Plan

In response to a Council resolution[22], the Science and Society Action Plan was approved by the Commission on 4 December 2001 and presented to the Research Council on 10 December 2001. It consists of 38 actions aimed at promoting scientific education and culture in Europe, bringing science policy closer to the citizens, and placing responsible science at the heart of policy making.

The plan constitutes a management tool with all activities relating to science and society being presented in a coherent framework, with a general implementation schedule and tools for monitoring implementation, assessing the impact and adapting the actions in response to emerging needs.

1.5.2. The ethical framework in research

The ethical framework of research was further elaborated in cooperation with the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) with a view to embodying it in the Sixth Framework Programme.

Further exchanges with the EGE, the Council of Europe and representatives of the Member States led to the identification of 6 actions on ethics to be part of the Science and Society Action Plan:

– setting up an information and documentation observatory for ethical issues;

– establishing public dialogue on ethics in science;

– raising scientific researchers’ awareness of ethical issues;

– fostering local and national networks of ethical committees;

– developing international dialogue on ethical principles;

– protecting animals used in research.

The following actions were defined in the communication on Life Sciences and Biotechnology, a Strategy for Europe, adopted by the Commission on 27 January 2002:

– strengthen and focus Community support for research into ethical issues and dissemination of results, including criteria for assessing the benefits of using biotechnology in agri-food production, to facilitate future reporting and to provide a good basis for societal decisions on the application of biotechnology and life sciences;

– steer research support to a more systematic mapping of benefits and disadvantages/risks which should include a strong component for dissemination of information and debate;

– ensure that ethical, legal and social implications are taken into account at the earliest possible stages of Community-supported research;

– develop, jointly with the European Parliament, measures to inform about the analysis of ethical issues at the EU level;

– work with public and private partners to identify areas where it is possible to establish consensus on ethical guidelines/standards or best practice such as stem cell research, biobanks, xenotransplantation, genetic testing and use of animals in research.

The Commission has monitored and, where relevant, participated in the activities of the relevant international organisations, such as the Council of Europe (Working group on biomedical research, which is drafting a protocol on biomedical research; Working group on biotechnology; Working group on human genetics, which is drafting a protocol on human genetics; and Steering Committee on Bioethics), UNESCO and the UN.

1.5.3. Developing a common S/T reference system

Following the Science and Governance Conference of October 2000, a workshop was held in March 2001 in the framework of the Working Group on “Democratising expertise and establishing scientific reference systems” contributing to the development of the White Paper on European Governance. The related online questionnaire, posted on Internet between March and May 2001, resulted in over 200 responses.

A governance network of civil servants from Member States was established to provide a forum for discussion and exchange of good practices with regard to the interaction of knowledge producers (the scientific community), policy-makers and civil society. It also aims at developing scientific reference systems.

Work was also initiated in 2001 to develop a set of guidelines for the Commission’s own practices in selecting and using expertise for policy-making, with a view to a subsequent proposal for a common approach by other institutions and Member States, to establish a blueprint for European Scientific Reference Systems (ECSRS), and to exchange experience between research and regulatory bodies concerned with risk issues. This was followed by the publication of guidelines and proposals related to risk governance, the application of the precautionary principle, and risk communication.

1.6. International and regional dimensions

1.6.1. The international dimension of the European Research Area

In its communication of 25 June 2001 on the international dimension of the European Research Area[23], the Commission outlined the broad guidelines for a new policy of international scientific and technological cooperation fulfilling the strategic objectives of opening the European Research Area up to the world. The Member States and the Community will jointly implement this policy, taking into account the objectives of the EU's scientific and technological policy and foreign policy.

Opening up the ERA to the world should enable EU countries to benefit from international cooperation on science and technology, which will in turn pave the way for closer political and economic relations, in particular with the candidate countries and the countries of the European Economic Area. The new strategy of international cooperation will also make it possible to further develop relations between the European Union and third countries[24], help improve dialogue between certain countries[25] and raise the profile of science and technology in Europe.

1.6.2. The regional dimension of the European Research Area

On the initiative of Commissioners Busquin and Barnier, in October 2001 the Commission adopted a communication on the regional dimension of the European Research Area[26] which analysed the role which regions can play in research and innovation in Europe and presented a strategy aimed at integrating research policy and regional policy and building research capacity in the regions. Implementation of this strategy is based on a wide range of Community instruments:

– The Sixth Framework Programme, by means of transregional cooperation opportunities (e.g. networking research and innovation programmes and initiatives at regional level), more coherent development of policies at regional level (e.g. territorial foresight), specific measures for SMEs (cooperative and collective research), grants specially tailored to the needs of researchers in the less developed regions or in candidate countries, and networks of excellence and integrated projects. For participants in Objective 1 regions, it is also possible to combine funding from the framework programme with funding from the structural funds (European Regional Development Fund) [27].

– Innovation activities undertaken at regional level under the Fifth Framework Programme, in conjunction with innovatory actions under the structural funds intended to support the networking of players and initiatives at regional level, promote strategies for the creation of a knowledge-based society and facilitate exchanges. Interactions between advanced regions and regions which are lagging behind, including Candidate Countries’ regions, are promoted by the “Innovating Regions of Europe” (IRE) network[28].

– Longer-term structuring activities which will be implemented at the instigation of the Commission, such as the supply of specific services to the regions (technology audits, benchmarking and the exchange of good practices, etc.), measures to improve the links between scientific experts and political decision-makers and the creation of a regional dimension for the future information systems on research and innovation in Europe.

A study on “involving the regions in the European Research Area” was completed in January 2002 and has been published by the Commission. A second study was launched at the end of 2001 into research and development capacities in the outermost regions[29]. The Commission has started a major information and awareness-raising campaign concerning the messages set out in the communication involving missions in the field and the dissemination of documents on paper and on line.

2. preparation of the sixth Framework Programme

The Stockholm European Council of 23 and 24 March 2001 invited the Council to adopt the Sixth Research Framework Programme under the codecision procedure with the European Parliament by June 2002, stressing the need to take full advantage of the new instruments (networks of excellence, integrated projects and participation in research programmes undertaken by several Member States), while taking account of the need to strengthen cohesion and support small and medium-sized enterprises.

During 2001 the Commission adopted the proposals for the Sixth Framework Programme, followed by proposals for the implementation of the Framework Programme, the specific programmes and the rules for participation. These proposals are innovative in that while they are intended to make the Sixth Framework Programme the leading instrument for building the European Research Area and to enhance the impact and the structuring effect of Community research, they also define simplified and more transparent implementation procedures and streamlined and simplified management procedures.

2.1 Interinstitutional negotiation

The year was largely devoted to the first reading of the proposals for the Sixth Framework Programme (EC and Euratom). The negotiations progressed quickly, and were marked by the convergence of the positions of the various institutions, which in particular accepted the overall budget proposed by the Commission.

2.1.1. The Framework Programme

The Commission adopted the proposals for decisions relating to the Sixth Research and Technological Development Framework Programme (EC and Euratom) on 21 February 2001[30]. With a proposed budget of €17.5 billion, these proposals reflect the priority themes for building the European Research Area.

Research Ministers had a first exchange of views on the proposals for a Framework Programme on 3 March, and this was followed by a policy debate at the Council meeting of 26 June 2001.

On 30 October 2001 the Council agreed on a joint approach to the Sixth Framework Programme, including the structure of the specific programmes and the procedure for managing them. The main changes made to the Commission’s proposals concerned the content of the “genomics and biotechnology for health” priority; the organisation of the “sustainable development, global change and ecosystems” priority; the scale of financial support available for new research infrastructure; and the budget and implementation arrangements for “anticipating the EU’s scientific and technological needs”.

On 14 November 2001 the European Parliament adopted its opinion on first reading, amending the Commission’s proposals by introducing a “stairway of excellence” (an instrument intended to complement integrated projects and networks of excellence); strengthening the ethical principles to be complied with by European research; and substantially reducing the share of the budget allocated to “anticipating the EU's scientific and technological needs”.

The Commission amended its proposals for a Framework Programme on 22 November 2001[31], incorporating many of Parliament’s amendments. Thus the amended proposals reflect the opinion of the European Parliament, particularly as regards the ethical principles to be complied with and the need to ensure a transition towards the new instruments in the spirit of the “stairway of excellence”, while preserving the general balance of the initial budgetary breakdown.

The Council finished its first reading of the proposals for a Framework Programme (EC and Euratom) and reached political agreement on a compromise text on 10 December 2001, confirming the priority given to the new instruments, leaving the ethical principles to be determined in the texts relating to the specific programmes, and adjusting the breakdown of the budget between the various priorities and activities.

The Council adopted a common position formalising this political agreement on 28 January 2002, and this was endorsed by the Commission on 30 January 2002[32].

Thus at the end of the first reading of the proposals for a Framework Programme, the European Parliament and the Council reached a broad consensus on the general budget and its breakdown, the structure of the programme, the scientific and technological priorities, and the means of implementation. The only major point on which they have still not reached agreement is how to deal with the question of ethical principles: the European Parliament would like to see a list of excluded research subjects.

2.1.2. Specific Programmes

On 30 May 2001 the Commission adopted the proposals for decisions on the specific programmes implementing the Framework Programme (EC and Euratom) [33]. On 17 October 2001 the Commission amended the proposal for the specific programme on “integrating and strengthening the European Research Area” [34] in order to specify the contents of and methods of implementing the chapter on “anticipating the EU's scientific and technological needs”.

On the basis of the broad convergence between the opinion of the European Parliament and the common position of the Council on the proposals for decisions on the Sixth Framework Programme, on 30 January 2002 the Commission amended its proposals on the specific programmes[35] to take account of the changes made to the Framework Programme on first reading as regards the research activities to be conducted, the breakdown of the overall budget and the corresponding resources.

On 11 March the Council on research held a policy debate on the specific programmes, focusing on the number of programmes and on three aspects of the committee procedure: the type, powers and operation of the committees, particularly as regards the implementation of two EC specific programmes.

2.1.3. Rules on participation

The Commission adopted the proposal for a decision concerning the rules for participation and for the dissemination of results[36] on 10 September 2001 and amended it on 10 January 2002 to reflect the political agreement reached at the Council meeting of 10 December 2001 on the proposals for decisions on the Sixth Framework Programme.

On 11 March the Council on research held a policy debate on the rules for participation and for the dissemination of results, focusing on the minimum number of participants for research actions; the evaluation and selection of proposals; the joint and several liability of participants; complementary financing for EC specific programmes; and the financial contribution to thermonuclear fusion (Euratom).

2.2. Instruments

2001 has essentially been dedicated to defining the methods of implementing integrated projects, networks of excellence and the Community contribution to programmes undertaken by several Member States (Article 169), and then identifying suitable domains for the latter.

2.2.1. Integrated projects and networks of excellence

Numerous communication actions have been undertaken, aimed at both internal and external audiences: a first seminar on the instruments on 20 April, regular meetings to inform the operational directorates, numerous actions aimed at external audiences (essentially research operators all over Europe). A specific Task Force on Instruments was set up, made up of representatives of various directorates of the Directorate-General for Research and representatives of other Directorates-General involved in the implementation of the Framework Programme (Information Society, Enterprise, Energy and Transport, Fisheries), to discuss issues related to the instruments.

Working documents describing the provisions for implementing integrated projects and networks of excellence were prepared and posted on the DG Research website, in order to inform the scientific community of the latest reflections within the Commission. A major communication action aimed at the research community was started, resulting in the organisation of 7 seminars in early 2002 to present the new instruments to “information multipliers” in each of the thematic priority areas.

2.2.2. Article 169

In its communication of 30 May 2001[37], the Commission explored the possibility of using a general legislative framework to implement Community participation in research programmes undertaken by several Member States. During the subsequent discussions, a preference emerged for a case-by-case approach based on individual decisions each time Article 169 is applied. On 30 October the Council therefore invited the Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, to identify specific areas of research in which a limited number of pilot programmes could be developed and to examine with the Commission the methods for implementing proposals for joint programmes, and invited the Commission to present proposals for Community participation in pilot programmes.

In January 2002 the Commission drew up a list of specific areas likely to be of interest to the Member States and asked a task force of Commission staff to analyse them. Only the proposal for a “clinical trials platform” for the three poverty-related diseases, which is one of the objectives of the Framework Programme, was deemed sufficiently mature, leading to further work with a view to preparing a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council.

3. Implementation and impact of the Fifth Framework Programme in 2001

3.1. Implementation of the Framework Programme

Nearly 5 000 contracts were signed in 2001, with over 23 000 participants sharing financial support totalling around €3.7 billion from the Community. Statistical analysis of these contracts points to the conclusion that the Fifth Framework Programme was highly successful in 2001, with the rates of participation and funding by type of action and programme comparable to 2000.

The more detailed lessons to be learnt from this year are as follows:

– Shared-cost action, particularly research and technological development projects, remains the predominant means of promoting scientific cooperation and knowledge generation in the Community; in 2001 this type of action accounted for more than 82% of the budget committed and more than 70% of participations in the Framework Programme. Research and technological development projects received 87% of the funding and accounted for more than 78% of participations in shared-cost action, which is less than in 2000. The rest was shared between demonstration projects, combined RTD/demonstration projects, support for access to research infrastructure and specific measures in favour of SMEs.

– The average financial contribution per contract signed (shared-cost action) in 2001 was €1.17 million, slightly down on 2000 (€1.29 million), while the average number of participants per project fell from 6.5 in 2000 to 6.26. Overall, the average financial contribution per participant continues to decline.

– The average project selection rate was over 48%, considerably higher than the 2000 figure of 28%. However, the contracts for many of the projects selected in 2001 were not signed until 2002.

– The financial support from the Community continued to be shared fairly equally between research centres, institutes of higher education and industry: the same balance can be seen in the number of contracts signed with these three categories of participants in the Framework Programme.

– The levels of participation of the Member States and of the associated countries remained stable: nearly 86% of participants in the Framework Programme are from the EU. Participation by the associated states as a whole held steady at a little over 10% of the total, of which the share taken by the candidate countries rose from 46% in 2000 to a little over 50% in 2001.

– The contracts signed in 2001 produced more cooperation links than in 2000: bodies from the Member States created nearly 85 000 links with bodies from other Member States, and more than 20 000 links with bodies from the associated countries. Bodies from the associated countries created nearly 2 600 cooperation links among themselves.

– The importance of support for the training and mobility of researchers in Europe was confirmed: the Marie Curie scheme awarded 1 116 fellowships, representing a Community contribution of nearly €150 million. Nearly 200 high-level scientific conferences providing an opportunity for established scientists and young European researchers to meet also received financial support.

3.2 Impact of Community research

3.2.1. Socio-economic impact

The socio-economic impact of Community research activities in 2001 was evaluated by means of national impact studies and Community level studies of specific programmes.

Studies were completed by Austria, Ireland, Germany and the Flanders region. Points to emerge from these studies included the finding in the German case that the Framework Programme had developed to become a core part of publicly funded research, covering more than 40% of firms in the manufacturing sector and with German participants in around half of all research consortiums. The Framework Programme was regarded as being of critical importance for stimulating networking within the European research community. Other findings to emerge from some of the other studies included the observation that for Ireland the existence of EU funding and the ability of Irish researchers to qualify for such funding had been crucial for the growth of a number of extremely successful companies now recognised as star research performers. The Austrian study concluded that the Framework Programme attracted the elite of the Austrian business sector.

From the Community-level impact studies[38], the main points to emerge included a good impact at the scientific and technical level and in terms of furthering some specific EU policies such as environmental policy. Impact was more difficult to judge in terms of broader policies such as employment and regional development. The studies also showed that the achievement of significant social and economic impact depended on projects having from the outset the appropriate scientific, technical and managerial competence and putting in place the necessary planning for exploitation.

A major study of the socio-economic impact, requested by the Commission, was concluded during the year[39]. The work brought together leading academics from European research centres and was intended to improve understanding of how the impacts of Framework Programmes could be designated, defined and measured. The study had four parts: an examination of the rationale for publicly funded RTD; a review of evaluation practice in the context of the Framework Programmes; case studies; and observations about future evaluation strategy. The study constitutes a reference document for the future development of policy.

The results of the study were presented on 4 March 2002 at a workshop attended by around 40 experts from the Member States, and a dialogue on the development of future evaluation policy in the Community context was initiated. The aim of the dialogue is to review the state of the evaluation system in the light of major forthcoming changes to the research system, including ERA, the Sixth Framework Programme, and the new instruments.

3.2.2. SME access to research

The “single entry point” for SMEs processed over 3 000 proposals in 2001. The quality of the service provided was further improved[40], largely thanks to the introduction at the end of 2001 of the “SME TechWeb” on-line service[41]. The network of “SME national contact points” met four times in 2001 to exchange good practices encouraging the participation of SMEs in the Framework Programme. Support activities were launched to further improve the network’s performance.

The number of proposals for specific measures for SMEs (exploratory awards and CRAFT cooperative research projects) increased in 2001 compared with the previous year: nearly 900 proposals for exploratory awards and around 850 CRAFT proposals were received. Around 37% of projects were approved. Some 77% of projects concern businesses with fewer than 50 employees, and 42% concern businesses with fewer than 10 employees. The awards enabled more than 1 200 SMEs to submit proposals at the start of 2002, and proved particularly attractive for SMEs from associated states. Applicants were informed of the results of the evaluation within six weeks.

The 53 contracts relating to economic and technological intelligence activities signed in 2000 led to some 1 000 research projects involving SMEs in 2001.

More than 4 600 SMEs signed a contract in 2001, covering all the research activities under the Framework Programme. SMEs accounted for more than 23% of participations in the four thematic programmes and received more than 15% of the financial support allocated by these programmes.

A call for expressions of interest in the field of collective research attracted more than 100 proposals involving some 340 industrial associations or industry groupings. This confirmed the potential of this new measure introduced in the Sixth Framework Programme to meet the research needs of large groupings of SMEs.

In the context of the Cooperation Agreement between the Commission and the European Space Agency, a network of regional and national space incubators was established, aimed at generating new start-ups, encouraging technology transfer, and promoting cooperation projects. At the initiative of the Belgian Presidency, a conference on “SMEs in the European Research Area” was held on 19 November 2001 in Liège, bringing together SMEs, policy-makers and intermediaries to exchange views on the Sixth Framework Programme.

Fifty new examples of successful research projects involving SMEs were published in 2001, as well as two issues of the “SME Update” newsletter. The aim was to raise awareness among SMEs of the potential of the Framework Programme to benefit European SMEs. Some 100 articles published in the scientific, regional or sectoral press and an active media campaign increased their impact.

3.2.3. Women in Community research

In a staff working paper published on 15 May 2001[42], the Commission presented the recommendations emerging from the various activities implemented since the communication “Women and science: mobilising women to enrich European research”[43], namely to reinforce the policy forum, enrich the gender watch system and launch complementary research to obtain a better understanding of the “gender and science” issue. The Commission contracted a study of the “design and collection of statistical indicators on women in science”. The resulting data were released through several publications and will be available on the Internet[44].

The so-called Helsinki Group has produced the gendered indicators needed to monitor the progress of women in science and to assess horizontal and vertical segregation and is finalising a European report on the various national approaches taken to promote women in science. It will for the first time provide national statistical profiles for all 30 countries of the Helsinki Group.

In 2001 the Commission continued to actively implement the Gender Watch System, which will be further stepped up in the Sixth Framework Programme in order to improve the integration of the gender dimension within research policy in general:

– When implementing and managing research programmes, the Commission pursued its aim of achieving 40% female participation at all levels. In 2001 women accounted for 30% of the members of monitoring panels for programmes, 28% of the members of external advisory groups, 22% of the members of programme committees and 27% of the evaluators for projects in the specific programmes. These figures show progress from the previous years towards the Commission’s target. The proportion of women amongst the scientific officers for the contracts signed in 2001 is estimated at roughly 16%, based on the very incomplete data available.

– Gender impact studies were conducted throughout the Framework Programme. The conclusions of these studies were published as a series of final reports and one overall synthesis report[45].

The “Gender & Research” conference held in Brussels on 8 and 9 November 2001 brought together political decision-makers and representatives of the scientific community with the aim of giving new momentum to the integration of the gender dimension in European research, particularly in setting up the European Research Area. It attracted some 600 participants and confirmed the strong political commitment in Europe to improving the role of women in science. It provided an opportunity for the Commission to present the results of the actions implemented since 1999, including the gender impact assessment studies, and the achievements of the Helsinki Group.

3.2.4. Ethical aspects of Community research

Ethical reviews of research projects, initially only applying to the specific programme on “quality of life and management of living resources”, were extended to three other specific programmes: “competitive and sustainable growth”, “confirming the international role of Community research” and “improving human research potential and the socio-economic knowledge base”. An internal contact group was established to inform representatives of the various programmes and discuss with them their understanding of ethics and explain the ethical review process. Altogether, about 60 projects were evaluated between March and December 2001.

Eleven ethics research projects and two accompanying measures received total funding of €6.3 million following a call launched in 2001 under the specific programme on quality of life of the Fifth Framework Programme. The projects selected correspond to the priorities established under the generic “bioethics” activity of the specific programme on quality of life:

– Ethical aspects of scientific and technological developments;

– Ethical framework for life sciences;

– Public policies, law, human rights and bioethics;

– Bioethic infrastructures and methodologies.

Major efforts were made to raise awareness in candidate countries of the importance of ethics in research. Workshops were organised at the meeting of the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee on Bioethics in November 2001, and at the Bled Forum in December 2001 where the IPTS[46] “enlargement futures project” was presented to ministers. A major conference on “Ethics in Research and Science: Situation and Perspectives of the Candidate Countries to the European Union” was organised in February 2002 in Bratislava, addressing their particular needs and future initiatives.

3.2.5. Impact on European economic cohesion

The activities of the specific programme on “innovation and SMEs” helped the Commission’s regional policy departments to define regional strategies on innovation, technology transfer and networking of the regions concerned.

In 2001 the “cohesion countries” (Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal) continued to benefit from strong support from the Community for research. These countries accounted for a little over 16% of participations by the Member States in contracts signed in 2001 (14.5% in 1999 and 16.5% in 2000). In financial terms, the cohesion countries received 12.2% of the contributions from the Community (13.3% in 2000). Lastly, almost 29% of the cooperation links established between bodies from the Member States included participants from the cohesion countries, which is about the same proportion as in 2000.

3.3. International cooperation

International cooperation on RTD takes two complementary forms in the Fifth Framework Programme:

– activities to promote scientific and technological cooperation in the various programmes, including the regional and bilateral dialogues and, in particular, the science and technology (S&T) cooperation agreements;

– the specific action in the programme on “confirming the international role of Community research (INCO)”.

In addition, international cooperation also manages the European effort in the International Science and Technology Centre (ISTC) in Moscow and the Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine (STCU).

3.3.1. Participation by the associated candidate countries

The Commission took a series of steps to improve candidate countries’ participation in the Fifth Framework Programme. A special budget was allocated and several special calls for proposals launched:

– Specific calls of thematic programmes: these calls were addressed to coordinators of on-going contracts, encouraging them to consider the possibility of adding extra partners from pre-accession states. This measure concerned four programmes: INFSO, Quality of Life, Growth and EESD (Environment/Energy). Budget: €45 million.

– Joint call Quality of Life/Growth/Energy, Environment/IST: Integration of candidate countries in the ERA — an accompanying measure “centres of excellence”. Budget: €35 million

– New INCO call: strategic action on training and excellence — mobility scheme. Grant for training period(s) in EU institution plus return grant. Budget: €2 million

– Modified INCO call: supports participation of researchers from candidate countries in conferences organised in Western Europe and organisation of conferences in candidate countries (with possibility to fund information days). Budget: €0.9 million.

– RIS-NAC call: 16 regions in 9 candidate countries started to develop Regional Innovation Strategy projects in the beginning of 2002 with the aim of establishing consensus-built innovation policies at regional level. Budget : 5.25 M€.

A series of meetings was held with representatives from the Member States and the candidate countries on “integration of candidate countries in the ERA”. Several meetings were organised with personal representatives of Research Ministers from candidate countries, as well as an informal ministerial meeting with Research Ministers from the Member States and the candidate countries.

The procedure for preparing the association agreements of candidate countries to the Sixth Framework Programme started in 2001. It follows a simpler and faster path whereby, for each country, “Individual” Association Council decisions or Agreements are replaced by:

– a “framework” instrument covering the participation of the country in all possible programmes; and,

– a series of memoranda of understanding establishing the details of its participation per programme.

3.3.2. Other countries associated with the Framework Programme

The three countries associated with the Framework Programme under the Treaty on the European Economic Area (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) plus Israel registered some 700 participations in the Framework Programme in 2001. Switzerland had close to 500 participations in the thematic programmes, which they co-financed on a project by project basis.

3.3.3. Third countries

Non-candidate Central European countries: relations were established with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). By the end of 2000 the changing situation in this region had made it possible to propose a specific action on “Balkan reintegration”. A call for proposals with a Community contribution of €4 million was successfully launched in 2001. Eight contracts involving partners from all these countries on environmental and health related topics were funded. Moreover, the first informal S&T policy dialogue with high-level representatives of the five Western Balkan countries took place in Brussels on 23 October 2001 where the regional cooperation priorities were agreed.

New Independent States (NIS): the meetings on the application of the partnership and cooperation agreements provided an opportunity to discuss the themes covered by cooperation in the field of science and technology. The S&T agreement with Russia entered into force on 10 May 2001. An S&T agreement with Ukraine was initialled in November 2001.

The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement summit meeting between the EU and Russia in October 2001 established the S&T dialogue with Russia, resulting in agreement on an action plan to foster participation of Russian scientists in the Framework Programme.

ISTC and STCU contributed to the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction through the redeployment of NIS military scientists to civilian activities. Through projects financed by the Community, fruitful cooperation was stimulated that could become profitable to research organisations and enterprises from Member States considering the high degree of skill and expertise that NIS scientists have gained in many fields.

Emerging economies and industrialised countries: an EC-India S&T Cooperation Agreement was signed in November 2001[47] and an EC-Chile S&T Cooperation Agreement was initialled in November 2001[48], whilst negotiations continued in 2002 on the EC-Brazil S&T Cooperation Agreement. Cooperation was increased with the US through, inter alia, administrative arrangements between the Commission and relevant US agencies in the fields of non-nuclear energy and environment. Cooperation with China continued its healthy progress with the joint decision to focus on some S&T priority domains. With Japan, the adoption by the EU-Japan Summit of an ambitious action plan paves the way for enhanced S&T cooperation including the possibility of negotiating an S&T Cooperation Agreement.

Mediterranean countries: in June 2001 the Monitoring Committee for Euro-Mediterranean S&T cooperation (MoCo) held its 8th meeting in Stockholm. MoCo set up an ad hoc committee to implement its recommendations in close cooperation with the Commission. A series of workshops on risk management & prevention in connection with issues related to the environment, water, cultural heritage, and coastal zones took place between October and December 2001 and provided recommendations for future regional S&T cooperation. Moreover, it was agreed that a further four S&T workshops on the integrated management of limited water resources, health, the protection and restoration of cultural heritage, and renewable energies would take place in 2002 in order to define common research agendas for the priority areas agreed by MoCo.

Developing countries: the Commission was involved in the reorganisation of agricultural research at world level, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. The Framework Programme also generated initiatives on subjects of strategic importance to the developing countries, such as the development of aquaculture, measures to combat desertification and the conservation of tropical forests. An initiative to step up research into three poverty-related diseases (malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS) was launched in 2001.

3.3.4. Bilateral regional dialogues and international commitments

In the context of its inter-regional relations, the Community continued its bilateral and regional dialogues on RTD with Asia (ASEM), Africa, Mediterranean (MoCo and follow-up to the Cairo Summit) and the Latin American and Caribbean countries (REALC). In particular, EU-Latin American/Caribbean S&T cooperation progressed decisively with the adoption in March 2002 of the Brasilia S&T Declaration. These dialogues focus on issues of regional importance and fit in with the EU’s external relations policy to forge closer partnerships with these regions in the context of the emerging knowledge-based society and support for regional integration.

3.4. Assessment of the Framework Programme

Work began in 2001 on the cycle for the next five-year assessment of Community research programmes, with the definition of the overall timetable for the activity as well as the supporting studies. In planning the exercise, careful note was taken of the lessons learnt from the implementation of previous exercises, the conclusions of the 1999 report of the ETAN Expert Working Group on the assessment of socio-economic impact[49], and discussions in CREST.

In 2001 the monitoring exercise on research and technological development was expanded to include separate monitoring of the implementation of the European Research Area. The monitoring process was further strengthened through new approaches to improve synergy between the monitoring of the Framework Programme and the specific programmes[50]. These changes were implemented to reflect both the changed policy context introduced with the Lisbon strategy and the reform process of the Commission striving towards increased effectiveness and transparency.

Some of the findings and recommendations of the overall monitoring exercise concerned the request for a detailed strategy and action plan for ERA; the importance of candidate countries’ participation and international cooperation in the context of ERA; the need to better understand how SMEs are working within the Framework Programme; the importance of giving further emphasis to the gender issue in the Framework Programme and to promote women in science; the need for better intelligence to support planning and operational activities, especially in the context of new instruments; and the urgent requirement to install a central management information system. Specifically, the Framework Programme Monitoring Panel paid particular attention to the need for more effective data collection from the outset of the Sixth Framework Programme and for a consistent strategy for evaluation and monitoring across the Framework Programme.

Based on a thorough analysis of these recommendations, the Commission will provide responses and a follow-up on each of the points raised.

4. Consultation and monitoring procedures

4.1. Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST)

In 2001 CREST produced a report on science and society[51] and two opinions on the scientific and technical content of the Commission’s proposals for the Sixth Framework Programme[52]. The opinions were drawn up at the request of the Council in order to inform the debate within Council bodies with a view to the rapid adoption of the Framework Programme.

CREST was consulted regularly on actions contributing to the European Research Area, including “women and science” and the work of the high-level groups on the coordination and benchmarking of research activities and on the mobility of researchers. It was also informed of progress in implementing the Fifth Framework Programme.

At the instigation of the ministerial seminar held in Gerona on 1 February 2002, in March 2002 CREST undertook to define the priority thematic areas and the implementing procedures for the mutual opening-up of national research programmes.

The national RTD policies in Sweden and Belgium were also presented to the Committee. CREST invited the associated candidate countries to send observers to its meetings as from May 2001.

4.2. External Advisory Groups

The seventeen groups of experts assisting the Commission with regard to the content and thrust of the various key actions of the Fifth Framework Programme continued their work in line with their remit. They suggested changes in the focus of the work programmes of the various specific programmes for 2002. They had fruitful discussions with the relevant Commission departments concerning future objectives for research in Europe.

On 21 March 2001 the Commission appointed new members of the groups of experts for the remaining period of the Framework Programme, taking account of the Association Agreements with the Central and Eastern European countries and Cyprus. Three-quarters of the outgoing members were reappointed for a second term. New members had to be appointed following the entry into force of the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Malta and the resignation of a number of existing members.

4.3. Programme Committees

The nine programme committees and the committee on the rules for participation and dissemination of results met more than 30 times in 2001. They were consulted approximately 300 times, at the behest of the Commission, principally on the draft decisions on the selection of proposals. All the opinions given were favourable. The Commission also consulted the committees informally for exchanges of views or for information. In all, these consultations led to the adoption, by the Commission, of over 200 acts to implement the specific programmes.

The committees were informed of the progress of the specific programmes and were consulted before their work programmes were updated. The Commission also presented its proposals for the Sixth Framework Programme to the committees and informed them of the progress of the interinstitutional negotiations.

4.4. High-Level Groups

The high-level group on the benchmarking of national research policies, the mapping of scientific excellence in Europe and the networking of national research programmes continued its work in 2001 and examined the analyses carried out by the Commission and by the various expert groups. It provides information on the national policies and needs of the Member States and validates the Commission’s analyses and proposals for future stages. Since 14 February 2002 it has invited observers from all the countries associated with the Framework Programme to its meetings.

The high-level group responsible for evaluating the level of mobility amongst researchers in Europe and identifying obstacles to mobility and ways round them completed its work in April 2001 with the publication of a report on improving mobility amongst researchers. The report formed the basis for the communication on “a mobility strategy for the European Research Area” adopted by the Commission on 20 June 2001[53]. Following the Council Resolution of 10 December 2001 inviting the Commission to continue with the implementation of this strategy, a steering group made up of representatives of the Member States and of the candidate countries was set up in January 2002 to monitor and to help implement actions to promote the mobility of researchers. It met for the first time in March 2002.

4.5. The Scientific Council

4.5.1. Establishment of EURAB

2001 saw the establishment of the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB), a high-level, independent, advisory committee set up by the Commission to provide advice on the design and implementation of Community research policy. It is made up of 45 top experts from EU countries and beyond. Its members are appointed in a personal capacity and come from a wide range of academic and industrial backgrounds, as well as representing other societal interests. The appointments were based on proposals from the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE), the European Science Foundation (ESF) and Commission departments. It will focus its attention on the creation of the European Research Area and the use of policy instruments such as the Framework Programmes, delivering advice and opinions on specific issues either at the request of the Commission or on its own initiative.

EURAB held two plenary meetings in 2001. In September it elected its Chairperson (Helga Nowotny, ETH Zürich) and two vice-chairs (Horst Soboll, DaimlerChrysler and Ian Halliday, Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK) and discussed its priorities. In December, it approved its rules of procedure and established six working groups to produce reports on specific areas. All working groups are expected to report in 2002.

A study was launched to identify and typify the structures (academies, research councils etc.) involved in the production of scientific advice requested by European, national and where relevant regional public authorities in support of decision making. This analysis will cover EU countries, countries associated with the Framework Programme, and transnational institutions (European Science Advisory Council, European Science Foundation etc.). A comparison with the main features of similar scientific advisory structures in the USA, Canada and Japan will be provided. It is expected to constitute one of the background references for EURAB and provide assistance to the Commission in its actions aimed at structuring the European Research Area.

4.5.2. Establishment of the European Scientific Advice Support network

In June 2001 the Commission set up a network of European experts in the provision of scientific advice. It should whenever appropriate provide a forum for the discussion of methodologies for scientific advice impact assessment and the exchange of good practice. The network held two meetings in 2001.

4.5.3 SINAPSE e-network (Scientific INformAtion for Policy Support in Europe)

Preparatory work was undertaken with a view to developing the SINAPSE e-network. It is open to all scientists and scientific organisations; its primary aims are to improve the dissemination and use of scientific advice, to enable informal consultation of the scientific community by the Commission, and to provide an early warning system and a set of communication tools to its members.

4.5.4. Contacts with National Research Councils and Academies.

Visit were paid to the secretariats of national advisory councils with the aim of establishing closer contacts and exchanging good practices on providing support to advisory bodies composed of high-level experts.

5. Outlook

The period between March and December 2002 was marked by the end of the procedure for the adoption of the Sixth Framework Programme and of the specific programmes and by the definition of their respective work programmes. The framework and the means of implementing the Sixth Framework Programme were defined with a view to launching the first calls for proposals.

At the same time a summary was drawn up of the activities undertaken with a view to giving a new impetus to the creation of the European Research Area. The steps which need to be taken to create the conditions for effective coordination of research policies, make better use of the legal instruments available, optimise the impact of European cooperation initiatives and fully involve the candidate countries were identified.

Finally, following the conclusions of the Barcelona European Council, the Commission contributed to the debate on the means to achieve the objectives set for investment in R&D by identifying the policies and the main goals to pursue in a consistent manner.

ANNEX I

Table 1A: Proposals received in 2001....................................................................................... 35

Table 1B: Proposals selected for funding in 2001.................................................................... 36

Table 1C: Contracts signed in 2001.......................................................................................... 37

Table 2A: Contracts signed in 2001 by type of action (in € million)........................................ 38

Table 2B: Contracts signed in 2001 by type of action (in %)................................................... 41

Table 3A: Contracts signed in 2001 by type of beneficiary (in € million)................................ 44

Table 3B: Contracts signed in 2001 by type of beneficiary (in %)........................................... 47

Table 4 : Proposals received in 2001 by country - participations by specific programme......... 50

Table 5A : Contracts signed in 2001 by country - participations by specific programme........ 52

Table 5B: Contracts signed in 2001 by country - participations by type of action and by type of beneficiary 54

Table 6: Cooperation links between countries in the contracts signed in 2001........................ 56

Table 7: Funding of Fifth framework programme.................................................................... 57

Table 8A: Community research commitments over the period 1984-2002 (current prices)...... 58

Table 8B: Community research commitments over the period 1984-2002 (constant 2000 prices) 59

Table 9: Country codes............................................................................................................. 60

Notes

– In the group called “Candidate and associated countries”, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia are both candidate and associated. Turkey is a candidate country but not associated. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are associated in the framework of the European Economic Area, and Switzerland and Israel are associated in the framework of an association agreement.

– It is not possible to calculate States’ “success rates” from the number of proposals received, selected and funded since a proposal selected in year n might have been received in year n-1 or might not receive funding until year n+1.

– The figures on fellowship contracts show the number of proposals received, selected and funded. Depending on the type of grant, a single proposal could allow funding of one or more fellows. The number of fellows cannot be seen from the number of participants in the contract.

– The representation of a given State is the number of proposals received in which at least one body from that State is participating. By contrast, participation by a given State in the contracts signed is the total number of bodies from that State involved in the contracts. Participation is therefore higher than representation.

– A cooperation link is considered to have been established between two bodies if they are participating in the same project. This cooperation link is counted once if the two bodies are from the same country (diagonally on the cooperation links matrix) and twice if the bodies are from different countries - once as a link from country A to country B and once as a link from country B to country A. The net number of cooperation links is, therefore, the sum of the number of links between bodies from the same country plus half the number of links between bodies from different countries.

Table 1A: Proposals received in 2001

|| PROPOSALS RECEIVED IN 2001

A || B || C=B/A || D || E=D/A

Number of proposals || Number of participations || Average number of participations per proposal || Requested financial contribution (€ million) || Average requested financial contribution per proposal (€ million)

Shared cost actions || 8 961 || 64 843 || 7.24 || 14 241.33 || 1.59

R&D projects || 6 657 || 52 173 || 7.84 || 11 848.96 || 1.78

Demonstration projects || 276 || 2 074 || 7.51 || 972.91 || 3.53

Combined projects || 242 || 1 873 || 7.74 || 749.93 || 3.1

Support for infrastructure || 114 || 114 || 1.00 || 123.67 || 1.08

Cooperative research || 858 || 6 868 || 8.00 || 527.93 || 0.62

Exploratory awards || 814 || 1 741 || 2.14 || 17.94 || 0.02

Fellowships || 3 729 || 8 021 || 2.15 || 1 249.95 || 0.34

Support for networks || 721 || 10 022 || 13.90 || 1 011.34 || 1.4

Concerted actions || 19 || 183 || 9.63 || 12.73 || 0.67

Accompanying measures || 2129 || 8 477 || 3.98 || 1 208.39 || 0.57

Total || 15 559 || 91 546 || 5.88 || 17 723.74 || 1.14

Table 1B: Proposals selected for funding in 2001

|| PROPOSALS SELECTED FOR FUNDING IN 2001

A || B || C=B/A || D || E=D/A

Number of proposals || Number of participations || Average number of participations per proposal || Requested financial contribution (€ million) || Average requested financial contribution per proposal (€ million)

Shared cost actions || 4 679 || 34 087 || 7.29 || 6 381.42 || 1.36

R&D projects || 2 854 || 24 769 || 8.68 || 5 424.87 || 1.9

Demonstration projects || 51 || 455 || 8.92 || 211.49 || 4.15

Combined projects || 35 || 313 || 8.94 || 99.3 || 2.84

Support for infrastructure || 114 || 114 || 1.00 || 123.67 || 1.08

Cooperative research || 817 || 6 709 || 8.21 || 504.29 || 0.62

Exploratory awards || 808 || 1 727 || 2.14 || 17.81 || 0.02

Fellowships || 1 416 || 2 807 || 1.98 || 450.59 || 0.32

Support for networks || 393 || 6 261 || 15.93 || 732.33 || 1.86

Concerted actions || 9 || 116 || 12.89 || 6.54 || 0.73

Accompanying measures || 1037 || 3 065 || 2.96 || 480.56 || 0.46

Total || 7 534 || 46 336 || 6.15 || 8 051.45 || 1.07

Table 1C: Contracts signed in 2001

|| CONTRACTS SIGNED IN 2001

A || B || C=B/A || D || E=D/A

Number of contracts signed || Number of participations || Average number of participations per contract || Requested financial contribution (€ million) || Average requested financial contribution per contract (€ million)

Shared cost actions || 2 628 || 16 457 || 6.26 || 3 082.59 || 1.17

R&D projects || 1 854 || 12 947 || 6.98 || 2 686.94 || 1.45

Demonstration projects || 55 || 431 || 7.84 || 149.3 || 2.71

Combined projects || 80 || 777 || 9.71 || 119.84 || 1.5

Support for infrastructure || 59 || 59 || 1.00 || 29.62 || 0.5

Cooperative research || 178 || 1 435 || 8.06 || 88.01 || 0.49

Exploratory awards || 402 || 808 || 2.01 || 8.88 || 0.02

Fellowships || 1 116 || 1 122 || 1.01 || 149.29 || 0.13

Support for networks || 199 || 2 585 || 12.99 || 151.93 || 0.76

Concerted actions || 71 || 855 || 12.04 || 44.86 || 0.63

Accompanying measures || 965 || 2 414 || 2.50 || 306.97 || 0.32

Total || 4 979 || 23 433 || 4.71 || 3 735.63 || 0.75

Table 2A: Contracts signed in 2001 by type of action (in € million)

|| ALL CONTRACTS SIGNED || Shared cost actions || Fellowships || Support for networks || Concerted actions || ACCOMPANYING MEASURES

A || B || C=B/A || D || E=D/A || F || G || H || I || J || K || L || M || N || O

Number of contracts signed || Number of particip-ations || Average number of particip-ations per contract || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Average financial contribu-tion per contract (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million)

QUALITY OF LIFE || 892 || 4 531 || 5.08 || 750.15 || 0.84 || 564 || 674.38 || 213 || 29.33 || 13 || 11.58 || 42 || 25.31 || 60 || 9.55

Food, nutrition and health || 133 || 637 || 4.79 || 94.85 || 0.71 || 106 || 90.03 || 20 || 2.87 || 1 || 0.75 || 1 || 0.74 || 5 || 0.46

Control of infectious diseases || 94 || 560 || 5.96 || 79.37 || 0.84 || 58 || 70.44 || 24 || 3.43 || 0 || 0.0 || 8 || 5.31 || 4 || 0.19

The “cell factory” || 128 || 599 || 4.68 || 130.0 || 1.02 || 90 || 124.17 || 36 || 5.55 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 0.27

Environment and health || 41 || 230 || 5.61 || 38.74 || 0.94 || 33 || 35.28 || 3 || 0.37 || 1 || 1.94 || 3 || 1.03 || 1 || 0.12

Sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry || 203 || 1038 || 5.11 || 159.61 || 0.79 || 146 || 147.32 || 28 || 3.55 || 1 || 1.15 || 8 || 5.61 || 20 || 1.99

The ageing population and disabilities || 60 || 327 || 5.45 || 62.73 || 1.05 || 37 || 55.35 || 8 || 0.88 || 2 || 1.57 || 7 || 3.62 || 6 || 1.31

RTD activities of a generic nature || 214 || 946 || 4.42 || 137.48 || 0.64 || 82 || 112.37 || 94 || 12.68 || 4 || 2.17 || 13 || 7.47 || 21 || 2.79

Support for infrastructure || 19 || 194 || 10.21 || 47.36 || 2.49 || 12 || 39.43 || 0 || 0.0 || 4 || 3.99 || 2 || 1.53 || 1 || 2.42

INFORMATION SOCIETY || 755 || 4076 || 5.40 || 867.65 || 1.15 || 467 || 714.93 || 4 || 0.87 || 42 || 24.46 || 0 || 0.0 || 242 || 127.38

Systems and services for the citizen || 116 || 765 || 6.59 || 140.19 || 1.21 || 90 || 123.13 || 0 || 0.0 || 7 || 7.71 || 0 || 0.0 || 19 || 9.36

New methods of work and electronic commerce || 128 || 682 || 5.33 || 103.49 || 0.81 || 55 || 55.94 || 4 || 0.87 || 15 || 8.62 || 0 || 0.0 || 54 || 38.06

Multimedia content and tools || 155 || 738 || 4.76 || 129.13 || 0.83 || 78 || 105.77 || 0 || 0.0 || 10 || 4.62 || 0 || 0.0 || 67 || 18.73

Essential technologies and infrastructure || 201 || 1071 || 5.33 || 299.58 || 1.49 || 134 || 255.93 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 1.37 || 0 || 0.0 || 65 || 42.28

Cross-programme themes || 60 || 409 || 6.82 || 96.93 || 1.62 || 40 || 77.68 || 0 || 0.0 || 3 || 1.15 || 0 || 0.0 || 17 || 18.1

RTD activities of a generic nature || 92 || 351 || 3.82 || 78.58 || 0.85 || 67 || 76.75 || 0 || 0.0 || 5 || 0.98 || 0 || 0.0 || 20 || 0.86

Support for infrastructure || 3 || 60 || 20.00 || 19.74 || 6.58 || 3 || 19.74 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0

SUSTAINABLE GROWTH || 765 || 6489 || 8.48 || 1035.16 || 1.35 || 649 || 877.6 || 25 || 3.38 || 60 || 74.73 || 2 || 1.95 || 29 || 77.5

Innovative products, processes and organisation || 300 || 2452 || 8.17 || 274.39 || 0.91 || 260 || 240.37 || 11 || 1.68 || 21 || 28.98 || 0 || 0.0 || 8 || 3.35

Sustainable mobility and intermodality || 41 || 496 || 12.10 || 147.51 || 3.6 || 22 || 68.06 || 0 || 0.0 || 5 || 5.77 || 1 || 1.1 || 13 || 72.58

Land transport and marine technologies || 78 || 730 || 9.36 || 103.35 || 1.32 || 71 || 97.57 || 0 || 0.0 || 5 || 5.37 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 0.41

New perspectives for aeronautics || 63 || 735 || 11.67 || 263.76 || 4.19 || 57 || 260.19 || 0 || 0.0 || 3 || 2.81 || 0 || 0.0 || 3 || 0.75

RTD activities of a generic nature || 267 || 1849 || 6.93 || 222.9 || 0.83 || 239 || 211.41 || 14 || 1.7 || 10 || 8.54 || 1 || 0.85 || 3 || 0.41

Support for infrastructure || 16 || 227 || 14.19 || 23.25 || 1.45 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 16 || 23.25 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0

|| ALL CONTRACTS SIGNED || Shared cost actions || Fellowships || Support for networks || Concerted actions || ACCOMPANYING MEASURES

A || B || C=B/A || D || E=D/A || F || G || H || I || J || K || L || M || N || O

Number of contracts signed || Number of particip-ations || Average number of particip-ations per contract || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Average financial contribu-tion per contract (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million)

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT || 436 || 3332 || 7.64 || 500.18 || 1.15 || 317 || 462.82 || 0 || 0.0 || 12 || 11.74 || 10 || 9.34 || 97 || 16.29

ENVIRONMENT || 285 || 2530 || 8.88 || 333.85 || 1.17 || 238 || 312.17 || 0 || 0.0 || 7 || 8.78 || 9 || 8.89 || 31 || 4.01

Sustainable management and quality of water || 86 || 642 || 7.47 || 88.49 || 1.03 || 80 || 85.93 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 1.29 || 0 || 0.0 || 5 || 1.26

Global change, climate and biodiversity || 71 || 563 || 7.93 || 85.93 || 1.21 || 52 || 81.42 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 1.34 || 3 || 1.38 || 14 || 1.78

Sustainable marine ecosystems || 38 || 315 || 8.29 || 49.77 || 1.31 || 32 || 48.11 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 1.42 || 5 || 0.23

The city of tomorrow and cultural heritage || 41 || 481 || 11.73 || 49.75 || 1.21 || 37 || 45.29 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 2.39 || 1 || 1.72 || 2 || 0.35

RTD activities of a generic nature || 33 || 298 || 9.03 || 34.97 || 1.06 || 27 || 34.2 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 0.4 || 0 || 0.0 || 5 || 0.38

Support for research infrastructures || 16 || 231 || 14.44 || 24.95 || 1.56 || 10 || 17.22 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 3.36 || 4 || 4.37 || 0 || 0.0

ENERGY || 151 || 802 || 5.31 || 166.33 || 1.1 || 79 || 150.65 || 0 || 0.0 || 5 || 2.96 || 1 || 0.45 || 66 || 12.28

Cleaner energy systems, incl. renewables || 54 || 345 || 6.39 || 69.54 || 1.29 || 41 || 64.92 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 0.6 || 1 || 0.45 || 11 || 3.57

Economic and efficient energy || 52 || 341 || 6.56 || 91.29 || 1.76 || 37 || 85.35 || 0 || 0.0 || 4 || 2.36 || 0 || 0.0 || 11 || 3.59

RTD activities of a generic nature || 3 || 15 || 5.00 || 0.77 || 0.26 || 1 || 0.37 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 0.4

OPET[54] || 42 || 101 || 2.40 || 4.73 || 0.11 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 42 || 4.73

NUCLEAR ENERGY || 414 || 1195 || 2.89 || 152.43 || 0.37 || 367 || 141.02 || 0 || 0.0 || 19 || 6.77 || 9 || 3.13 || 19 || 1.52

Controlled thermonuclear fusion || 317 || 323 || 1.02 || 100.4 || 0.32 || 317 || 100.4 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0

Nuclear fission || 75 || 643 || 8.57 || 44.43 || 0.59 || 45 || 37.9 || 0 || 0.0 || 11 || 3.67 || 7 || 2.1 || 12 || 0.75

RTD activities of a generic nature || 11 || 57 || 5.18 || 3.43 || 0.31 || 3 || 1.85 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 1.01 || 0 || 0.0 || 6 || 0.57

Support for infrastructure || 11 || 172 || 15.64 || 4.18 || 0.38 || 2 || 0.87 || 0 || 0.0 || 6 || 2.09 || 2 || 1.02 || 1 || 0.2

|| ALL CONTRACTS SIGNED || Shared cost actions || Fellowships || Support for networks || Concerted actions || ACCOMPANYING MEASURES

A || B || C=B/A || D || E=D/A || F || G || H || I || J || K || L || M || N || O

Number of contracts signed || Number of particip-ations || Average number of particip-ations per contract || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Average financial contribu-tion per contract (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million)

INTERNATIONAL ROLE || 320 || 1186 || 3.71 || 120.57 || 0.38 || 100 || 77.9 || 8 || 0.18 || 11 || 4.97 || 8 || 5.13 || 193 || 32.38

Countries in the pre-accession phase || 29 || 47 || 1.62 || 4.99 || 0.17 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 29 || 4.99

NIS and CEEC not in the pre-accession phase || 25 || 107 || 4.28 || 30.56 || 1.22 || 13 || 6.62 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 0.78 || 11 || 23.17

Mediterranean partner countries || 19 || 109 || 5.74 || 6.88 || 0.36 || 8 || 5.42 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 0.65 || 1 || 0.39 || 8 || 0.42

Developing countries || 116 || 771 || 6.65 || 75.64 || 0.65 || 79 || 65.86 || 0 || 0.0 || 9 || 4.32 || 6 || 3.96 || 22 || 1.49

Emerging economies and industrialised countries || 11 || 26 || 2.36 || 1.37 || 0.12 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 11 || 1.37

Fellowships for developing countries || 8 || 14 || 1.75 || 0.18 || 0.02 || 0 || 0.0 || 8 || 0.18 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0

Fellowships for Community researchers || 0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0

Coordination || 112 || 112 || 1.00 || 0.94 || 0.01 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 112 || 0.94

INNOVATION AND SMEs || 59 || 310 || 5.25 || 51.42 || 0.87 || 29 || 33.53 || 0 || 0.0 || 13 || 4.79 || 0 || 0.0 || 17 || 13.1

Promotion of innovation || 29 || 211 || 7.28 || 33.53 || 1.16 || 29 || 33.53 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0

Joint innovation/SME activities || 30 || 99 || 3.30 || 17.89 || 0.6 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 13 || 4.79 || 0 || 0.0 || 17 || 13.1

Economic and technological intelligence || 0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0

HUMAN POTENTIAL || 1338 || 2314 || 1.73 || 258.07 || 0.19 || 135 || 100.42 || 866 || 115.52 || 29 || 12.89 || 0 || 0.0 || 308 || 29.25

Research training networks || 0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0

Marie Curie fellowships || 866 || 866 || 1.00 || 115.52 || 0.13 || 0 || 0.0 || 866 || 115.52 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0

Access to research infrastructure || 81 || 236 || 2.91 || 54.38 || 0.67 || 75 || 51.79 || 0 || 0.0 || 6 || 2.6 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0

Socio-economic research || 104 || 665 || 6.39 || 56.83 || 0.55 || 57 || 47.54 || 0 || 0.0 || 12 || 5.66 || 0 || 0.0 || 35 || 3.63

Public perception || 24 || 108 || 4.50 || 7.31 || 0.3 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 4 || 1.24 || 0 || 0.0 || 20 || 6.06

Support for S&T policies || 20 || 115 || 5.75 || 7.63 || 0.38 || 3 || 1.09 || 0 || 0.0 || 7 || 3.39 || 0 || 0.0 || 10 || 3.15

Promoting S&T excellence || 207 || 249 || 1.20 || 12.45 || 0.06 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 207 || 12.45

RTD activities of a generic nature || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0

Accompanying measures || 36 || 75 || 2.08 || 3.95 || 0.11 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 36 || 3.95

TOTAL FP5 IN 2001 || 4979 || 23433 || 4.71 || 3735.63 || 0.75 || 2628 || 3082.59 || 1116 || 149.29 || 199 || 151.93 || 71 || 44.86 || 965 || 306.97

Table 2B: Contracts signed in 2001 by type of action (in %)

|| All contracts signed || Shared cost actions || Fellowships || Support for networks || Concerted actions || Accompanying measures

A || B || C=B/A || D || E=D/A || F || G || H || I || J || K || L || M || N || O

Number of contracts signed || Number of particip-ations || Average number of particip-ations per contract || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Average financial contribu-tion per contract (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million) || Number of contracts signed || Community financial contribution (€ million)

QUALITY OF LIFE || 892 || 4531 || 5.08 || 750.15 || 0.84 || 63.23% || 89.90% || 23.88%