REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Research and technological development activities of the European Union 2002 Annual Report /* COM/2003/0124 final */
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% || 3.91% || 1.46% || 1.54% || 4.71% || 3.37% || 6.73% || 1.27% Food, nutrition and health || 133 || 637 || 4.79 || 94.85 || 0.71 || 79.70% || 94.92% || 15.04% || 3.03% || 0.75% || 0.79% || 0.75% || 0.78% || 3.76% || 0.48% Control of infectious diseases || 94 || 560 || 5.96 || 79.37 || 0.84 || 61.70% || 88.75% || 25.53% || 4.32% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 8.51% || 6.69% || 4.26% || 0.24% The “cell factory” || 128 || 599 || 4.68 || 130.0 || 1.02 || 70.31% || 95.52% || 28.13% || 4.27% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 1.56% || 0.21% Environment and health || 41 || 230 || 5.61 || 38.74 || 0.94 || 80.49% || 91.05% || 7.32% || 0.96% || 2.44% || 5.02% || 7.32% || 2.67% || 2.44% || 0.31% Sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry || 203 || 1038 || 5.11 || 159.61 || 0.79 || 71.92% || 92.30% || 13.79% || 2.22% || 0.49% || 0.72% || 3.94% || 3.51% || 9.85% || 1.25% The ageing population and disabilities || 60 || 327 || 5.45 || 62.73 || 1.05 || 61.67% || 88.23% || 13.33% || 1.40% || 3.33% || 2.51% || 11.67% || 5.77% || 10.00% || 2.09% RTD activities of a generic nature || 214 || 946 || 4.42 || 137.48 || 0.64 || 38.32% || 81.73% || 43.93% || 9.22% || 1.87% || 1.58% || 6.07% || 5.44% || 9.81% || 2.03% Support for infrastructure || 19 || 194 || 10.21 || 47.36 || 2.49 || 63.16% || 83.25% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 21.05% || 8.42% || 10.53% || 3.23% || 5.26% || 5.10% INFORMATION SOCIETY || 755 || 4076 || 5.40 || 867.65 || 1.15 || 61.85% || 82.40% || 0.53% || 0.10% || 5.56% || 2.82% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 32.05% || 14.68% Systems and services for the citizen || 116 || 765 || 6.59 || 140.19 || 1.21 || 77.59% || 87.83% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 6.03% || 5.50% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 16.38% || 6.67% New methods of work and electronic commerce || 128 || 682 || 5.33 || 103.49 || 0.81 || 42.97% || 54.05% || 3.13% || 0.84% || 11.72% || 8.33% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 42.19% || 36.77% Multimedia content and tools || 155 || 738 || 4.76 || 129.13 || 0.83 || 50.32% || 81.92% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 6.45% || 3.58% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 43.23% || 14.50% Essential technologies and infrastructure || 201 || 1071 || 5.33 || 299.58 || 1.49 || 66.67% || 85.43% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 1.00% || 0.46% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 32.34% || 14.11% Cross-programme themes || 60 || 409 || 6.82 || 96.93 || 1.62 || 66.67% || 80.14% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 5.00% || 1.19% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 28.33% || 18.67% RTD activities of a generic nature || 92 || 351 || 3.82 || 78.58 || 0.85 || 72.83% || 97.66% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 5.43% || 1.25% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 21.74% || 1.09% Support for infrastructure || 3 || 60 || 20.00 || 19.74 || 6.58 || 100.00% || 100.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% SUSTAINABLE GROWTH || 765 || 6489 || 8.48 || 1035.16 || 1.35 || 84.84% || 84.78% || 3.27% || 0.33% || 7.84% || 7.22% || 0.26% || 0.19% || 3.79% || 7.49% Innovative products, processes and organisation || 300 || 2452 || 8.17 || 274.39 || 0.91 || 86.67% || 87.60% || 3.67% || 0.61% || 7.00% || 10.56% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 2.67% || 1.22% Sustainable mobility and intermodality || 41 || 496 || 12.10 || 147.51 || 3.6 || 53.66% || 46.14% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 12.20% || 3.91% || 2.44% || 0.75% || 31.71% || 49.20% Land transport and marine technologies || 78 || 730 || 9.36 || 103.35 || 1.32 || 91.03% || 94.41% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 6.41% || 5.19% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 2.56% || 0.39% New perspectives for aeronautics || 63 || 735 || 11.67 || 263.76 || 4.19 || 90.48% || 98.65% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 4.76% || 1.07% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 4.76% || 0.29% RTD activities of a generic nature || 267 || 1849 || 6.93 || 222.9 || 0.83 || 89.51% || 94.84% || 5.24% || 0.76% || 3.75% || 3.83% || 0.37% || 0.38% || 1.12% || 0.18% Support for infrastructure || 16 || 227 || 14.19 || 23.25 || 1.45 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 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 || Commu-nity financial contrib. (%) || Number of contracts signed || Commu-nity financial contrib. (%) || Number of contracts signed || Commu-nity financial contrib. (%) || Number of contracts signed || Commu-nity financial contrib. (%) || Number of contracts signed || Commu-nity financial contrib. (%) ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT || 436 || 3332 || 7.64 || 500.18 || 1.15 || 72.71% || 92.53% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 2.75% || 2.35% || 2.29% || 1.87% || 22.25% || 3.26% ENVIRONMENT || 285 || 2530 || 8.88 || 333.85 || 1.17 || 83.51% || 93.51% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 2.46% || 2.63% || 3.16% || 2.66% || 10.88% || 1.20% Sustainable management and quality of water || 86 || 642 || 7.47 || 88.49 || 1.03 || 93.02% || 97.12% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 1.16% || 1.46% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 5.81% || 1.43% Global change, climate and biodiversity || 71 || 563 || 7.93 || 85.93 || 1.21 || 73.24% || 94.76% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 2.82% || 1.56% || 4.23% || 1.60% || 19.72% || 2.07% Sustainable marine ecosystems || 38 || 315 || 8.29 || 49.77 || 1.31 || 84.21% || 96.67% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 2.63% || 2.86% || 13.16% || 0.47% The city of tomorrow and cultural heritage || 41 || 481 || 11.73 || 49.75 || 1.21 || 90.24% || 91.03% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 2.44% || 4.80% || 2.44% || 3.47% || 4.88% || 0.70% RTD activities of a generic nature || 33 || 298 || 9.03 || 34.97 || 1.06 || 81.82% || 97.77% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 3.03% || 1.14% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 15.15% || 1.08% Support for research infrastructure || 16 || 231 || 14.44 || 24.95 || 1.56 || 62.50% || 69.01% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 12.50% || 13.48% || 25.00% || 17.51% || 0.00% || 0.00% ENERGY || 151 || 802 || 5.31 || 166.33 || 1.1 || 52.32% || 90.57% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 3.31% || 1.78% || 0.66% || 0.27% || 43.71% || 7.38% Cleaner energy systems, incl. renewables || 54 || 345 || 6.39 || 69.54 || 1.29 || 75.93% || 93.37% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 1.85% || 0.86% || 1.85% || 0.64% || 20.37% || 5.13% Economic and efficient energy || 52 || 341 || 6.56 || 91.29 || 1.76 || 71.15% || 93.49% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 7.69% || 2.58% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 21.15% || 3.93% RTD activities of a generic nature || 3 || 15 || 5.00 || 0.77 || 0.26 || 33.33% || 48.04% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 66.67% || 51.96% OPET || 42 || 101 || 2.40 || 4.73 || 0.11 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 100.00% || 100.00% NUCLEAR ENERGY || 414 || 1195 || 2.89 || 152.43 || 0.38 || 88.65% || 92.51% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 4.59% || 4.44% || 2.17% || 2.05% || 4.59% || 1.00% Controlled thermonuclear fusion || 317 || 323 || 1.02 || 100.4 || 0.32 || 100.00% || 100.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% Nuclear fission || 75 || 643 || 8.57 || 44.43 || 0.59 || 60.00% || 85.31% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 14.67% || 8.27% || 9.33% || 4.73% || 16.00% || 1.69% RTD activities of a generic nature || 11 || 57 || 5.18 || 3.43 || 0.31 || 27.27% || 53.86% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 18.18% || 29.43% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 54.55% || 16.71% Support for infrastructure || 11 || 172 || 15.64 || 4.18 || 0.38 || 18.18% || 20.80% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 54.55% || 50.01% || 18.18% || 24.46% || 9.09% || 4.73% || 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 || Commu-nity financial contrib. (%) || Average financial contribu-tion per contract (%) || Number of contracts signed || Commu-nity financial contrib. (%) || Number of contracts signed || Commu-nity financial contrib. (%) || Number of contracts signed || Commu-nity financial contrib. (%) || Number of contracts signed || Commu-nity financial contrib. (%) || Number of contracts signed || Commu-nity financial contrib. (%) INTERNATIONAL ROLE || 320 || 1 186 || 3.71 || 120.57 || 0.38 || 31.25% || 64.61% || 2.50% || 0.15% || 3.44% || 4.12% || 2.50% || 4.25% || 60.31% || 26.86% Countries in the pre-accession phase || 29 || 47 || 1.62 || 4.99 || 0.17 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 100.00% || 100.00% NIS and CEEC not in the pre-accession phase || 25 || 107 || 4.28 || 30.56 || 1.22 || 52.00% || 21.66% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 4.00% || 2.54% || 44.00% || 75.80% Mediterranean partner countries || 19 || 109 || 5.74 || 6.88 || 0.36 || 42.11% || 78.69% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 10.53% || 9.51% || 5.26% || 5.66% || 42.11% || 6.14% Developing countries || 116 || 771 || 6.65 || 75.64 || 0.65 || 68.10% || 87.08% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 7.76% || 5.71% || 5.17% || 5.24% || 18.97% || 1.98% Emerging economies and industrialised countries || 11 || 26 || 2.36 || 1.37 || 0.12 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 100.00% || 100.00% Fellowships for developing countries || 8 || 14 || 1.75 || 0.18 || 0.02 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% Fellowships for Community researchers || 0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% Coordination || 112 || 112 || 1.00 || 0.94 || 0.01 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 100.00% || 100.00% INNOVATION AND SMEs || 59 || 310 || 5.25 || 51.42 || 0.87 || 49.15% || 65.20% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 22.03% || 9.32% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 28.81% || 25.48% Promotion of innovation || 29 || 211 || 7.28 || 33.53 || 1.16 || 100.00% || 100.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% Joint innovation/SME activities || 30 || 99 || 3.30 || 17.89 || 0.6 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 43.33% || 26.78% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 56.67% || 73.22% Economic and technological intelligence || 0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% HUMAN POTENTIAL || 1 338 || 2 314 || 1.73 || 258.07 || 0.19 || 10.09% || 38.91% || 64.72% || 44.76% || 2.17% || 4.99% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 23.02% || 11.33% Research training networks || 0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% Marie Curie fellowships || 866 || 866 || 1.00 || 115.52 || 0.13 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% Access to research infrastructure || 81 || 236 || 2.91 || 54.38 || 0.67 || 92.59% || 95.23% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 7.41% || 4.77% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% Socio-economic research || 104 || 665 || 6.39 || 56.83 || 0.55 || 54.81% || 83.65% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 11.54% || 9.96% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 33.65% || 6.39% Public perception || 24 || 108 || 4.50 || 7.31 || 0.3 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 16.67% || 17.02% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 83.33% || 82.98% Support for S&T policies || 20 || 115 || 5.75 || 7.63 || 0.38 || 15.00% || 14.29% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 35.00% || 44.43% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 50.00% || 41.27% Promoting S&T excellence || 207 || 249 || 1.20 || 12.45 || 0.06 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 100.00% || 100.00% RTD activities of a generic nature || 0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% Accompanying measures || 36 || 75 || 2.08 || 3.95 || 0.11 || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 100.00% || 100.00% TOTAL FP5 IN 2001 || 4 979 || 23 433 || 4.71 || 3 735.63 || 0.75 || 52.78% || 82.52% || 22.41% || 4.00% || 4.00% || 4.07% || 1.43% || 1.20% || 19.38% || 8.22% Table 3A: Contracts signed in 2001 by type of beneficiary (in €
million) || TYPE OF BENEFICIARY || of which SMEs Higher education || Research centres (including JRC) || Enterprise sector || Other[55] || TOTAL Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations QUALITY OF LIFE || 355.84 || 1 792 || 294.25 || 1 574 || 58.86 || 819 || 41.2 || 346 || 750.15 || 4 531 || 55.98 || 760 Food, nutrition and health || 44.93 || 196 || 34.46 || 190 || 11.48 || 223 || 3.98 || 28 || 94.85 || 637 || 7.96 || 190 Control of infectious diseases || 35.8 || 231 || 30.61 || 203 || 6.75 || 68 || 6.2 || 58 || 79.37 || 560 || 3.04 || 44 The “cell factory” || 69.73 || 260 || 43.14 || 196 || 14.38 || 130 || 2.75 || 13 || 130.0 || 599 || 15.62 || 136 Environment and health || 18.71 || 88 || 17.42 || 95 || 1.45 || 30 || 1.17 || 17 || 38.74 || 230 || 2.23 || 36 Sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry || 65.61 || 329 || 65.41 || 346 || 12.5 || 259 || 16.09 || 104 || 159.61 || 1038 || 11.64 || 243 The ageing population and disabilities || 38.08 || 159 || 16.53 || 104 || 4.22 || 33 || 3.9 || 31 || 62.73 || 327 || 3.32 || 30 RTD activities of a generic nature || 71.69 || 466 || 54.38 || 335 || 6.16 || 58 || 5.24 || 87 || 137.48 || 946 || 9.35 || 68 Support for infrastructure || 11.29 || 63 || 32.29 || 105 || 1.92 || 18 || 1.86 || 8 || 47.36 || 194 || 2.82 || 13 INFORMATION SOCIETY || 236.47 || 1 075 || 167.32 || 685 || 382.0 || 1 641 || 81.86 || 675 || 867.65 || 4 076 || 171.67 || 904 Systems and services for the citizen || 22.02 || 124 || 23.3 || 111 || 74.97 || 344 || 19.9 || 186 || 140.19 || 765 || 40.49 || 206 New methods of work and electronic commerce || 21.79 || 142 || 15.7 || 88 || 48.22 || 306 || 17.77 || 146 || 103.49 || 682 || 30.58 || 209 Multimedia content and tools || 39.41 || 207 || 21.79 || 107 || 48.82 || 244 || 19.11 || 180 || 129.13 || 738 || 31.9 || 180 Essential technologies and infrastructure || 74.16 || 269 || 64.8 || 209 || 151.45 || 518 || 9.18 || 75 || 299.58 || 1071 || 38.38 || 171 Cross-programme themes || 20.25 || 82 || 21.11 || 70 || 44.28 || 180 || 11.3 || 77 || 96.93 || 409 || 24.89 || 111 RTD activities of a generic nature || 53.88 || 235 || 17.93 || 85 || 4.69 || 25 || 2.09 || 6 || 78.58 || 351 || 1.91 || 12 Support for infrastructure || 4.97 || 16 || 2.68 || 15 || 9.57 || 24 || 2.52 || 5 || 19.74 || 60 || 3.52 || 15 SUSTAINABLE GROWTH || 192.22 || 1 095 || 265.92 || 1 620 || 521.85 || 3 426 || 55.16 || 348 || 1 035.16 || 6 489 || 193.94 || 2 055 Innovative products, processes and organisation || 55.41 || 348 || 82.32 || 545 || 128.62 || 1 471 || 8.04 || 88 || 274.39 || 2452 || 71.2 || 934 Sustainable mobility and intermodality || 12.45 || 74 || 26.89 || 122 || 76.98 || 214 || 31.19 || 86 || 147.52 || 496 || 35.08 || 144 Land transport and marine technologies || 21.48 || 100 || 29.1 || 148 || 48.06 || 429 || 4.71 || 53 || 103.35 || 730 || 16.77 || 235 New perspectives for aeronautics || 28.98 || 131 || 41.07 || 171 || 189.79 || 413 || 3.92 || 20 || 263.76 || 735 || 21.8 || 128 RTD activities of a generic nature || 69.78 || 395 || 75.02 || 546 || 73.64 || 841 || 4.47 || 67 || 222.9 || 1849 || 45.89 || 586 Support for infrastructure || 4.13 || 47 || 11.53 || 88 || 4.76 || 58 || 2.84 || 34 || 23.25 || 227 || 3.2 || 28 || TYPE OF BENEFICIARY || of which SMEs Higher education || Research centres (including JRC) || Enterprise sector || Other || TOTAL Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT || 147.61 || 889 || 157.97 || 1 139 || 125.76 || 737 || 68.84 || 567 || 500.18 || 3 332 || 69.43 || 572 ENVIRONMENT || 136.07 || 804 || 144.03 || 1 012 || 34.62 || 451 || 19.13 || 263 || 333.85 || 2 530 || 31.82 || 399 Sustainable management and quality of water || 36.19 || 185 || 35.71 || 202 || 12.31 || 192 || 4.27 || 63 || 88.49 || 642 || 12.32 || 180 Global change, climate and biodiversity || 38.05 || 227 || 43.56 || 292 || 1.42 || 25 || 2.9 || 19 || 85.93 || 563 || 1.85 || 22 Sustainable marine ecosystems || 23.5 || 128 || 20.52 || 125 || 4.84 || 50 || 0.91 || 12 || 49.77 || 315 || 3.88 || 45 The city of tomorrow and cultural heritage || 16.35 || 99 || 17.17 || 139 || 9.36 || 115 || 6.86 || 128 || 49.75 || 481 || 9.42 || 101 RTD activities of a generic nature || 13.91 || 100 || 13.42 || 117 || 5.26 || 58 || 2.38 || 23 || 34.97 || 298 || 3.22 || 42 Support for infrastructure || 8.07 || 65 || 13.65 || 137 || 1.44 || 11 || 1.8 || 18 || 24.95 || 231 || 1.13 || 9 ENERGY || 11.54 || 85 || 13.94 || 127 || 91.14 || 286 || 49.7 || 304 || 166.32 || 802 || 37.61 || 173 Cleaner energy systems, incl. renewables || 3.89 || 32 || 5.7 || 44 || 36.36 || 137 || 23.59 || 132 || 69.54 || 345 || 20.75 || 87 Economic and efficient energy || 7.48 || 48 || 6.57 || 56 || 53.82 || 129 || 23.42 || 108 || 91.29 || 341 || 15.99 || 65 RTD activities of a generic nature || 0.04 || 1 || 0.29 || 5 || 0.17 || 5 || 0.27 || 4 || 0.77 || 15 || 0.21 || 6 OPET || 0.13 || 4 || 1.38 || 22 || 0.79 || 15 || 2.42 || 60 || 4.72 || 101 || 0.66 || 15 NUCLEAR ENERGY || 8.81 || 102 || 105.73 || 432 || 3.11 || 186 || 34.8 || 475 || 152.44 || 1 195 || 40.30 || 40 Controlled thermonuclear fusion || 2.56 || 36 || 80.98 || 205 || 0.49 || 52 || 16.37 || 30 || 100.4 || 323 || 0.86 || 3 Nuclear fission || 4.95 || 61 || 22.5 || 211 || 2.62 || 130 || 14.36 || 241 || 44.43 || 643 || 39.44 || 37 RTD activities of a generic nature || 0.64 || 4 || 1.21 || 12 || 0.0 || 4 || 1.58 || 37 || 3.43 || 57 || 0.0 || 0 Support for infrastructure || 0.66 || 1 || 1.04 || 4 || 0.0 || 0 || 2.49 || 167 || 4.18 || 172 || 0.0 || 0 INTERNATIONAL ROLE || 42.75 || 505 || 45.61 || 475 || 3.43 || 75 || 28.78 || 131 || 120.57 || 1 186 || 4.16 || 60 Countries in the pre-accession phase || 1.31 || 13 || 3.42 || 16 || 0.03 || 2 || 0.23 || 16 || 4.99 || 47 || 0.03 || 2 NIS and CEEC not in the pre-accession phase || 2.77 || 38 || 3.64 || 50 || 0.57 || 10 || 23.58 || 9 || 30.56 || 107 || 0.63 || 15 Mediterranean partner countries || 3.22 || 36 || 2.23 || 38 || 0.72 || 16 || 0.7 || 19 || 6.88 || 109 || 0.58 || 12 Developing countries || 34.63 || 338 || 35.57 || 319 || 1.71 || 37 || 3.72 || 77 || 75.64 || 771 || 2.61 || 23 Emerging economies and industrialised countries || 0.13 || 5 || 0.37 || 10 || 0.36 || 7 || 0.51 || 4 || 1.37 || 26 || 0.28 || 5 Fellowships for developing countries || 0.13 || 8 || 0.05 || 5 || 0.0 || 1 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.18 || 14 || 0.0 || 1 Fellowships for Community researchers || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 Coordination || 0.56 || 67 || 0.32 || 37 || 0.02 || 2 || 0.04 || 6 || 0.94 || 112 || 0.02 || 2 || TYPE OF BENEFICIARY || of which SMEs Higher education || Research centres (including JRC) || Enterprise sector || Other || TOTAL Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations INNOVATION AND SMEs || 8.22 || 23 || 9.97 || 56 || 17.39 || 119 || 15.84 || 112 || 51.42 || 310 || 21.02 || 141 Promotion of innovation || 3.58 || 16 || 8.68 || 49 || 11.89 || 88 || 9.38 || 58 || 33.53 || 211 || 14.53 || 109 Joint innovation/SME activities || 4.64 || 7 || 1.29 || 7 || 5.51 || 31 || 6.46 || 54 || 17.89 || 99 || 6.49 || 32 Economic and technological intelligence || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 HUMAN POTENTIAL || 136.92 || 1 257 || 100.6 || 829 || 12.0 || 108 || 8.55 || 120 || 258.07 || 2 314 || 11.93 || 126 Research training networks || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 Marie Curie fellowships || 68.9 || 545 || 37.6 || 272 || 8.61 || 45 || 0.41 || 4 || 115.52 || 866 || 5.64 || 34 Access to research infrastructure || 19.01 || 88 || 34.55 || 135 || 0.66 || 9 || 0.16 || 4 || 54.38 || 236 || 0.74 || 8 Socio-economic research || 35.55 || 392 || 17.95 || 227 || 0.39 || 9 || 2.94 || 37 || 56.83 || 665 || 1.94 || 21 Public perception || 1.7 || 21 || 2.06 || 37 || 1.32 || 22 || 2.23 || 28 || 7.31 || 108 || 1.27 || 21 Support for S&T policies || 3.09 || 50 || 3.19 || 40 || 0.6 || 13 || 0.75 || 12 || 7.63 || 115 || 0.98 || 9 Promoting S&T excellence || 6.89 || 131 || 4.2 || 96 || 0.02 || 1 || 1.34 || 21 || 12.45 || 249 || 1.14 || 28 RTD activities of a generic nature || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 Accompanying measures || 1.78 || 30 || 1.05 || 22 || 0.39 || 9 || 0.73 || 14 || 3.95 || 75 || 0.21 || 5 TOTAL || 1 128.83 || 6 738 || 1 147.36 || 6 810 || 1 124.41 || 7 111 || 335.03 || 2 774 || 3 735.64 || 23 433 || 528.13 || 4 658 Table 3B: Contracts signed in 2001 by type of beneficiary (in %) || TYPE OF BENEFICIARY || of which SMEs Higher education || Research centres (including JRC) || Enterprise sector || Other[56] || TOTAL Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations QUALITY OF LIFE || 47.44% || 39.55% || 39.23% || 34.74% || 7.85% || 18.08% || 5.49% || 7.64% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 7.46% || 16.77% Food, nutrition and health || 47.37% || 30.77% || 36.33% || 29.83% || 12.10% || 35.01% || 4.20% || 4.40% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 8.40% || 29.83% Control of infectious diseases || 45.11% || 41.25% || 38.57% || 36.25% || 8.50% || 12.14% || 7.82% || 10.36% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 3.83% || 7.86% The “cell factory” || 53.64% || 43.41% || 33.19% || 32.72% || 11.06% || 21.70% || 2.11% || 2.17% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 12.01% || 22.70% Environment and health || 48.28% || 38.26% || 44.96% || 41.30% || 3.74% || 13.04% || 3.02% || 7.39% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 5.75% || 15.65% Sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry || 41.11% || 31.70% || 40.98% || 33.33% || 7.83% || 24.95% || 10.08% || 10.02% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 7.29% || 23.41% The ageing population and disabilities || 60.70% || 48.62% || 26.35% || 31.80% || 6.73% || 10.09% || 6.22% || 9.48% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 5.30% || 9.17% RTD activities of a generic nature || 52.15% || 49.26% || 39.56% || 35.41% || 4.48% || 6.13% || 3.81% || 9.20% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 6.80% || 7.19% Support for infrastructure || 23.84% || 32.47% || 68.17% || 54.12% || 4.06% || 9.28% || 3.93% || 4.12% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 5.94% || 6.70% INFORMATION SOCIETY || 27.25% || 26.37% || 19.28% || 16.81% || 44.03% || 40.26% || 9.43% || 16.56% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 19.79% || 22.18% Systems and services for the citizen || 15.71% || 16.21% || 16.62% || 14.51% || 53.48% || 44.97% || 14.19% || 24.31% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 28.88% || 26.93% New methods of work and electronic commerce || 21.06% || 20.82% || 15.17% || 12.90% || 46.60% || 44.87% || 17.17% || 21.41% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 29.55% || 30.65% Multimedia content and tools || 30.52% || 28.05% || 16.88% || 14.50% || 37.81% || 33.06% || 14.80% || 24.39% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 24.70% || 24.39% Essential technologies and infrastructure || 24.75% || 25.12% || 21.63% || 19.51% || 50.55% || 48.37% || 3.06% || 7.00% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 12.81% || 15.97% Cross-programme themes || 20.89% || 20.05% || 21.78% || 17.11% || 45.68% || 44.01% || 11.65% || 18.83% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 25.68% || 27.14% RTD activities of a generic nature || 68.56% || 66.95% || 22.82% || 24.22% || 5.97% || 7.12% || 2.66% || 1.71% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 2.43% || 3.42% Support for infrastructure || 25.15% || 26.67% || 13.58% || 25.00% || 48.49% || 40.00% || 12.78% || 8.33% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 17.85% || 25.00% SUSTAINABLE GROWTH || 18.57% || 16.87% || 25.69% || 24.97% || 50.41% || 52.80% || 5.33% || 5.36% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 18.74% || 31.67% Innovative products, processes and organisation || 20.19% || 14.19% || 30.00% || 22.23% || 46.87% || 59.99% || 2.93% || 3.59% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 25.95% || 38.09% Sustainable mobility and intermodality || 8.44% || 14.92% || 18.23% || 24.60% || 52.18% || 43.15% || 21.15% || 17.34% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 23.78% || 29.03% Land transport and marine technologies || 20.78% || 13.70% || 28.16% || 20.27% || 46.50% || 58.77% || 4.55% || 7.26% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 16.22% || 32.19% New perspectives for aeronautics || 10.99% || 17.82% || 15.57% || 23.27% || 71.96% || 56.19% || 1.48% || 2.72% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 8.26% || 17.41% RTD activities of a generic nature || 31.30% || 21.36% || 33.65% || 29.53% || 33.04% || 45.48% || 2.00% || 3.62% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 20.59% || 31.69% Support for infrastructure || 17.74% || 20.70% || 49.58% || 38.77% || 20.48% || 25.55% || 12.19% || 14.98% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 13.76% || 12.33% || TYPE OF BENEFICIARY || of which SMEs Higher education || Research centres (including JRC) || Enterprise sector || Other || TOTAL Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT || 29.51% || 26.68% || 31.58% || 34.18% || 25.14% || 22.12% || 13.76% || 17.02% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 13.88% || 17.17% ENVIRONMENT || 40.76% || 31.78% || 43.14% || 40.00% || 10.37% || 17.83% || 5.73% || 10.40% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 9.53% || 15.77% Sustainable management and quality of water || 40.90% || 28.82% || 40.36% || 31.46% || 13.91% || 29.91% || 4.83% || 9.81% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 13.92% || 28.04% Global change, climate and biodiversity || 44.28% || 40.32% || 50.69% || 51.87% || 1.65% || 4.44% || 3.38% || 3.37% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 2.15% || 3.91% Sustainable marine ecosystems || 47.22% || 40.63% || 41.23% || 39.68% || 9.72% || 15.87% || 1.83% || 3.81% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 7.80% || 14.29% The city of tomorrow and cultural heritage || 32.87% || 20.58% || 34.51% || 28.90% || 18.82% || 23.91% || 13.80% || 26.61% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 18.94% || 21.00% RTD activities of a generic nature || 39.77% || 33.56% || 38.38% || 39.26% || 15.04% || 19.46% || 6.82% || 7.72% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 9.21% || 14.09% Support for infrastructure || 32.33% || 28.14% || 54.71% || 59.31% || 5.76% || 4.76% || 7.20% || 7.79% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 4.53% || 3.90% ENERGY || 6.94% || 10.60% || 8.38% || 15.84% || 54.80% || 35.66% || 29.88% || 37.91% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 22.61% || 21.57% Cleaner energy systems, incl. renewables || 5.59% || 9.28% || 8.19% || 12.75% || 52.29% || 39.71% || 33.93% || 38.26% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 29.84% || 25.22% Economic and efficient energy || 8.20% || 14.08% || 7.20% || 16.42% || 58.95% || 37.83% || 25.65% || 31.67% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 17.52% || 19.06% RTD activities of a generic nature || 5.19% || 6.67% || 37.65% || 33.33% || 22.44% || 33.33% || 34.72% || 26.67% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 27.50% || 40.00% OPET || 2.69% || 3.96% || 29.19% || 21.78% || 16.82% || 14.85% || 51.30% || 59.41% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 13.94% || 14.85% NUCLEAR ENERGY || 5.78% || 8.54% || 69.36% || 36.15% || 2.04% || 15.56% || 22.83% || 39.75% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 26.43% || 3.35% Controlled thermonuclear fusion || 2.55% || 11.15% || 80.66% || 63.47% || 0.49% || 16.10% || 16.30% || 9.29% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 0.86% || 0.93% Nuclear fission || 11.14% || 9.49% || 50.64% || 32.81% || 5.90% || 20.22% || 32.32% || 37.48% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 88.77% || 5.75% RTD activities of a generic nature || 18.66% || 7.02% || 35.28% || 21.05% || 0.00% || 7.02% || 46.06% || 64.91% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% Support for infrastructure || 15.74% || 0.58% || 24.77% || 2.33% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 59.49% || 97.09% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% INTERNATIONAL ROLE || 35.46% || 42.58% || 37.83% || 40.05% || 2.84% || 6.32% || 23.87% || 11.05% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 3.45% || 5.06% Countries in the pre-accession phase || 26.19% || 27.66% || 68.55% || 34.04% || 0.67% || 4.26% || 4.60% || 34.04% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 0.67% || 4.26% NIS and CEEC not in the pre-accession phase || 9.07% || 35.51% || 11.90% || 46.73% || 1.88% || 9.35% || 77.15% || 8.41% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 2.08% || 14.02% Mediterranean partner countries || 46.84% || 33.03% || 32.44% || 34.86% || 10.48% || 14.68% || 10.24% || 17.43% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 8.49% || 11.01% Developing countries || 45.79% || 43.84% || 47.03% || 41.37% || 2.27% || 4.80% || 4.92% || 9.99% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 3.46% || 2.98% Emerging economies and industrialised countries || 9.36% || 19.23% || 27.17% || 38.46% || 26.54% || 26.92% || 36.94% || 15.38% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 20.18% || 19.23% Fellowships for developing countries || 73.00% || 57.14% || 27.00% || 35.71% || 0.00% || 7.14% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 0.00% || 7.14% Fellowships for Community researchers || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% Coordination || 59.03% || 59.82% || 34.21% || 33.04% || 2.15% || 1.79% || 4.61% || 5.36% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 2.15% || 1.79% || TYPE OF BENEFICIARY || of which SMEs Higher education || Research centres (including JRC) || Enterprise sector || Other || TOTAL Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations || Contri-bution || Partici-pations INNOVATION AND SMEs || 15.98% || 7.42% || 19.39% || 18.06% || 33.83% || 38.39% || 30.81% || 36.13% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 40.87% || 45.48% Promotion of innovation || 10.67% || 7.58% || 25.89% || 23.22% || 35.45% || 41.71% || 27.98% || 27.49% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 43.32% || 51.66% Joint innovation/SME activities || 25.93% || 7.07% || 7.20% || 7.07% || 30.78% || 31.31% || 36.09% || 54.55% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 36.27% || 32.32% Economic and technological intelligence || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% HUMAN POTENTIAL || 53.05% || 54.32% || 38.98% || 35.83% || 4.65% || 4.67% || 3.31% || 5.19% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 4.62% || 5.45% Research training networks || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% || 0.00% Marie Curie fellowships || 59.64% || 62.93% || 32.55% || 31.41% || 7.46% || 5.20% || 0.35% || 0.46% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 4.88% || 3.93% Access to research infrastructure || 34.96% || 37.29% || 63.53% || 57.20% || 1.22% || 3.81% || 0.29% || 1.69% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 1.37% || 3.39% Socio-economic research || 62.55% || 58.95% || 31.59% || 34.14% || 0.69% || 1.35% || 5.17% || 5.56% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 3.42% || 3.16% Public perception || 23.26% || 19.44% || 28.18% || 34.26% || 18.05% || 20.37% || 30.52% || 25.93% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 17.42% || 19.44% Support for S&T policies || 40.46% || 43.48% || 41.84% || 34.78% || 7.89% || 11.30% || 9.81% || 10.43% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 12.83% || 7.83% Promoting S&T excellence || 55.36% || 52.61% || 33.71% || 38.55% || 0.17% || 0.40% || 10.76% || 8.43% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 9.15% || 11.24% RTD activities of a generic nature || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% Accompanying measures || 45.03% || 40.00% || 26.51% || 29.33% || 9.84% || 12.00% || 18.61% || 18.67% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 5.24% || 6.67% TOTAL || 30.22% || 28.75% || 30.71% || 29.06% || 30.10% || 30.35% || 8.97% || 11.84% || 100.00% || 100.00% || 14.14% || 19.88% Table 4 : Proposals received in 2001 by country - participations by
specific programme || EUROPEAN UNION BE || DK || DE || EL || ES || FR || IE || IT || LU || NL || AT || PT || FI || SV || UK || Total. Quality of life || 787 || 663 || 2 564 || 697 || 1 558 || 2189 || 279 || 2 199 || 18 || 1 299 || 567 || 465 || 502 || 886 || 2 755 || 17 428 Information society || 505 || 190 || 1 859 || 1 238 || 1 294 || 1292 || 218 || 1 768 || 46 || 513 || 396 || 268 || 335 || 402 || 1 444 || 11 768 Sustainable growth || 658 || 287 || 2 609 || 619 || 1 439 || 1837 || 139 || 1 786 || 23 || 1 068 || 400 || 472 || 366 || 628 || 1 934 || 14 265 Energy and environment || 737 || 862 || 3 143 || 1 215 || 1 843 || 2174 || 246 || 2 162 || 30 || 1 473 || 767 || 655 || 529 || 858 || 2 709 || 19 403 Environment || 422 || 431 || 1 735 || 722 || 1 069 || 1330 || 143 || 1 452 || 22 || 861 || 398 || 407 || 334 || 478 || 1 670 || 11 474 Energy || 315 || 431 || 1 408 || 493 || 774 || 844 || 103 || 710 || 8 || 612 || 369 || 248 || 195 || 380 || 1 039 || 7 929 Nuclear energy || 74 || 12 || 193 || 13 || 87 || 159 || 5 || 48 || 0 || 71 || 13 || 2 || 62 || 72 || 132 || 943 Fission || 74 || 12 || 190 || 12 || 87 || 158 || 5 || 48 || 0 || 70 || 13 || 2 || 60 || 72 || 132 || 935 Fusion || 0 || 0 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 8 International role || 102 || 49 || 166 || 79 || 145 || 234 || 14 || 192 || 1 || 127 || 86 || 74 || 18 || 55 || 214 || 1 556 Innovation and SMEs || 71 || 87 || 412 || 123 || 304 || 213 || 51 || 327 || 15 || 98 || 85 || 119 || 49 || 52 || 275 || 2 281 Human potential || 339 || 203 || 1 281 || 274 || 575 || 1280 || 111 || 903 || 5 || 610 || 246 || 165 || 128 || 296 || 1 528 || 7 944 TOTAL || 3 273 || 2 353 || 12 227 || 4 258 || 7 245 || 9378 || 1 063 || 9 385 || 138 || 5 259 || 2560 || 2220 || 1989 || 3 249 || 10 991 || 75 588 || CANDIDATE AND ASSOCIATED COUNTRIES bg || cy || cz || ee || hu || lv || lt || mt || pl || ro || sk || si || tr || is || li || no || ch || il || Total. || Quality of life || 80 || 47 || 304 || 84 || 291 || 56 || 57 || 16 || 373 || 78 || 123 || 130 || 24 || 68 || 2 || 387 || 451 || 274 || 2 845 || Information society || 98 || 112 || 223 || 37 || 148 || 29 || 34 || 4 || 252 || 125 || 70 || 82 || 5 || 20 || 3 || 157 || 272 || 191 || 1 862 || Sustainable growth || 79 || 21 || 286 || 20 || 146 || 30 || 27 || 7 || 398 || 130 || 71 || 135 || 7 || 10 || 3 || 265 || 231 || 132 || 1 998 || Energy and environment || 159 || 77 || 350 || 114 || 296 || 56 || 69 || 57 || 586 || 189 || 133 || 216 || 41 || 42 || 6 || 639 || 453 || 177 || 3 660 || Environment || 107 || 52 || 211 || 83 || 218 || 40 || 46 || 41 || 381 || 136 || 93 || 121 || 30 || 39 || 2 || 409 || 252 || 117 || 2 378 || Energy || 52 || 25 || 139 || 31 || 78 || 16 || 23 || 16 || 205 || 53 || 40 || 95 || 11 || 3 || 4 || 230 || 201 || 60 || 1 282 || Nuclear energy || 7 || 0 || 55 || 1 || 38 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 11 || 31 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 45 || 0 || 211 || Fission || 7 || 0 || 55 || 1 || 38 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 11 || 31 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 43 || 0 || 209 || Fusion || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2 || International role || 23 || 5 || 14 || 2 || 30 || 3 || 3 || 7 || 23 || 14 || 5 || 27 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 26 || 26 || 9 || 244 || Innovation and SMEs || 17 || 12 || 57 || 27 || 58 || 16 || 19 || 5 || 62 || 16 || 30 || 33 || 0 || 7 || 0 || 38 || 14 || 46 || 457 || Human potential || 50 || 14 || 101 || 18 || 96 || 15 || 17 || 6 || 158 || 41 || 29 || 39 || 6 || 10 || 0 || 103 || 257 || 100 || 1060 || TOTAL || 513 || 288 || 1 390 || 303 || 1 103 || 206 || 226 || 102 || 1 860 || 604 || 492 || 669 || 110 || 157 || 14 || 1 623 || 1 749 || 929 || 12 337 || Table 5A : Contracts signed in 2001 by country - participations by
specific programme || EUROPEAN UNION BE || DK || DE || EL || ES || FR || IE || IT || LU || NL || AT || PT || FI || SV || UK || Total Quality of life || 149 || 186 || 559 || 137 || 295 || 589 || 83 || 403 || 5 || 322 || 114 || 80 || 128 || 203 || 724 || 3 977 Information society || 177 || 60 || 586 || 296 || 273 || 516 || 52 || 520 || 12 || 194 || 108 || 79 || 97 || 124 || 494 || 3 588 Sustainable growth || 281 || 144 || 1013 || 192 || 494 || 850 || 76 || 680 || 7 || 431 || 157 || 157 || 171 || 243 || 1 019 || 5 915 Energy and environment || 120 || 149 || 417 || 157 || 237 || 372 || 32 || 286 || 6 || 255 || 109 || 74 || 91 || 141 || 391 || 2 837 Environment || 90 || 99 || 322 || 112 || 169 || 298 || 25 || 245 || 3 || 189 || 65 || 57 || 64 || 94 || 315 || 2 147 Energy || 30 || 50 || 95 || 45 || 68 || 74 || 7 || 41 || 3 || 66 || 44 || 17 || 27 || 47 || 76 || 690 Nuclear energy || 97 || 14 || 200 || 7 || 92 || 184 || 4 || 82 || 0 || 49 || 20 || 10 || 49 || 65 || 127 || 1 000 Fission || 64 || 4 || 97 || 0 || 57 || 111 || 0 || 29 || 0 || 19 || 3 || 2 || 27 || 13 || 74 || 500 Fusion || 16 || 5 || 82 || 4 || 16 || 37 || 1 || 44 || 0 || 15 || 12 || 7 || 15 || 42 || 28 || 324 International role || 47 || 15 || 67 || 17 || 44 || 70 || 11 || 64 || 0 || 61 || 14 || 27 || 21 || 21 || 96 || 575 Innovation and SMEs || 13 || 5 || 42 || 12 || 33 || 25 || 5 || 44 || 1 || 5 || 9 || 8 || 2 || 15 || 36 || 255 Human potential || 92 || 53 || 315 || 63 || 140 || 354 || 30 || 205 || 3 || 151 || 58 || 44 || 33 || 81 || 450 || 2 072 TOTAL || 976 || 626 || 3 199 || 881 || 1 608 || 2 960 || 293 || 2 284 || 34 || 1 468 || 589 || 479 || 592 || 893 || 3 337 || 20 219 || CANDIDATE AND ASSOCIATED COUNTRIES bg || cy || cz || ee || hu || lv || lt || mt || pl || ro || sk || si || tr || is || li || no || ch || il || Total || Quality of life || 8 || 5 || 33 || 13 || 31 || 11 || 8 || 1 || 33 || 8 || 15 || 8 || 1 || 29 || 0 || 111 || 113 || 72 || 500 || Information society || 15 || 24 || 26 || 6 || 28 || 14 || 10 || 0 || 48 || 16 || 3 || 19 || 5 || 3 || 2 || 46 || 117 || 48 || 430 || Sustainable growth || 16 || 1 || 37 || 5 || 35 || 4 || 3 || 2 || 81 || 27 || 22 || 28 || 1 || 4 || 3 || 125 || 105 || 52 || 551 || Energy and environment || 15 || 10 || 39 || 16 || 32 || 10 || 10 || 2 || 39 || 17 || 15 || 19 || 3 || 11 || 1 || 105 || 59 || 22 || 425 || Environment || 10 || 7 || 32 || 11 || 26 || 7 || 9 || 2 || 30 || 11 || 13 || 14 || 2 || 11 || 0 || 81 || 44 || 22 || 332 || Energy || 5 || 3 || 7 || 5 || 6 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 9 || 6 || 2 || 5 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 24 || 15 || 0 || 93 || Nuclear energy || 5 || 1 || 35 || 0 || 31 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 9 || 24 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 55 || 0 || 179 || Fission || 5 || 1 || 22 || 0 || 20 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 21 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 34 || 0 || 110 || Fusion || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 6 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 15 || 0 || 29 || International role || 3 || 2 || 4 || 3 || 10 || 1 || 1 || 3 || 11 || 7 || 7 || 5 || 6 || 2 || 0 || 14 || 8 || 7 || 94 || Innovation and SMEs || 4 || 2 || 8 || 2 || 6 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 10 || 2 || 3 || 7 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 2 || 55 || Human potential || 13 || 2 || 17 || 13 || 37 || 6 || 4 || 1 || 26 || 9 || 8 || 14 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 29 || 36 || 18 || 235 || TOTAL || 79 || 47 || 199 || 58 || 210 || 54 || 37 || 9 || 255 || 95 || 97 || 105 || 17 || 52 || 6 || 435 || 493 || 221 || 2 469 || Table 5B: Contracts signed in 2001 by country - participations by
type of action and by type of beneficiary Number of participations by type of action || EUROPEAN UNION BE || DK || DE || EL || ES || FR || IE || IT || LU || NL || AT || PT || FI || SV || UK || Total Shared cost actions || 637 || 455 || 2 390 || 662 || 1 199 || 2 147 || 201 || 1 635 || 26 || 1 022 || 411 || 341 || 424 || 642 || 2 185 || 14 377 R&D projects || 525 || 345 || 1 879 || 551 || 832 || 1820 || 148 || 1 260 || 18 || 734 || 287 || 231 || 350 || 516 || 1 684 || 11 180 Demonstration projects || 10 || 30 || 64 || 5 || 43 || 53 || 6 || 28 || 2 || 42 || 18 || 7 || 3 || 26 || 52 || 389 Combined projects || 28 || 16 || 112 || 31 || 57 || 87 || 9 || 73 || 2 || 75 || 43 || 12 || 20 || 35 || 93 || 693 Support for infrastructure || 2 || 3 || 9 || 1 || 4 || 10 || 1 || 3 || 1 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 5 || 9 || 54 Cooperative research || 43 || 39 || 196 || 35 || 179 || 126 || 26 || 171 || 2 || 101 || 40 || 54 || 35 || 47 || 229 || 1 323 Exploratory awards || 29 || 22 || 130 || 39 || 84 || 51 || 11 || 100 || 1 || 65 || 23 || 37 || 15 || 13 || 118 || 738 Fellowships || 32 || 24 || 146 || 23 || 67 || 194 || 13 || 78 || 0 || 100 || 23 || 6 || 7 || 41 || 326 || 1 080 Support for networks || 142 || 84 || 301 || 76 || 142 || 241 || 31 || 242 || 0 || 165 || 48 || 65 || 74 || 107 || 425 || 2 143 Concerted actions || 37 || 27 || 66 || 25 || 63 || 80 || 11 || 70 || 1 || 53 || 20 || 14 || 31 || 49 || 104 || 651 Accompanying measures || 128 || 36 || 296 || 95 || 137 || 298 || 37 || 259 || 7 || 128 || 87 || 53 || 56 || 54 || 297 || 1 968 Total || 976 || 626 || 3 199 || 881 || 1 608 || 2 960 || 293 || 2 284 || 34 || 1 468 || 589 || 479 || 592 || 893 || 3 337 || 20 219 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || Number of participations by type of beneficiary || BE || DK || DE || EL || ES || FR || IE || IT || LU || NL || AT || PT || FI || SV || UK || Total Higher education || 289 || 153 || 772 || 263 || 418 || 504 || 134 || 557 || 1 || 410 || 163 || 135 || 168 || 338 || 1 437 || 5 667 Research centres (incl. JRC) || 266 || 201 || 980 || 238 || 418 || 1 186 || 44 || 703 || 8 || 478 || 146 || 116 || 218 || 185 || 586 || 5 773 Enterprise sector || 256 || 192 || 1 175 || 304 || 551 || 957 || 76 || 767 || 20 || 426 || 174 || 159 || 146 || 241 || 980 || 6 424 Other[57] || 165 || 80 || 272 || 76 || 221 || 313 || 39 || 257 || 5 || 154 || 106 || 69 || 60 || 129 || 334 || 2280 Total || 976 || 626 || 3 199 || 881 || 1 608 || 2 960 || 293 || 2 284 || 34 || 1 468 || 589 || 479 || 592 || 893 || 3 337 || 20 219 of which SMEs || 174 || 132 || 663 || 212 || 406 || 499 || 65 || 553 || 16 || 313 || 134 || 123 || 84 || 150 || 635 || 4 159 Number of participations by type of action || CANDIDATE AND ASSOCIATED COUNTRIES bg || cy || cz || ee || hu || lv || lt || mt || pl || ro || sk || si || tr || is || li || no || ch || il || Tot. Shared cost actions || 42 || 32 || 122 || 41 || 123 || 27 || 18 || 1 || 166 || 54 || 52 || 55 || 7 || 40 || 5 || 295 || 372 || 178 || 1 630 R&D projects || 34 || 27 || 104 || 35 || 96 || 15 || 15 || 1 || 127 || 46 || 47 || 43 || 6 || 24 || 4 || 226 || 337 || 139 || 1 326 Demonstration projects || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 3 || 2 || 1 || 0 || 2 || 1 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 12 || 9 || 1 || 38 Combined projects || 1 || 0 || 5 || 3 || 6 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 1 || 2 || 4 || 1 || 5 || 0 || 23 || 13 || 5 || 80 Support for infrastructure || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 2 || 5 Cooperative research || 3 || 3 || 4 || 1 || 11 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 17 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 0 || 25 || 13 || 20 || 111 Exploratory awards || 3 || 2 || 8 || 2 || 7 || 3 || 2 || 0 || 11 || 6 || 1 || 4 || 0 || 3 || 1 || 6 || 0 || 11 || 70 Fellowships || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 12 || 6 || 9 || 36 Support for networks || 12 || 4 || 35 || 2 || 33 || 4 || 5 || 3 || 21 || 13 || 18 || 20 || 4 || 7 || 0 || 72 || 57 || 14 || 324 Concerted actions || 2 || 0 || 11 || 1 || 10 || 2 || 3 || 1 || 9 || 5 || 10 || 2 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 23 || 25 || 5 || 113 Accompanying measures || 22 || 10 || 30 || 14 || 43 || 21 || 11 || 4 || 57 || 23 || 17 || 26 || 5 || 2 || 1 || 33 || 33 || 15 || 367 Total || 79 || 47 || 199 || 58 || 210 || 55 || 37 || 9 || 255 || 95 || 97 || 105 || 17 || 52 || 6 || 435 || 493 || 221 || 2 470 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || Number of participations by type of beneficiary || BG || CY || CZ || EE || HU || LV || LT || MT || PL || RO || SK || SI || TR || IS || LI || NO || CH || IL || Total Higher education || 20 || 11 || 44 || 28 || 42 || 13 || 10 || 0 || 86 || 22 || 18 || 35 || 8 || 14 || 0 || 98 || 196 || 85 || 730 Research centres (incl. JRC) || 26 || 4 || 68 || 9 || 89 || 11 || 13 || 1 || 80 || 34 || 44 || 30 || 5 || 18 || 0 || 149 || 123 || 42 || 746 Enterprise sector || 20 || 15 || 40 || 9 || 47 || 15 || 5 || 2 || 42 || 18 || 16 || 19 || 2 || 13 || 4 || 148 || 135 || 81 || 631 Other || 13 || 17 || 47 || 12 || 32 || 16 || 9 || 6 || 47 || 21 || 19 || 21 || 2 || 7 || 2 || 40 || 39 || 13 || 363 Total || 79 || 47 || 199 || 58 || 210 || 55 || 37 || 9 || 255 || 95 || 97 || 105 || 17 || 52 || 6 || 435 || 493 || 221 || 2 470 of which SMEs || 17 || 15 || 33 || 9 || 42 || 14 || 4 || 2 || 33 || 18 || 10 || 24 || 1 || 11 || 0 || 83 || 90 || 55 || 461 Table 6: Cooperation links between countries in the contracts signed
in 2001 || || European Union || Candidate and associated countries || Total || || || || BE || DK || DE || EL || ES || FR || IE || IT || LU || NL || AT || PT || FI || SV || UK || Tot || BG || CY || CZ || EE || HU || LV || LT || MT || PL || RO || SK || SI || TR || IS || LI || NO || CH || IL || || European Union || BE || 305 || 236 || 1 267 || 321 || 657 || 1 306 || 123 || 805 || 20 || 668 || 189 || 194 || 226 || 309 || 1 295 || 7 921 || 22 || 8 || 96 || 12 || 97 || 7 || 19 || 6 || 88 || 41 || 57 || 48 || 8 || 13 || 1 || 150 || 191 || 59 || 8 844 || BE || European Union DK || 236 || 203 || 741 || 206 || 360 || 610 || 102 || 500 || 9 || 504 || 135 || 120 || 214 || 314 || 959 || 5 213 || 11 || 6 || 51 || 14 || 55 || 15 || 16 || 4 || 69 || 25 || 18 || 30 || 3 || 18 || 0 || 232 || 142 || 33 || 5 955 || DK DE || 1 267 || 741 || 2 562 || 899 || 1 739 || 3 713 || 328 || 2 639 || 39 || 1 827 || 880 || 550 || 693 || 1 143 || 4 555 || 23 575 || 88 || 30 || 309 || 33 || 267 || 87 || 48 || 7 || 332 || 101 || 170 || 136 || 20 || 45 || 9 || 535 || 790 || 238 || 26 820 || DE EL || 321 || 206 || 899 || 442 || 604 || 825 || 99 || 1 012 || 11 || 436 || 180 || 228 || 269 || 237 || 1 047 || 6 816 || 69 || 55 || 64 || 18 || 65 || 11 || 14 || 6 || 64 || 67 || 39 || 31 || 17 || 13 || 1 || 184 || 137 || 109 || 7 780 || EL ES || 657 || 360 || 1 739 || 604 || 1 032 || 1 993 || 208 || 1 859 || 12 || 751 || 262 || 399 || 324 || 526 || 2 102 || 12 828 || 44 || 38 || 134 || 17 || 106 || 18 || 17 || 7 || 121 || 51 || 57 || 74 || 11 || 35 || 2 || 262 || 290 || 95 || 14 207 || ES FR || 1 306 || 610 || 3 713 || 825 || 1 993 || 2 828 || 282 || 2 540 || 36 || 1 529 || 464 || 513 || 554 || 785 || 3 538 || 21 516 || 52 || 28 || 227 || 19 || 165 || 28 || 53 || 9 || 262 || 108 || 72 || 85 || 17 || 32 || 4 || 589 || 668 || 199 || 24 133 || FR IE || 123 || 102 || 328 || 99 || 208 || 282 || 51 || 262 || 5 || 189 || 61 || 57 || 79 || 106 || 529 || 2 481 || 3 || 1 || 24 || 7 || 41 || 6 || 4 || 2 || 27 || 13 || 15 || 21 || 3 || 10 || 1 || 74 || 41 || 20 || 2 794 || IE IT || 805 || 500 || 2 639 || 1 012 || 1 859 || 2 540 || 262 || 1819 || 28 || 1 128 || 352 || 526 || 452 || 726 || 2 967 || 17 615 || 84 || 40 || 164 || 20 || 141 || 24 || 16 || 13 || 199 || 61 || 71 || 125 || 12 || 21 || 2 || 421 || 444 || 191 || 19 664 || IT LU || 20 || 9 || 39 || 11 || 12 || 36 || 5 || 28 || 2 || 16 || 12 || 9 || 7 || 15 || 34 || 255 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 3 || 1 || 4 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 10 || 6 || 1 || 295 || LU NL || 668 || 504 || 1 827 || 436 || 751 || 1 529 || 189 || 1 128 || 16 || 787 || 324 || 323 || 399 || 575 || 2 086 || 11 542 || 38 || 13 || 146 || 24 || 157 || 18 || 19 || 6 || 158 || 63 || 76 || 68 || 8 || 26 || 0 || 351 || 272 || 120 || 13 105 || NL AT || 189 || 135 || 880 || 180 || 262 || 464 || 61 || 352 || 12 || 324 || 333 || 93 || 149 || 240 || 547 || 4 221 || 32 || 4 || 68 || 10 || 120 || 17 || 14 || 3 || 58 || 54 || 72 || 44 || 4 || 12 || 3 || 91 || 121 || 22 || 4 970 || AT PT || 194 || 120 || 550 || 228 || 399 || 513 || 57 || 526 || 9 || 323 || 93 || 159 || 118 || 134 || 659 || 4 082 || 17 || 7 || 40 || 6 || 45 || 4 || 11 || 1 || 58 || 24 || 18 || 21 || 4 || 13 || 1 || 149 || 99 || 31 || 4 631 || PT FI || 226 || 214 || 693 || 269 || 324 || 554 || 79 || 452 || 7 || 399 || 149 || 118 || 227 || 366 || 708 || 4 785 || 24 || 3 || 48 || 30 || 69 || 16 || 13 || 2 || 70 || 22 || 44 || 25 || 2 || 23 || 0 || 238 || 114 || 40 || 5 568 || FI SV || 309 || 314 || 1 143 || 237 || 526 || 785 || 106 || 726 || 15 || 575 || 240 || 134 || 366 || 331 || 1 354 || 7 161 || 21 || 6 || 72 || 31 || 67 || 11 || 21 || 2 || 79 || 20 || 31 || 46 || 3 || 38 || 0 || 287 || 170 || 61 || 8 127 || SV UK || 1 295 || 959 || 4 555 || 1 047 || 2 102 || 3 538 || 529 || 2 967 || 34 || 2 086 || 547 || 659 || 708 || 1 354 || 3 110 || 25 490 || 52 || 36 || 303 || 43 || 234 || 45 || 42 || 11 || 307 || 98 || 182 || 177 || 9 || 64 || 3 || 962 || 568 || 199 || 28 825 || UK Tot || 7 921 || 5 213 || 23 575 || 6 816 || 12 828 || 21 516 || 2 481 || 17 615 || 255 || 11 542 || 4 221 || 4 082 || 4 785 || 7 161 || 25 490 || 84 846 || 558 || 276 || 1748 || 285 || 1631 || 310 || 310 || 80 || 1896 || 749 || 923 || 933 || 121 || 364 || 27 || 4535 || 4053 || 1418 || 105 063 || Tot. Candidate and associated countries || BG || 22 || 11 || 88 || 69 || 44 || 52 || 3 || 84 || 1 || 38 || 32 || 17 || 24 || 21 || 52 || 558 || 20 || 5 || 21 || 6 || 22 || 7 || 7 || 2 || 14 || 41 || 17 || 11 || 4 || 1 || 0 || 16 || 14 || 3 || 769 || BG || Candidate and associated countries CY || 8 || 6 || 30 || 55 || 38 || 28 || 1 || 40 || 1 || 13 || 4 || 7 || 3 || 6 || 36 || 276 || 5 || 11 || 7 || 4 || 5 || 2 || 2 || 4 || 12 || 5 || 2 || 5 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2 || 25 || 372 || CY CZ || 96 || 51 || 309 || 64 || 134 || 227 || 24 || 164 || 2 || 146 || 68 || 40 || 48 || 72 || 303 || 1 748 || 21 || 7 || 52 || 11 || 60 || 11 || 8 || 3 || 36 || 27 || 53 || 23 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 38 || 42 || 16 || 2 160 || CZ EE || 12 || 14 || 33 || 18 || 17 || 19 || 7 || 20 || 1 || 24 || 10 || 6 || 30 || 31 || 43 || 285 || 6 || 4 || 11 || 16 || 10 || 18 || 11 || 3 || 16 || 6 || 6 || 9 || 1 || 5 || 0 || 13 || 4 || 4 || 428 || EE HU || 97 || 55 || 267 || 65 || 106 || 165 || 41 || 141 || 2 || 157 || 120 || 45 || 69 || 67 || 234 || 1 631 || 22 || 5 || 60 || 10 || 47 || 10 || 10 || 3 || 48 || 35 || 49 || 24 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 38 || 42 || 11 || 2 049 || HU LV || 7 || 15 || 87 || 11 || 18 || 28 || 6 || 24 || 3 || 18 || 17 || 4 || 16 || 11 || 45 || 310 || 7 || 2 || 11 || 18 || 10 || 18 || 23 || 2 || 22 || 9 || 6 || 5 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 11 || 4 || 4 || 466 || LV LT || 19 || 16 || 48 || 14 || 17 || 53 || 4 || 16 || 3 || 19 || 14 || 11 || 13 || 21 || 42 || 310 || 7 || 2 || 8 || 11 || 10 || 23 || 3 || 2 || 23 || 7 || 5 || 5 || 1 || 2 || 0 || 13 || 4 || 3 || 439 || LT MT || 6 || 4 || 7 || 6 || 7 || 9 || 2 || 13 || 1 || 6 || 3 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 11 || 80 || 2 || 4 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 4 || 3 || 1 || 4 || 2 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2 || 4 || 121 || MT PL || 88 || 69 || 332 || 64 || 121 || 262 || 27 || 199 || 4 || 158 || 58 || 58 || 70 || 79 || 307 || 1 896 || 14 || 12 || 36 || 16 || 48 || 22 || 23 || 4 || 83 || 30 || 25 || 22 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 56 || 45 || 10 || 2 348 || PL RO || 41 || 25 || 101 || 67 || 51 || 108 || 13 || 61 || 1 || 63 || 54 || 24 || 22 || 20 || 98 || 749 || 41 || 5 || 27 || 6 || 35 || 9 || 7 || 3 || 30 || 18 || 29 || 23 || 4 || 1 || 0 || 15 || 13 || 5 || 1 020 || RO SK || 57 || 18 || 170 || 39 || 57 || 72 || 15 || 71 || 1 || 76 || 72 || 18 || 44 || 31 || 182 || 923 || 17 || 2 || 53 || 6 || 49 || 6 || 5 || 1 || 25 || 29 || 29 || 28 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 18 || 31 || 3 || 1 229 || SK SI || 48 || 30 || 136 || 31 || 74 || 85 || 21 || 125 || 2 || 68 || 44 || 21 || 25 || 46 || 177 || 933 || 11 || 5 || 23 || 9 || 24 || 5 || 5 || 4 || 22 || 23 || 28 || 26 || 2 || 3 || 0 || 23 || 25 || 7 || 1 178 || SI TR || 8 || 3 || 20 || 17 || 11 || 17 || 3 || 12 || 0 || 8 || 4 || 4 || 2 || 3 || 9 || 121 || 4 || 3 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 3 || 8 || 159 || TR IS || 13 || 18 || 45 || 13 || 35 || 32 || 10 || 21 || 1 || 26 || 12 || 13 || 23 || 38 || 64 || 364 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 5 || 2 || 4 || 2 || 1 || 3 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 0 || 18 || 0 || 46 || 5 || 5 || 465 || IS LI || 1 || 0 || 9 || 1 || 2 || 4 || 1 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 29 || LI NO || 150 || 232 || 535 || 184 || 262 || 589 || 74 || 421 || 10 || 351 || 91 || 149 || 238 || 287 || 962 || 4 535 || 16 || 1 || 38 || 13 || 38 || 11 || 13 || 1 || 56 || 15 || 18 || 23 || 1 || 46 || 0 || 241 || 93 || 28 || 5 187 || NO CH || 191 || 142 || 790 || 137 || 290 || 668 || 41 || 444 || 6 || 272 || 121 || 99 || 114 || 170 || 568 || 4 053 || 14 || 2 || 42 || 4 || 42 || 4 || 4 || 2 || 45 || 13 || 31 || 25 || 3 || 5 || 2 || 93 || 131 || 36 || 4 551 || CH IL || 59 || 33 || 238 || 109 || 95 || 199 || 20 || 191 || 1 || 120 || 22 || 31 || 40 || 61 || 199 || 1 418 || 3 || 25 || 16 || 4 || 11 || 4 || 3 || 4 || 10 || 5 || 3 || 7 || 8 || 5 || 0 || 28 || 36 || 72 || 1 662 || IL Total || 8 844 || 5 955 || 26 820 || 7 780 || 14 207 || 24 133 || 2 794 || 19 664 || 295 || 13 105 || 4 970 || 4 631 || 5 568 || 8 127 || 28 825 || 105 063 || 769 || 372 || 2 160 || 428 || 2 049 || 466 || 439 || 121 || 2 348 || 1 020 || 1 229 || 1 178 || 159 || 465 || 29 || 5 187 || 4 551 || 1 662 || 107 663 || || || BE || DK || DE || EL || ES || FR || IE || IT || LU || NL || AT || PT || FI || SV || UK || Tot || BG || CY || CZ || EE || HU || LV || LT || MT || PL || RO || SK || SI || TR || IS || LI || NO || CH || IL || Total || || || || European Union || Candidate and associated countries || || Table 7: Funding of Fifth framework programme || Amount 1999-2002 (€ million) || Commitment 2001 (€ million) Quality of life and management of living resources || 2 413 || 635.0 A user-friendly information society || 3 600 || 936.0 Competitive and sustainable growth || 2 705 || 702.6 Energy, environment and sustainable development || 2 125 || 570.2 Environment and sustainable development || 1 083 || 291.6 Energy || 1 042 || 278.6 Confirming the international role of Community research || 475 || 135.9 Promotion of innovation and encouragement of SME participation || 363 || 110.0 Improving human research potential and the socio-economic knowledge base || 1 280 || 325.3 Direct action (JRC) || 739 || 181.0 Total for Fifth EC Framework Programme || 13 700 || 3 596.0 Nuclear research || 979 || 255.3 Controlled thermonuclear fusion || 788 || 199.0 Nuclear fission || 191 || 56.3 Direct action (JRC) || 281 || 68.7 Total for Fifth Euratom Framework Programme || 1 260 || 324.0 TOTAL for Fifth EC + Euratom Framework Programmes || 14 960 || 3 920.0 Table 8A: Community research commitments
over the period 1984-2002 (current prices) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || Situation at 12.09.2002 || YEARS || 84 || 85 || 86 || 87 || 88 || 89 || 90 || 91 || 92 || 93 || 94 || 95 || 96 || 97 || 98 || 99 || 00 || 01[58] || 02[59] || TOTALS || FP 1984-87 || 593,0 || 735,0 || 874,0 || 701,8 || 260,8 || 101,1 || 4,9 || || || || || || || || || || || || || 3270,6 || FP 1987-91 || || || || 188,1 || 810,6 || 1241,3 || 1596,9 || 1270,7 || 230,9 || 14,8 || 3,9 || 0,2 || || || || || || || || 5357,4 || FP 1990-94 || || || || || || || || 296,0 || 2160,5 || 2079,5 || 2014,7 || 1,0 || || || || || || || || 6551,7 || FP 1994-98[60] || || || || || || || || || || || || 2982,5 || 3153,5 || 3485,6 || 3499,3 || || || || || 13120,9 || FP 1998-02 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 3337,5 || 3607,4 || 3870,8 || 4055,0 || 14870,7 || RTD PROGRAMMES || 593,0 || 735,0 || 874,0 || 889,9 || 1071,4 || 1342,4 || 1601,8 || 1566,7 || 2391,4 || 2094,3 || 2018,6 || 2983,7 || 3153,5 || 3485,6 || 3499,3 || 3337,5 || 3607,4 || 3870,8 || 4055,0 || 43171,3 || APAS || || || || 49,4 || 56,6 || 69,8 || 113,1 || 168,8 || 308,4 || 440,2 || 571,8 || 2,1 || || || || || || || || 1780,2 || RTD+APAS || 593,0 || 735,0 || 874,0 || 939,3 || 1128,0 || 1412,2 || 1714,9 || 1735,5 || 2699,8 || 2534,5 || 2590,4 || 2985,8 || 3153,5 || 3485,6 || 3499,3 || 3337,5 || 3607,4 || 3870,8 || 4055,0 || 44951,5 || SPRINT || || || || || || || 16,0 || 16,0 || 17,0 || || || || || || || || || || || 49,0 || ECSC || || || || || || || 17,5 || 17,5 || 17,5 || 17,5 || 17,5 || || || || || || || || || 87,5 || 80% of THERMIE || || || || || || || 36,0 || 118,4 || 128,9 || 139,2 || 145,6 || || || || || || || || || 568,1 || Total Research[61] || 593,0 || 735,0 || 874,0 || 939,3 || 1128,0 || 1412,2 || 1784,4 || 1887,4 || 2863,2 || 2691,2 || 2753,5 || 2985,8 || 3153,5 || 3485,6 || 3499,3 || 3337,5 || 3607,4 || 3870,8 || 4055,0 || 45656,1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 4 269, i.e. 2.42% of the Budget || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 7 151, i.e. 3.18% of the Budget || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 11 980, i.e. 4.05% of the Budget || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 15 878, i.e. 4.02% of the Budget || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 18 370, i.e. 4.16% of the Budget || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || EC BUDGET (current prices) || 28 905 || 29 925 || 35 842 || 38 392 || 43 080 || 42 569 || 45 057 || 56 111 || 61 232 || 67 760 || 65 929 || 75 355 || 82 125 || 85 028 || 86 523 || 91 645 || 74 907 || 92 116 || 96 846 || || RTD programmes as % %%%oBudget || 2.1 || 2.5 || 2.4 || 2.3 || 2.5 || 3.2 || 3.6 || 2.8 || 3.9 || 3.1 || 3.1 || 4.0 || 3.8 || 4.1 || 4.0 || 3.6 || 4.8 || 4.2 || 4.2 || || Total research as % of budget || 2.1 || 2.5 || 2.4 || 2.4 || 2.6 || 3.3 || 4.0 || 3.4 || 4.7 || 4.0 || 4.2 || 4.0 || 3.8 || 4.1 || 4.0 || 3.6 || 4.8 || 4.2 || 4.2 || || Table 8B: Community research commitments
over the period 1984-2002 (constant 2000 prices) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || Situation at 12.09.2002 YEARS || 84 || 85 || 86 || 87 || 88 || 89 || 90 || 91 || 92 || 93 || 94 || 95 || 96 || 97 || 98 || 99 || 00 || 01 [62] || 02[63] || TOTALS FP 1984-87 || 986,7 || 1 153,8 || 1 326,3 || 1 030,5 || 369,9 || 136,4 || 6,3 || || || || || || || || || || || || || 5 009,9 FP 1987-91 || || || || 276,2 || 1 149,8 || 1 675,2 || 2 063,2 || 1 561,1 || 274,2 || 17,3 || 4,5 || 0,2 || || || || || || || || 7 021,7 FP 1990-94 || || || || || || || || 363,6 || 2 565,9 || 2 435,0 || 2 315,7 || 1,1 || || || || || || || || 7 681,3 FP 1994-98[64] || || || || || || || || || || || || 3 385,4 || 3 465,4 || 3 727,9 || 3 679,6 || || || || || 14 258,3 FP 1998-2002 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 3 426,6 || 3 607,4 || 3 802,4 || 3 906,6 || 14 743,0 RTD PROGRAMMES || 986,7 || 1 153,8 || 1 326,3 || 1 306,7 || 1 519,7 || 1 811,6 || 2 069,5 || 1 924,7 || 2 840,1 || 2 452,3 || 2 320,2 || 3 386,7 || 3 465,4 || 3 727,9 || 3 679,6 || 3 426,6 || 3 607,4 || 3 802,4 || 3 906,6 || 48 714,2 APAS || || || || 72,5 || 80,3 || 94,2 || 146,1 || 207,4 || 366,3 || 515,5 || 657,2 || 2,4 || || || || || || || || 2 141,9 RTD+APAS || 986,7 || 1 153,8 || 1 326,3 || 1 379,2 || 1 600,0 || 1 905,8 || 2 215,6 || 2132,1 || 3206,4 || 2 967,8 || 2 977,4 || 3 389,1 || 3 465,4 || 3 727,9 || 3 679,6 || 3 426,6 || 3 607,4 || 3 802,4 || 3 906,6 || 50 856,1 SPRINT || || || || || || || 20,7 || 19,7 || 20,2 || || || || || || || || || || || 60,6 ECSC || || || || || || || 22,6 || 21,5 || 20,8 || 20,5 || 20,1 || || || || || || || || || 105,5 80% of THERMIE || || || || || || || 46,5 || 145,5 || 153,1 || 163,0 || 167,4 || || || || || || || || || 675,5 Total Research[65] || 986,7 || 1 153,8 || 1 326,3 || 1 379,2 || 1 600,0 || 1 905,8 || 2 305,4 || 2318,8 || 3400,5 || 3 151,3 || 3 164,9 || 3 389,1 || 3 465,4 || 3 727,9 || 3 679,6 || 3 426,6 || 3 607,4 || 3 802,4 || 3 906,6 || 51 697,7 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 6 446, i.e. 2.41% of the Budget || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 9 509, i.e. 3.15% of the Budget || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 14 341, i.e. 4.04% of the Budget || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 17 427, i.e. 4.02% of the Budget || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || 18 423, i.e. 4.15% of the Budget || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || EC BUDGET (2000 prices) || 48 095 || 46 978 || 54 388 || 56 376 || 61 106 || 57 448 || 58 213 || 68 932 || 72 722 || 79 344 || 75 780 || 85 533 || 90 247 || 90 939 || 90 981 || 94 091 || 74 907 || 90 487 || 93 301 || || RTD programmes as % Budget || 2.1 || 2.5 || 2.4 || 2.3 || 2.5 || 3.2 || 3.6 || 2.8 || 3.9 || 3.1 || 3.1 || 4.0 || 3.8 || 4.1 || 4.0 || 3.6 || 4.8 || 4.2 || 4.2 || || Total research as % of budget || 2.1 || 2.5 || 2.4 || 2.4 || 2.6 || 3.3 || 4.0 || 3.4 || 4.7 || 4.0 || 4.2 || 4.0 || 3.8 || 4.1 || 4.0 || 3.6 || 4.8 || 4.2 || 4.2 || || Deflation factors[66] || 0.601 || 0.637 || 0.659 || 0.681 || 0.705 || 0.741 || 0.774 || 0.814 || 0.842 || 0.854 || 0.87 || 0.881 || 0.91 || 0.935 || 0.951 || 0.974 || 1.000 || 1.018 || 1.038 || || Annual inflation (%) || || 6.0 || 3.5 || 3.3 || 3.6 || 5.1 || 4.5 || 5.2 || 3.5 || 1.4 || 1.9 || 1.3 || 3.3 || 2.7 || 1.7 || 2.4 || 2.7 || 1.8 || 2.0 || || Table 9: Country codes European Union BE || Belgium DK || Denmark DE || Germany EL || Greece ES || Spain FR || France IE || Ireland IT || Italy LU || Luxembourg NL || Netherlands AT || Austria PT || Portugal FI || Finland SV || Sweden UK || United Kingdom Candidate countries and associated countries BG || Bulgaria CY || Cyprus CZ || Czech Republic EE || Estonia HU || Hungary LV || Latvia LT || Lithuania MT || Malta PL || Poland RO || Romania SK || Slovakia SI || Slovenia TR || Turkey IS || Iceland LI || Liechtenstein NO || Norway CH || Switzerland IL || Israel ANNEX II COM(2000) 6 of 18 January 2000: Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions “Towards a European research area” COM(2000) 612 of 4 October 2000: Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions “Making a reality of the European Research Area:
Guidelines for EU research activities (2002-2006)” COM(2001) 94 of 21 February 2001: Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament
and of the Council concerning the multiannual framework programme 2002-2006 of
the European Community for research, technological development and
demonstration activities aimed at contributing towards the creation of the
European Research Area Proposal for a Council Decision concerning
the multiannual framework programme 2002-2006 of the European Atomic Energy
Community (Euratom) for research and training activities aimed at contributing
towards the creation of the European Research Area SEC(2001) 356 of 27 February 2001: Commission staff working paper “A
European Research Area for infrastructures” SEC(2001) 434 of 12 March 2001: Commission staff working paper “How to
map excellence in research and technological development in Europe” SEC(2001) 771 of 15 May 2001: Commission staff working paper “Women
and Science: the gender dimension as a leverage for reforming science” COM(2001) 282 of 30 May 2001: Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament “The Framework Programme and the
European Research Area: application of Article 169 and the networking of
national programmes” COM(2001) 279 of 30 May 2001: Proposals for Council Decisions concerning
the specific programmes for implementing the Framework Programme 2002-2006 of
the European Community for research, technological development and
demonstration activities Proposals for Council Decisions concerning
the specific programmes for implementing the Framework Programme 2002-2006 of
the European Atomic Energy Community for research and training activities COM(2001) 331 of 20 June 2001: Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament “A mobility strategy for the European
Research Area” SEC(2001) 1002 of 20 June 2001: Commission staff working paper “Progress
report on benchmarking of national research policies” COM(2001) 346 of 25 June 2001: Communication from the Commission “The
international dimension of the European Research Area” COM(2001) 500 of 10 September 2001: Proposal for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council concerning the rules for the participation of
undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of
research results for the implementation of the European Community framework
programme 2002-2006 SEC(2001) 1414 of 14 September 2001: Commission staff working paper “2001
Innovation scoreboard” COM(2001)549 of 3 October 2001 Communication from the Commission “The
regional dimension of the European Research Area” COM(2001) 594 of 17 October 2001: Amended proposal for a Council Decision
concerning the specific programme 2002-2006 for research, technology
development and demonstration aimed at integrating and strengthening the
European Research Area SEC(2000) 1973 of 14 November 2000: Commission staff working paper “Science,
society and the citizen in Europe” COM(2001) 709 of 22 November 2001: Amended proposal for a Decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the sixth multiannual
framework programme of the European Community for research, technological
development and demonstration activities aimed at contributing towards the
creation of the European Research Area (2002-2006) Amended
proposal for a Council Decision concerning the sixth multiannual framework
programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and
training activities aimed at contributing towards the creation of the European
Research Area (2002-2006) COM(2002) 43 of 30 January 2002: Amended proposal for a Council Decision
concerning the specific programmes implementing the Sixth Framework Programme
of the European Community for research, technological development and
demonstration activities (2002-2006) Amended proposal for a Council Decision
concerning the specific programmes implementing the Sixth Framework Programme
of the European Atomic Energy Community for research and training activities
(2002-2006) SEC(2002) 129 of 30 January 2002: Commission staff working paper “Benchmarking
national RTD policies: First results” [1] COM(2000)6 [2] SEC(2001)465 [3] SEC(2000)1842 [4] Key Figures 2001 : ISBN 92-894-1183-X and http://www.cordis.lu/rtd2002.indicators.scoreboard.htm [5] SEC(2001)1002 [6] SEC(2002)129 [7] http://www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/era-developments/benchmarking.htm#results [8] SEC(2001)434 [9] 2001/S165 [10] COM(2001)282 [11] “High Level Expert Group on Improving Mobility of
Researchers” http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp5/pdf/finalreportmobilityhleg.pdf
- http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp5/ [12] COM(2001)331 [13] A pilot scoreboard was annexed to COM(2000)567 in
September 2000 [14] Some of these indicators are identical to the European
Commission’s “structural” or main indicators, while other scoreboard indicators
apply more restricted definitions to the structural indicators in order to
focus on innovation. [15] SEC(2001)1414 [16] http://trendchart.cordis.lu/ [17] The UK, France, and Ireland, for example, are world
leaders in the supply of science and engineering graduates; Finland, the
Netherlands and Sweden in public R&D spending; Sweden in business R&D
spending; and the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark in home internet access. [18] http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2001/memorandum-eib-fr.pdf [19] COM(2000)412 [20] SEC(2001)356 [21] http://www.cordis.lu/science-society [22] 9980/01 RECH 76 of June 2001 [23] COM(2001)346 [24] The partner countries of the Mediterranean, the
Balkans, Russia and the new independent States, developing countries,
industrialised countries and emerging economies. [25] By way of example, science and technology cooperation
projects brought Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian research institutions
together on the integrated management of water and public health. [26] COM(2001)549 [27] Subject to the limits imposed by Community legislation
on state aids. [28] http://www.innovating-regions.org [29] http://www.erup.net [30] COM(2001)94 [31] COM(2001)709 [32] SEC(2002)105 [33] COM(2001)279 [34] COM(2001)594 [35] COM(2002)43 [36] COM(2001)500 [37] COM(2001)282 [38] Specific programme studies were undertaken for the
fields of life sciences, manufacture and industrial technologies, materials and
transport, non-nuclear energy and international cooperation (INCO). A further
study was launched in the field of the environment. [39] PREST et.al., Assessing the Economic Impacts of the
Framework Programme, May 2002 http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/monitoring/studies.htm [40] More than 95% of proposals were processed within 24
hours. [41] See: http://sme.cordis.lu/home/index.cfm [42] SEC(2001)771 [43] COM(1999)76 [44] http://www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/science-society/women.htm [45] http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/women/wssi/index_en.html [46] Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the
Joint Research Centre. [47] Underpinning
economic development and striving towards the knowledge based economy through
actions covering in particular environemernt ,
biotechnologies , nanotechnologies , information and communication
technologies. [48] Covering the different aspects of sustainable
development (in particular safety and quality of food, health applications of
genomics, sustainable management of ecosystems) and reinforcing industrial
competitiveness. [49] ETAN Working paper, Options and Limits for Assessing
the Socio-Economic Impact of European RTD Programmes, 1999. [50] Reports are available at: http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/monitoring [51] CREST 1206/01 [52] CREST 1207/01 and CREST 1214/01 [53] COM(2001) 331. [54] Organisations for the Promotion of Energy Technologies. [55] “Other” covers all participations which could not be
allocated to any of the first three categories. [56] “Other” covers all participations which could not be
allocated to any of the first three categories. [57] “Other” covers all participations which could not be
allocated to any of the first three categories. [58] Provisional figures for 2001 [59] Budget for 2002. [60] The amounts for the 1994-98 FP are those adopted
following EU enlargement. [61] RTD + THERMIE + ECSC + SPRINT + APAS [62] Provisional figures for 2001 [63] Budget for 2002. [64] The amounts for the 1994-98 FP are those adopted
following EU enlargement. [65] RTD + THERMIE + ECSC + SPRINT + APAS [66] The deflation factors used from 1995 take account of
the enlargement of the Union from 12 to 15 Member States (COM(96)65). The
figures for 2002 are estimates.