specific monitoring report on the specific … · research and technological ... recommendations...

1

SPECIFIC MONITORING REPORT

ON THE SPECIFIC PROGRAMME

FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL

DEVELOPMENT

IN THE FIELD OF

COMPETITIVE AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH

2

CONTENTS

PART A: Report of the 2002 External Monitoring Panel 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................1

2. PANEL METHODOLOGY................................................................................................3

3. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................5

4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................................................................8

4.1 ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEIR FOLLOW-UP FROM THE 1999-2001 MONITORING EXERCISES .......................9

4.1.1 Strategy and objectives...............................................................................9

4.1.2 Implementation, management and processes...........................................12

4.1.3 Impact of policy and programmes .............................................................14

4.1.4 Other.........................................................................................................15

4.2 MONITORING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION IN 2002 ..........................................16

4.2.1 Follow-up of the recommendations of the 2001 monitoring report.......................................................................................16

4.2.2 Attainment of objectives of the GROWTH programme..............................23

Key Action 1: Innovative Products, Processes and Organisation ...............................................................................................23

Key Action 2: Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality.........................................23

Key Action 3: Land Transport and Marine Technologies....................................24

Key Action 4 New Perspectives in Aeronautics ................................................26

Generic Activity 1 Materials and Steel.............................................................26

Generic Activity 2 Measurements and Testing .................................................28

Support for Research Infrastructures..............................................................29

4.3 FOLLOW-UP OF ON-GOING AND COMPLETED PROJECTS ...........................29

4.3.1 Financial concerns.......................................................................................29

4.3.2 Evaluation and Impact assessment ............................................................30

3

4.4 PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 6TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME .............................................................................31

4.4.1 FP6 Work Programmes ............................................................................32

4.4.2 Measurement and Testing ........................................................................37

4.4.3 The New Instruments: Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence.................................................................................................38

4.4.4 Expressions of Interest .............................................................................39

4.4.5 Evaluation, external experts and the new FP6 instruments .......................40

4.5 FRAMEWORK ISSUES........................................................................................41

4.5.1 The European Research Area...................................................................41

4.5.2 Participation of Small and Medium Size Enterprises .................................42

4.5.3 Enlargement .............................................................................................42

4.5.4 Women in Science....................................................................................43

4.5.5 Staff Development ....................................................................................42

4.5.6 Financial Support for Innovation................................................................45

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................47

5.1 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................47

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................50

5.2.1 Key recommendations ..............................................................................51

5.2.2 Management Recommendations ..............................................................53

5.2.3 Monitoring & Impact Recommendations...................................................54

6. ANNEXES .....................................................................................................................55

6.1 STATISTICAL DATA ...............................................................................................55

6.2 ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................61

6.3 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE EXPERTS .................................................62

6.3.1 General .....................................................................................................62

6.3.2 Documents Considered for the Growth Specific Monitoring Report .....................................................................................63

PART B: Responses of the Programme Management

4

This Report is part of the series of the annual monitoring reports prepared relating the EC Framework Programme and the Euratom Framework Programme, and their constituent Specific Programmes as well as to the European Research Area (ERA) area related activities (ERA). The Commission has over the years given increasing emphasis on the evaluation of Community RTD activities. Furthermore, with the overall Reform of the Commission, evaluation activities placed in the heart of the decision making process. In line with this continuous effort for improvement, a revised programme monitoring scheme was introduced in 2001, based on the system launched in 1995 which involved independent external experts in the monitoring activities. The new mechanism aims at a better synergy between the monitoring of ERA and specific programmes and of the Framework Programme. The timely response by the Programme management to the recommendations produced by the experts will be enhanced, providing the basis for a quick response mechanism to programme developments, as the follow up of experts recommendations will be receiving still more attention. This report is the fourth covering the Fifth Framework Programme; the report also highlights progress in relation to implementation of ERA to the launch of the Sixth Framework Programme and results and impact of previous Framework Programmes. The report should help reinforce establishment of best practices and identify the scope for further improvements in implementation of policy and the programmes.

The report consists of two parts: Part A: External monitoring report prepared by the following

independent external experts: Part B: Responses of the Programme management to the external

monitoring report.

Ing. Giampiero GIARDA (I) (Chair) Dr. Heinz HASCHKE (A) (Rapporteur)�

Dr. Michael HUTCHINS (UK) Dr.-Ing. Lothar NEUMANN (D) Dr. Nakita VODJDANI (Fr) Dr. Anastasia ZABANIOTOU (GR)

�Dr Haschke withdrew from the Group by giving notice on

February 12th; since this date his duties as rapporteur were takenover by Dr Hutchins and his tasks as expert by Dr Vodjdani.

5

PART A:

Report of the 2002 External Monitoring Panel

1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The operation of the Competitive and Sustainable GROWTH Programme in 2002 was undertaken in the challenging context of the transition to the new FP6 and the implementation of the management Reform in parallel with administration of the final FP5 Calls covering research issues dealing with the various Key Actions, Generic Activities, Infrastructures and horizontal elements that constitute the Programme. Specifically relevant to GROWTH, 2002 saw the closure of the Measurement and Testing, Infrastructures Unit and the relocation of its personnel. New Units managing “Nanotechnologies” within Dir. G and “Space Policy ” within Dir. H; were established. Personnel mobility was high and staff numbers in Dir. G fell, particularly in G3 Materials. In addition there was the need for familiarisation with the philosophy of the new FP6 approach, its related new instruments, integrated projects (IPs) and Networks of Excellence (NoEs), and the preparation of specific Work Programmes and related Calls for 2003. In this respect the Panel was pleased to notice the improved co-operation between DG Research and DG TREN that resulted within key actions KA2 and KA3 in the launching of a single FP6 Priority for Surface Transport Systems referring to a common Work Programme in line with the objectives of ERA and managed through a single Programme Committee configuration. The overall indication is that excellent progress has continued to be maintained in the management and operation of the GROWTH programme and that the overall objectives of the programme are being attained. These advances have been achieved through the evident commitment of highly dedicated staff in the context of many difficulties, notably significant staff shortages, the need to implement procedures for activity based management (ABM), the development and launch of both the FP6 work programmes and its associated new instruments, and the extensive reorganization which has occurred within the respective Directorates in readiness for FP6. The past year has been extremely demanding for staff and has contributed to significantly increased workloads. The situation will continue to be difficult because of the large ongoing FP5 workload and the further demands required for implementation of FP6. Despite the high competence and remarkable efforts of services-staff, some degree of uncertainties are perceived at the operating level within and outside the Commission. At the FP level, for example, finalising of the contracts for the new instruments were delayed. The administrative process strongly influences the efficiency of the whole system. At this time it is too early to measure the effectiveness and impacts of the Reform which is currently being implemented. It is to be hoped that ABM and the internal reorganisations underway will result in a streamlining of procedures and make the decision-processes more effective in line with the objectives set out by the Lisbon declaration. The administrative system should be examined against measurable indicators such as those identified above during the first half of FP6 Based on the analysis of the Competitive and Sustainable GROWTH Programme in FP5 for the year 2002, the Programme Self-Assessment Report, the Monitoring Reports covering 2000 and 2001, and the results derived from the many interviews undertaken within and outside the Commission, the main recommendations of the 2002 GROWTH Monitoring Group are:

2

�� Plans need to be put in place to investigate the impacts of the Reform and ABM implementation on the efficiency of the administrative process by the next full monitoring exercise in 2004.

�� The workloads of Project Officers must be carefully monitored and responsibilities clearly identified and prioritised to ensure that required efforts are reasonable.

�� To facilitate the participation of SMEs in FP6, each new instrument should at least consider the provision of a dedicated budget to allow for SME related activities during the project duration.

�� Gender issues in relation to the new instruments of FP6 must continue to be developed and reinforced. Institutional support addressing actions for gender equality inside the respective Directorates in cooperation with the unit "Women in Science" should be effected. A monitoring panel, which will target assessment of gender actions in FP6 instruments should be established. The level of female participation could be a criterion for proposal evaluation.

�� Following the closure of the Measurement and Testing, Infrastructures (MTI) Unit, a cross-Framework mechanism should be initiated to enable the extent to which European standards, measurement and testing needs are being met within the various activities of FP6 to be analysed.

�� To facilitate coordination of the many ongoing FP5 MTI projects, an appropriate co-ordinating function should be established. This may take the form of a Measurement and Testing , Infrastructure “sector” located within Directorate H.

�� An effective monitorable co-operation between Directorates for evaluation and impact assessment of completed projects must be seen to be in place to overcome difficulties exacerbated by the internal reorganisation which has taken place.

An excellent step forward is the new approach being developed through the efforts of Directorate G to promote an innovative form of collaboration between RTD funding and bank loans, which aims to provide uncomplicated fast funding via venture capital. Professional project-screening in relation to its practical European benefits, together with the high scientific competence of Commission staff / Commission scientific officers in evaluating a project’s technical relevance, may develop a new mechanism designed to boost and exploit European innovation, power and culture.

3

2. PANEL METHODOLOGY The 2002 monitoring exercise was scheduled to be launched on 7 November 2002 but work could not be fully started until late December because of delays in issuing contracts to the members of the monitoring group. Two preparatory meetings were however held in November. The monitoring exercise was completed on 10 April 2003. During the total period the Panel met five times, at regular intervals. The methodology was drafted in the first panel meeting and was consistent in approach with that taken by the 2001 Monitoring Group. Sources of information relevant to the GROWTH programme and its functioning were identified and the work divided among the Group members. The responsibilities of the individual panel members in regard to the vertical and horizontal themes assessed are listed below: Ing. Giampiero GIARDA (I) (Chair): KA4 Aeronautics, Central Management Issues, Follow-up on Previous Recommendations, FP6 Transition Phase Dr. Heinz HASCHKE (A) (Rapporteur)*: KA1 Innovative Products, Processes and Organisation, Follow-up on Previous Recommendations, GA1 New materials and their production and transformation, Expressions of Interest, European Research Area Dr. Michael HUTCHINS (UK): GA2 Measurement and Testing, Infrastructures, Central Management Issues, Follow-up of Completed Projects, Evaluation and Impact Assessment Dr.-Ing. Lothar NEUMANN (D): KA2 Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality, KA3 Land Transport and Marine Technologies, Work Programmes, NAS, SMEs Dr. Nakita VODJDANI (Fr): KA1 Innovative Products, Processes and Organisation, GA1 New materials and their production and transformation, Expressions of Interest, Women in Science, Nanotechnologies Dr. Anastasia ZABANIOTOU (GR): KA2 Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality, KA3 Land Transport and Marine Technologies, Women in Science, European Research Area * Dr Haschke withdrew from the Group by giving notice on February 12th. His duties as Rapporteur were taken over by Dr Hutchins and his tasks as expert by Dr Vodjdani. Documents of major importance included the GROWTH Programme Self-Assessment Report 2002, the GROWTH Monitoring Reports covering 2000 and 2001 respectively, FP6 preparation documents and work programmes, the Framework Monitoring reports for 2000 and 2001 and the Broad Guidelines for the 2002 Monitoring Process. A full list of the documentation analysed in 2002 is presented in Annex 6.3.

4

In addition to the documentation the Monitoring Group attended a number of presentations made by Heads of Unit, the IRC Central Unit, the GOPA consortium responsible for evaluation and impact assessment of completed projects, programme management and staff, and Project Coordinators. Interviews with Directors, Heads of Unit, Project Officers, Commission staff, Project Coordinators, members of the relevant Programme Committees, External Advisory Groups, National Contact Points and Advisory Councils were conducted. More than 80 interviews were carried out. The contents of this report are the direct result of interviews and document analyses performed by the Group members and represent the Group’s consensus view. The quality of the information received was generally of a very high standard. Commission staff interviewed were at all times open and cooperative The personal administrative support provided by the Commission to facilitate the Monitoring Group’s work was of the highest standard. The members of the Growth Monitoring Group express their gratitude to the programme management and all staff of Directorate G, Directorate H and DG TREN and acknowledge the considerable time given to participate in interviews, provide documentation and support the progress of this monitoring exercise.

5

3. INTRODUCTION The objectives of the monitoring exercise are to monitor the overall progress in the GROWTH programme in relation to priorities and financial resources, to establish practices for feedback between day-to-day management and the establishment and follow-up of priorities and to constitute input to policy makers and managers. Following revisions to the monitoring approach, the mandate for 2002 is to focus more on the follow-up of previous recommendations, monitoring of the implementation in 2002, the European Research Area (ERA), and the preparation of the 6th Framework Programme (FP6). The operation of the Competitive and Sustainable GROWTH Programme in 2002 was undertaken in the challenging context of the transition to the new FP6 and the implementation of the management administrative Reform in parallel with administration of the final FP5 Calls covering research issues dealing with the various Key Actions, Generic Activities, Infrastructures and horizontal elements that constitute the Programme. 2002 witnessed the implementation of the Commission Administrative Reform and the adoption of the Activity Based Management (ABM) approach. Specifically relevant to GROWTH, 2002 saw the closure of the Measurement and Testing Unit and the relocation of its personnel. In readiness for the launch of the 6th Framework Programme (FP6) new Units managing “Nanotechnologies” within Dir. G and “Space Policy ” within Dir. H were established. Personnel mobility was high and staff numbers in Dir. G fell, particularly in G3 Materials. In addition there was the need for staff to become familiar with the philosophy of the new FP6 approach and its related new instruments, Integrated Projects (IPs) and Networks of Excellence (NoEs), the preparation of specific Work Programmes for the relevant FP6 Thematic Priorities and the related documentation for the first FP6 Calls for Proposals published in December 2002. The GROWTH Programme is structured in three main interconnected elements: 1) A set of four key actions helping to develop critical technologies, concepts and policies to solve clearly identified problems:

Key Action 1- Innovative products, processes and organisation Key Action 2 - Sustainable mobility and intermodality Key Action 3 - Land transport and marine technologies Key Action 4 - New perspectives in aeronautics

2) Two activities of generic nature:

New materials and their production and transformation (including steel) Measurements and testing

3) Support for research infrastructures (e.g. virtual institutes, databases). 2002 was the year in which the last calls for proposals of the Growth programme were concluded. These were relatively small calls in terms of budget but did still lead to significant numbers of contracts or contract amendments (in the case of the call for adding new

6

participants from Newly Associated States to existing projects). Table 3.1 summarises the number of proposals received and selected in 2002 by Key Action / Generic Activity.

Table 3.1: Proposals received and selected by the Growth programme in 2002

Number of new proposals Key Action / Generic Activity

received selected KA1:Innovative products, processes and organisation 448 129 KA2: Sustainable mobility and inter-modality 25 16 KA3: Land transport and marine technologies 62 32 KA4: New perspectives in Aeronautics 40 18 GA1: Materials 211 71 GA2: Measurements and Testing 119 40 Support for infrastructures 27 11 Generic 4 1 Total 936 317

Detailed information on proposals received and projects funded by Growth programme in 2002, received proposals evaluated in 2002, projects funded, related indicators and use of the commitments budget of the Growth programme are presented in Tables 6.1 – 6.4 which are taken directly from the Growth Self-Assessment Report 2002. The Growth programme concluded in 2002, not only contracts for projects in Table 3.1 but also for a substantial number of projects which were retained in evaluations in 2001 for which the negotiation and contract procedure was not completed before 2002. The budget committed by the Growth programme in 2002 is therefore substantially larger than the cost which corresponds with the projects listed in Table 3.1. Table 3.2 summarises the use of the 2002 Growth budget.

Table 3.2: GROWTH budget allocation for 2002

Amount

Committed (M€)

Indicative budget (M€)

KA1:Innovative products, processes and organisation 245.2 244.3 KA2: Sustainable mobility and inter-modality 77.3 80.1 KA3: Land transport and marine technologies 105.5 103.6 KA4: New perspectives in Aeronautics 159.9 156.9 GA: Generic Activities 1 and 2 100.1 98.2 INF: Support for infrastructures 8.5 8.4 Total 691.4 691.5

Detailed information on the use of the Growth budget is presented in Table 6.5 which is taken directly from the Growth Self-Assessment Report 2002. The overall indication is that excellent progress has continued to be maintained in the management and operation of the Growth programme and that the overall objectives of the

7

programme are being attained. These advances have been achieved through the evident commitment of highly dedicated staff in the context of many difficulties, notably significant staff shortages, the need to implement procedures for activity based management (ABM), the development and launch of both the FP6 work programmes and the associated new instruments, and the extensive reorganization which has occurred within the respective Directorates in readiness for FP6. The past year has been extremely demanding for staff and has contributed to significantly increased workloads. The situation will continue to be difficult because of the large ongoing FP5 workload and the additional new demands which will be made by FP6.

8

4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The analysis and findings of the 2002 GROWTH Monitoring Group are presented in 4 main sections. In Section 4.1 the analysis and synthesis of recommendations and their follow-up from the 1999-2001 monitoring exercises is presented using the standard matrix agreed by the Framework Programme Monitoring Panel. The recommendations within the matrix are grouped under the major headings of Strategy and objectives, Implementation, management and processes, and Impact of policy and programmes. In Section 4.2 the implementation of the GROWTH programme in 2002 is analysed in 2 parts: (i) the follow-up of the recommendations of the 2001 monitoring report and (ii) the attainment of objectives. In Section 4.3 transition aspects linked to the final phase of projects and the follow-up of completed projects, including Technology Implementation Plans (TIPs) and evaluation and impact assessment activities, are analysed. In Section 4.4 preparations for the transition to and implementation of FP6 are described and assessed.

9

4.1 ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEIR FOLLOW-UP FROM THE 1999-2001 MONITORING EXERCISES

4.1.1 Strategy and objectives

1999-2000 2001 Observations GMP 2002

1.1 Overall Strategy and Objectives; Cooperations (Universities / Industry and international)

Need for better balance between applied and basic research

Better balance between technological breakthrough projects and incremental innovation projects

Launch special calls incorporating different requirements and evaluation criteria for high profile , high risk projects with potentially high reward

In general, the new FP6 philosophy based on increased autonomy given to Consortia to manage research activities by the adoption of the new instruments (IPs and NoEs) appears in line with those recommendations, allowing more flexibility to the participation of successful organizations / companies / industries to make decisions leading to favorable performance/costs-ratios, which until now may have been less attractive

In terms of cooperation university involvement is not always satisfactory and as active as expected, see e.g. KA4.

1.2 ERA ��Notion of ERA is not yet fully understood .

��Adopt more aggressive and innovative tools of communication

��Develop a concise short – medium term implementation plan

��Need for clarification of methodology supporting mapping activities

Understanding of ERA concepts is significantly improved. Many initiatives organized for NCPs, National Representatives, Senior Researchers have resulted in clarifying the relevance of ERA policy for improving coordination with national research programmes,

Unit H2, Land transport and marine technologies, has established relations with national RTD activities especially in GB and France by collaborating with the appropriate bodies in order to contribute to European Integration requiring a strong involvement of national authorities.

For building the European Transport Policy Research Area and bridging the gap between Research and Policy, the Transport Research Knowledge Center was launched in October 2002, addressing many transport research stakeholders.

EURONET has been created to integrate national and European ERA objectives.

The Strategic Rail Research Agenda (SRRA) has been created. The EAG for KA3 published its position paper “Facing the future challenges of Mobility and Competitiveness of Europe” towards the ERA objectives.

The thematic priority 1.6.2 -Sustainable Surface Transport- under FP6, results from the merging of all related surface transport and research policies in one programme, fulfilling the objectives of ERA.

Nevertheless the mechanism to safeguard national actions and support for projects specially adjusted to the national needs, strengths and facilities still appears unclear.

10


1.3 Policy and Intervention Instruments

��Creation of a European Space for Engineers;

��Promote active participation of young people and women;

��Promote mobility and international co-operation

��To the knowledge of this Monitoring panel , no specific actions appear to be undertaken with regards to the creation of European Space for Engineers

��Promotion of mobility and international co-operation are clearly pursued by the Commission

1.4 Candidate Countries

��Stimulate participation of Access Countries;-

��Facilitate partners search by allocation of specific travel budgets.

��Enhance in situ training in Brussels;

��Finalise quick procedure for concluding contracts for NAS 1 Projects

��Progress has been made in line with the previous recommendations . A number of Detached National Experts (END) have already joined the programme staff and others are expected from NAS

��Recommendation concerning contracts for NAS 1 fulfilled

1.5. International Cooperation

��Make study to identify and exploit the potentials of ERA to enhance International Cooperation

��Specific activities within Directorate G have already taken place with regard to Materials, Nanotechnologies and Production Technologies

�� It is expected that further International Co-operation will be fostered within FP6 ��Co-operation with China and Russia is foreseen by Surface Transport Unit

1.6 SMEs ��Simplify procedure to increase SME’s participation

��Shorten/simplify info packages , application forms,admministration forms

��Simplify reporting requirements

�� Introduce measures for strengthening:

-Collective research -User group participation; -Exploratory awards ; -Take-up measures;

��Facilitate SME participation to a preselected number of IP’s modules with allocation of specific funding to them

��Undertake a comparative study on SME’s participation in CRAFT projects with equivalent participation in the USA

The various issues are still relevant; however significant improvements are expected as result of the application of dedicated procedures and measures within FP6 to support the participation of SME’s by: ��Encouraging both SMEs and project-executing consortia to pick up suitable

results of projects to be used by SMEs; ��Permitting the Consortium to set aside a definite part of the project’s volume

and the according funding by the Community to be used for SME- partners who will be identified later, i.e. after contract signature.

��Permitting running of projects of the type IP and NoE. ��Providing Specific Support Actions involving e.g. conferences,

seminars, operational support etc. ��Facilitating the creation of groupings of SMEs that have similar innovation

needs and promotion of trans-regional co-operation between SMEs. ��Fostering Collective Research as a scheme where RTD performers undertake

research activities on behalf of Industrial Associations or Groupings in order to expand the knowledge-base of larger communities of SMEs.

11


1.7 IPRs and know-how protection

No specific recommendations have been depicted from previous monitoring on the subject.

However it is outlined by this Monitoring Panel that industry is sometimes reluctant as to patenting, if keeping as a secret know-how does give a better protection than a patent-application by disclosing less.

While the EoIs may be good instrument to call-up the efforts of the scientific and industrial community to contribute with ideas to support Commission policies and to give inputs for the formulation of work programmes, they also may not be applicable for industrial projects of highest potential since this may require disclosure of too much know-how – and also weaknesses.

Submission and treatment of the EoIs by which total confidentiality is warranted should be possible.

��Structured cross-programme activities should be continued under FP6;

��Less policy more pragmatism on Gender issues

��Short term measures to facilitate women participation in evaluation/monitoring exercises

Growth has made good progress in developing a culture of female participation. Significant efforts devoted especially in recruiting women (more than 50 % of staff are women; increased number of women in managerial positions, in evaluation and monitoring panels)

1.8 Gender awareness

��Public dialog on sensitive issues: �� Biotechnology; �� Ethics, �� NanonTechnologies; �� Women

��Continuous dialogue and visibility on these topics are confirmed

12

4.1.2 Implementation, management and processes


2.1 Procedures and tools in general

��Proposal submission: �� Make available statistical success rates

of previous projects to the proposers;

��Proposal evaluation: �� Ensure transparency and fairness during

the two-step evaluation procedure; �� Introduce different evaluation thresholds

for the new instruments; �� Ensure involvement of expert with

multidisciplinary back ground for IP and NoE two-step evaluations;

�� Provide timely instructions to evaluators

�� Many of the these issues have been taken into account

�� Commission staff have worked hard to ensure procedures operate effectively and fairly

�� Surface Transport Unit and DG TREN have cooperated this year to start a unique analysis of projects and programmes to investigate links with other programmes.

�� Surface Transport Unit and DG TREN organise a common IT system for FP6.

��DG Research is creating a DATAWAREHOUSE for FP5 housing all proposals received and selected.

2.2 Launch of activities (calls for proposals, information to proposers, application tool)

2.3 Evaluation and selection of proposals (evaluation manual, time to contract)

��Promote electronic submission

�� Introduce video- conferencing

��Shorten info packages in order to facilitate understanding

��Proposals, which have reached the final contract negotiation, should be all-owed to start at the risk of the consortium while formal approval process continues.

��Streamlining of procedures

�� Improve use of Electronic sub-mission of first phase of proposals

��Sub criteria related to socio-economic and to European added Value criteria should be part of a single main criterion in the evaluation of proposals

��Shorten the time to contract by having an overall informal Commission decision on the implementation plan after completion of evaluation and by proceeding to financial commitments and contract signature as soon as the negotiation is ready

��Revise time to contract procedure in accordance to team working approach

��With the new Information System the use of electronic submission now seems feasible

��Surface Transport Unit and DG TREN are working together in evaluation of projects with parallel panels and common criteria

��The FP6 experts database for proposal evaluators, observers, monitors, reviewers and expert groups is already operational. The project management tool is being tested.

��Although progress is noted on reducing “Time to Contract” (TtC), the importance of the previous recommendation needs to be reiterated. Reduction in TtC will significantly increase potential for industry to participate in EC-funded European projects and prevent danger of producing obsolete results in a world of fast developing markets.

��More efficient managerial systems are needed, particularly for financial control and juridical professional contracts – formulation, control and survey

�� In FP6, projects are allowed to start at their own risk

13


2.4 Management Information System/ Internal IT system (MIS)

��Develop �� In short term rationalization by

deploying external IT consultants or by setting up a special team with one IT expert from each Directorate

�� In long term, tools compatible and integrated with those developed by the Central Information Unit

��The solution of the problem is promising and good progress is being made

��This relevant issue, outlined during previous monitoring exercises seems now positively solved, being some of the modules of a common IT System across all five Research Directorates already fully implemented and other under constructions and on schedule

��A common IT system for all five DGs involved in FP6 will be in place.

2.5 Specific cases / programmes

��The optimisation of transport systems needs the integration of different technologies as well as organisational and political framework conditions.

��A merger of all activities related to “Sustainable Mobility” could be appropriate to simplify the co-ordination inside the Commission.

��Transport research related activities appear need to be not spread over a lot of KA and Units . it should better coordinated by one organisation body

��Need for a clear mandate to a powerful EC-MS management board for Galileo.

��The position of M&T in FP6 should be revised and improved.

��Excellent progress has been made concerning the optimisation of Transport systems. Although the regrouping of all Surface Transport Research in one DG as recommended during previous monitoring exercise did not occur, the witnessed merging of Surface Transport in a single activity under a single Management Committee structure represents significant improvement. This was the result of close cooperation between different DG RTD programmes and with DG TREN. In addition, Transport Unit and KA3 have established links with other programmes such as KA2, Global Change, Environment, IST, and Joint Research Center.

��Closure of MTI Unit raises concern for the on-going support of FP5 projects

��A mechanism for monitoring the extent to which standardisation needs will be met in FP6 should be established (see Recommendations)

2.6 Dissemination of information and results

��Effective dissemination plans to users to be required as part of the proposal

14


2.7 Evaluation and monitoring

��Proposals, which have reached the final contract negotiation, should be all-owed to start at the risk of the consortium while formal approval process continues.

��Ensure continuation in the annual monitoring exercise by inviting previous Panel members to the Kick-off Meeting of new Monitoring exercise;

��Avoid “monitoring fatigue” by having annually alternating “brief” and “full” monitoring exercises.”

��Chair person of 2002 GROWTH Monitoring Panel was a member of previous Monitoring panel

��Concerning the Annual Monitoring exercise previous recommendations remain valid

��Many items in the annual monitoring-reports are repeated from year to year.

2.8. Human resources

�� In order to alleviate work load no more than 20 projects should be managed by POs

��Verify the possibility to sub-contract part of administrative task;

��Undertake activities to prepare Scientific Officers for a more process oriented role within FP 6 ;

��Establish in house training for scientific Officers and continuing education through also the participation to public events, conference,…;

��More staff should be hired in order to allow more time to Project Officers to fulfil their core mission.

�� Improve Expert Database in order optimise selection of Expert Evaluators or Reviewers

��Officers workloads are still a problem that limits focus on their core mission to ensure adequate management of the new Instruments. One aim of the new instruments is to reduce workloads and stimulate focus on core mission.

��Despite the various training initiatives undertaken during Year 2002, aimed to improve PO’s awareness on more policy oriented roles, the apparent change seems limited due perhaps to the coincidence of implementation of major changes such as : The Reform, ABM ,FP6. However, in so far as development and steering of the latter has been the cutting edge of ERA policy, Project Officers have in fact made a significantly increased contribution to policy formulation.

4.1.3 Impact of policy and programmes


3.1 Impact assess-ment (incl.TIP)

��Continuing Monitoring of benefits and short comings of large consortia (more than 10 partners)

PQI and TIPS need to improve in order to become substantial tool for evaluation of finished project , impact assessment of results

GROWTH has longest history and largest programme of evaluation and impact assessment. Process is thorough, sophisticated and extensive. Late submission of deliverables in the current EVIMP projects is creating difficulties and is a major concern (see Recommendations).

TIPs are excellent tools but remain unpopular with some POs and usage often poorly understood by project participants. Quality of completed TIPs remains variable. Use of TIP seminars for project participants should be pursued more vigorously.

IRC role is maturing and good progress has been achieved.

15

4.1.4 Other


4.1 Efficiency, Structural Problems

Although not outlined as specific recommendations from previous GROWTH Monitoring Panel exercise, the impact of the Administrative System appears a main influence on the overall efficiency of the system .

The GROWTH Program and the subsequent related Thematic Priorities 3, 4 and 6 of FP6 address relevant research issues for the improvement of European competitiveness in strategic fields such as Aerospace, Surface Transport and new materials like nanotechnologies. The Panel share the conviction that FP6 and its related new instruments represent an opportunity for change and improvement in relation to: �� criticism towards previous programmes (Commission centralism, long and complex procedures, limited impact) �� necessity to fix precise goals and objectives in some areas ( e.g. nanotechnologies) �� careful monitoring of the roles of external experts �� integration of research, education and training �� reduction time-to-contract and time-to-payment

A mechanism should be in place to ensure an internal structured continuous monitoring of measurable indicators to achieve a streamlining of all procedures and to make decision-processes more effective.

16

4.2 MONITORING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION IN 2002 4.2.1 Follow-up of the recommendations of the 2001 monitoring report

Nr Expert Group recommendation Commission Services' Response Services' Commitment and follow-up GMP 2002 comments

Participation of SMEs

7 Rules for participation of SMEs in IPs/NoEs of FP6 need further consideration. Introduce measures for strengthening collective research, user group participation and continue exploratory awards and take-up measures. Consideration must be given to SME involvement in IPs/NoEs as sub-contractors (as already practiced for SMEs from Eastern European Countries). Alternatives for participation should be offered to SMEs wishing to participate in I.Ps/NoEs without exposing themselves to the whole responsibility of a full partner, e.g. with reference to “joint and several liability” access rights and to common IPR, every time there is a need to recover from the withdrawal/reduction of participation of other partners. One possibility is participation to a pre-selected number of IP-modules with limited IPR and liability for the part of the Community financial contribution allocated specifically to them.

Under the 6th Framework Programme, Priority 3, the successor to the manufacturing and materials part of Growth, intends to launch specific "modules" to facilitate the participation of SMEs in Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence. Also targeted Research Actions dedicated to SMEs might be envisaged.

Achieved (see Priority 3 Work Programme) The work programme of TP3 will include “Integrated Projects for SMEs”, a feature unique in FP6

The Commission has made good progress in attending to these matters. Monitoring of the extent of SME involvement in FP6 remains a high priority. Further measures to ensure SME participation in FP6 in relation to the new instruments are proposed herein.

Women and Science

10 At the moment, activities are the result of individual motivation and understanding of the issue. In the future, the gender issue should be addressed in a more formal way (e.g. during negotiations, increase of number of women in databases), activities should become more regular, better co-ordinated and be given wider publicity.

The working group Women and Science is continuing its activities and has as a specific task the concrete implementation of mainstreaming in all Priorities

The working Group on Women & Science will publish a progress report in Autumn 2002. Workload has prevented this from being completed

Gender equality issues remain high priority. Measures for monitoring female involvement are proposed herein.

17


Women and Science (continued)

12 Less policy more pragmatism: "Gender equality" should be seen less as a socio-political issue and more as a real-life necessity targeting equal exploitation of human potential, by enhancing and stabilizing female involvement in science and technology and appointing competent women in high level positions. "Gender relevance" (since technology is gender-relevant) should be further analysed and evaluated.

Appointment of women in management position is a target of the EC Equal Opportunities Action Programme.

"Gender relevance" will be an issue for all proposal evaluation (even if not a selection criteria) throughout all the priorities of the 6th Framework Programme.

The evaluation panel should be asked to check whether gender relevant issues have been properly addressed in the proposal and the project monitoring should also take these issues into account.

It will remain necessary to monitor the extent to which the issue of gender-equality in opportunities is really integrated into the research policy. The level of female participation could be a criterion for proposal evaluation.

13 Adopt short term measures to facilitate women participation in evaluation, monitoring etc. exercises (for example, allowances for child care during their stay in Brussels - which may also encourage national institutions to offer a similar arrangement)

Strong encouragement through personal contact and other means (continuous publicity) is being given to attract more female scientists, technologists and industrialists to evaluation, committees and ad-hoc advisory groups.

Options to avoid long stays in Brussels (e.g. using electronic communication) will be examined

Short term measures to facilitate female participation in evaluation, monitoring etc. exercises (e.g. allowances for child care during their stay in Brussels which may also encourage national institutions to offer similar arrangements) have not been implemented. The possibility for remote evaluation in FP6 is being introduced.

Towards the new FP

16 Proposal submission: Improve use of electronic-submission for the first phase of proposals. Electronic submission should be made more feasible through CORDIS via a widely used tool (pro-tool was not the best choice). Prognostic data on success potential (estimate of number of proposals that the budget will allow to fund) and statistics on previous success rates should be made available to the proposers.

Electronic submission is indeed encouraged, but some problems experienced under the 4th and 5th Framework Programmes have required a review of the system. In spring 2002, electronic submission of Expressions of Interest has occurred. This is a useful test bed (see: http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/eoi-instruments).

Ensure that e-submission will be possible for the first calls under FP6. Not expected to be operational by March 2003.

Good progress. Not operating in time for first FP6 calls although already designed. Availability Spring 2003, .

18


Towards the new FP (continued)

17 Proposal evaluation: Transparency and fairness should be guaranteed during the two-step evaluation procedure. Evaluation thresholds should be different for each of the new Instruments and should differ from the criteria used for the traditional projects. Experts to evaluate FP6 proposals should be of a multidisciplinary background, be highly reliable and should be given enough information to be able to adapt to the two-step evaluation procedure and the versatile evaluation criteria required for IPs and NoEs. Evaluators should be given such instructions as to be able to understand and judge proposals according to revised criteria (political objectives: “ERA”, “Lisbon” and “Göteborg”).

It is envisaged that the two-step evaluation procedure for Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence will be used in Priority 3. The criteria for evaluation have been broadly outlined in the 2002 exercise for Expressions of Interest (see above) and will be developed much more precisely in the Work Programme.

This is included in the Work Programme for Priority 3 A two-stage procedure will be used in TP3, and the evaluation forms are being “final drafted” for presentation to the Programme Committee on 19 November. The criteria related to “ERA” are part and parcel of the desiderata.

The 2 –stage evaluation procedure appears to have advantages for IPs for proposers. Decision on whether to extend beyond TP3 should be based on the evaluation of experiences in first round of FP6. Criteria for experts selection and training are relevant for all evaluations regardless of the number of stages. Concerns have been expressed in respect of a two-step evaluation for surface transport. H2 Officers believe one-step evaluation is more appropriate for surface transport projects in order to gain time and money, since the Sustainable Surface Transport programme is very targeted.

21 Given that co-ordination between DG TREN and DG RESEARCH is not optimum, it is recommended that the Commission gives consideration to combining Surface Transport Research under one umbrella for the purposes of the Sixth Framework Programme.

Transport research addresses many issues from many different perspectives. Under FP5 coordination strengthened inside Growth where most Transport research is carried out in the two different Key Actions with complementary approaches. In FP6 only one subpriority theme will address “Surface Transport” and this will reinforce coordination.

Priority 6 does combine these issues.

The previous recommendation has been fully implemented. The co-operation and coordination between DG Research and DG TREN has been significantly improved. Directorate H and DG TREN have made great efforts in order to combine Surface Transport Research under one umbrella for the FP6. This is the Thematic priority 1.6.2 -Sustainable Surface Transport. This programme merges all related transport and research policies in one programme with defined goals and objectives in accordance with the objectives of ERA. The problem–solving approach of Growth program and the system approach of DG TREN have come together and produced the policy-driven approach of the FP6.

19


Towards the new FP (continued)

22 The position of M&T in FP6 should be revised and improved. Introduction of independent specific actions for M&T are recommended, based -amongst others - on the positive impact of the SMT as an independent Specific Programme in FP4

The final choice was for an integration of Measurements and Testing activities into all thematic priorities, in order to assure that standardisation, measurements and testing issues are directly addressed within the integrated projects. Harmonised approach for, for example, Certified Reference Materials (CRM) development will benefit from the guidelines prepared by the Measurements and Testing Action in the 5th Framework Programme.

Autumn 2002 with start of 6th FP.

The closure of the Measurement and testing unit and its loss of visibility within the FP is a matter of great concern. The structure of the FP6 work programmes and the new instruments of FP6 may not guarantee success in integrating European standardisation, measurement and testing needs within the identified thematic areas. Recommendations to establish (i) a Sector in MTI to monitor FP5 projects and (ii) to introduce a cross-Programme mechanism to monitor the extent to which standardisation, measurement and testing needs are being met within FP6 are presented herein.

Time-to-Contract

31 Time- to- contract can be considerably shortened by having an overall and formal Commission decision on the "implementation" plan after completion of evaluation and by proceeding to financial commitment and contract signature as soon as the negotiation is ready.

The last series of contracts in the 5th Framework Programme were concluded much quicker than earlier in the programme. The current planning for the 6th Framework programme still involves a formal Commission decision after contract negotiation, but with further efforts for speeding up the concluding of a contract.

Not at the level of the Growth programme

The 2004 Monitoring Panel should be able to check time to contract and assess if times are significantly shortened.

32 In addition, there is a need to revise the procedure of time-to-contract in accordance to a process approach by reinforcing the culture of team working, supported by a reliable information system that would allow to work more in parallel.

Teamworking: tasks which can be run in parallel at the operational units and at the administrative units are now indeed being run in parallel. Informatics: see replies to FP panel recommendations

Teamworking: already implemented (further improvement to be expected)

Flagged for 2004 Monitoring panel to check.

20


Time-to-Contract (continued)

34 An internal simplified list with "YES" and "NO" of items that are allowable for financing (simplified rules) under each category - personnel, equipment etc. and for each type of project can be useful for officers during the contract preparation phase. Especially, in view of the fact that FP4, FP5 and FP6 projects will coexist in 2003 - 2004 with different financial rules.

Under the 6th Framework Programme, the changes to the contract which will simplify the types of costs which are eligible will assist contractors as will the guidelines identified in Rec (33). Such a list will be prepared for 4th and 5th Framework Programme projects.

Under discussion, in final stages, ready by early 2003

Approved list of eligible costs was not complete at the time of the first call for FP6. This information has become available for most types of project in Spring 2003.

IT system - Project Management Tools

35 The improvement of the Project Management Tools should be given high priority. In the short term, rationalisation could be done by employing outside information technology consultants, or by setting up a special team with one informatics expert from each directorate with specific funding and time constraints to look at, follow thoroughly every practice and standardise the Project Management Tools (databases). This team should examine where efforts can be joined at Programme level to develop common applications (e.g. project management tool and intranet). Financial rules should be included in the Project Management Tools.

The development of a common IT-system for all five research Directorates General (TREN, INFSO, RTD, FISH and ENTR) has already been launched and an inter-DG project office has been established in order to design the system. The system will be developed on the basis of the latest information system technologies and will ensure that proposals/projects data are recorded coherently which will allow a more efficient and consistent data and work-flow management of the FP.

First modules will be operational March 2003. The system should be fully implemented in the first quarter of 2004.

Good progress. Under construction. First tools available. Completion by March 2004. First impressions are very favourable. Concerns have been expressed for the management of new instruments and notably IPs .

21


Human Resources

37 Undertake activities to prepare Scientific Officers for a more "policy oriented" role in FP6. The latter necessitates dedicated training and improvement of their contacts with the "public" (e.g. technology developers and users - industry). Make allowances for the improvement of these contacts (e.g. motivate officers to participate in conferences and public events). Start a continuing education programme, with points awarded for participation in public events, conferences etc. Establish in house training for scientific officers based on the already ongoing introduction of quality management systems, on financial rules, IPR and legal aspects. Newly appointed officers can gain more from systematic training on the above issues than "learning on the job".

Reorientation of tasks towards more governance and policy-oriented role is supported by training actions (internal/external) and is worked on through inter-Unit meetings and discussions. The new career development report of each officer will contain a part concerned with training action plan agreed for each officer each year. In addition recruitment of new staff will also be revised in the light of the new orientations. On the other hand, in line with the reform of the Commission, new working methods and implementation of quality management are an integral part of our activities. Basic necessary background information is available via the programme’s Intranet site, but full detailed internal processes are currently under development with the aim to ensure an efficient management and control of the activities. Specific training on financial management, risk management, role and responsibility of officers have been already started and will have to be pursued.

Emphasise policy training for PO's.

Initiate services of internal seminar "current awareness" and programme presentation.

Training for new financial management in hand. There is more awareness of policy among POs now, principally through their participation in various interservice groups that have been set up, e.g;” Env Tech Action Plan, “Clean Technologies, IMS … But no specific training in this matter has been initiated. The info distributed regularly by DG-RTD central services on ongoing policy matters is available to all. The quality management system which is being developed affords good training. New financial rules are being taught through compulsory courses.

Directorate H has made a great effort to train Head of Units or officers to be familiar with policy and to develop skills in both project management and policy

Aside from the organizational cooperation between DG RESEARCH and DG TREN (as well as DG INFSO) in view of FP6, the rotation of Directors, HoUs and Project Officers between the different DGs during the last years seems to support cooperation and understanding between the different DG`s programmes

Progress slow and hindered by present large workload on staff. Presents good opportunities for staff development. The issue must be kept under review.

38 More staff should be hired; this will also enable officers to find time to keep themselves up-to-date in their discipline.

While recognising that more staff would always be useful, the Directorate General does not have the freedom to expand its personnel ad libitum. There are constraints on overall staff numbers, which are set by the Commission in accordance with the budgetary authorities, and the Director General is obliged to respect these constraints.

In hand –subject to recruitment and “internal move” limits falling over the DG as a whole.

The problem still persists and should be kept under review. Internal reorganisation and movement of staff has exacerbated the problem.

22


Monitoring methodology

45 Improve methodology and timing of FP monitoring. Adopt more versatile monitoring instructions for SP and FP level. SP monitoring should be given more flexibility to adapt to specific needs.

Commission Services the experts group's views on the issues where the new system adopted in 2001 can be improved, and this has been adressed in the interservice group on monitoring and evaluation.

The mandate of the 2002 panel is much more focused. The programme will aim at a very limited monitoring in 2003 (focused entirely to the New Instruments) as this will coincide with the 5 year assessment.

Good progress. 2003 monitoring should focus on IPs. The proposed programme of “light” and “full” monitoring in alternate years will satisfy monitoring needs.

Impact Assessment

46 EC should exploit the results and recommendations of the GOPA report to its full extent for the benefit of future projects and programmes and procedures.

The main exploitable result after the first GOPA report is the identification of types of projects which are more likely than others to benefit from intensive follow-up by the Commission; it will be used to target the assistance by PTA. The five main recommendations of the report are: 1. Greater emphasis should be placed at the project selection stage on

technical and managerial competence, commitment and clarity of objectives 2. Projects involving considerable technical risk should not be avoided,

especially if project teams look competent enough to deal with the risks involved

3. Projects involving only modest technical and commercial risks and ambition levels should not be avoided either, for success rates are often high and the benefits to participants appreciable

4. Extra care should be taken when considering projects involving large numbers of partners, for although many of these are amongst the most successful projects, failure rates are also higher amongst this population. This is of particular concern given the emphasis likely to be given to larger projects within FP6. Thought should be given now to the type of support activities which will be needed during the lifetime of these projects if their failure is to be avoided

5. Thought should also be given to the type of support activities best suited to projects dominated by large numbers of SMEs, since the risk of failure is also higher within projects of this type

We will draw the attention to recommendations 1 - 4 in the information package and in the briefing of the evaluators. We will give thought to the issues raised in recommendations 4 - 5 when discussing project monitoring in FP6. We may consider the use of PTA with specific tasks in this respect.

Targeting PTA assistance: immediate

Raising awareness on implications for evaluation and project follow-up in FP6: continuous

The assistance by PTA is targeted to the types of projects which will most benefit from close follow-up (e.g. CRAFT projects).

Evaluation and impact assessment of completed projects has been adversely affected by successive changes in staff or in tasks allocated to staff (DG TREN) and by the lack of allocation of manpower to archiving (Dir. H). An effective, monitorable cooperation between Directorates must be seen to be in place; Late submission of deliverables by the contractor, GOPA, is presenting problems

23

4.2.2 Attainment of objectives of the GROWTH programme Key Action 1. Innovative Products, Processes and Organisation During 2002, 448 proposals (303 CRAFT) were received from which 129 (68 CRAFT) were selected for funding. This was the last CRAFT evaluation of FP5. Almost 42% of the CRAFT proposals were considered as being worthy of support but the remaining budget only allowed funding for less than 25%. Industrial partners constitute 62% of the retained proposals and 54% are SMEs. KA1 is developing new products and systems and one major positive impact is on the environment. Through its selection criteria GROWTH separates environmental issues from economic impacts. Many KA1 projects have a substantial impact on the environment such as reduced waste, reduced use of raw materials and the use of safer “green” materials. This is well illustrated by the proposals received in 2002. Some 70% deal with issues related to sustainable development, such as re-use of waste, recycling, renewable raw materials, green chemicals, clean technologies. Examples of such type of ongoing projects or 2002 launched projects are “NANOMAG – Durable and clean nano-composite coatings for the car for tomorrow”, “Lead-free soldering also for SMEs” and “Development of a technology for the industrial production of cationic bran as an additive for papermaking”. Depending on the nature of the activity concerned (manufacturing, device or material elaboration), the nanotechnology related projects are shared between Materials (MAT) and KA1. Several workshops on nanotechnology and intelligent materials were successfully co-organised to help prepare the new framework programme (see GA1 below). By the end of 2002 KA1 had started to strongly support the preparation of ETAP (Environmental Technologies Action Plan), a Commission initiative led by DG Environment. In addition efforts were continued to strengthen multilateral co-operation, not only at EU level with reinforced links with EUREKA and with the NAS countries, but also at international level with a revised IMS policy. Key Action 2 Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality KA2 is run by DG TREN and is clearly policy-driven focussing on the support of development and implementation of European Transport Policy. The key challenges are to reconcile the increased demand for transport and the need to reduce impacts on the physical, social and human environment and also to reduce the transport intensity of economic growth. In FP5, following up projects from the previous calls was the dominating activity in KA2. Out of 140 tasks originally scheduled for KA2, 122 tasks had already been covered by May 2002. Few remaining tasks were planned to be re-opened during the remainder of FP5. In 2002, 34 contracts were signed requiring total EC funding of 77.8 M€. Research made an effort in 2002 to provide solutions aimed at the reduction of the high number road casualties of 40.000 persons every year. In close cooperation with industry and professional trainers and testers, a low cost high performance driving simulator was built and assessed. Tests revealed the high potential of such an application for novice car drivers. The ADVISORS project presented a safety assessment methodology for driver assistance systems

24

in cars. Projects on pavement management (FORMAT) and low noise pavements (SILVIA) began in an attempt to bring about a more efficient spending of infrastructure funds and assess the noise reduction potential of less noisy tyre/pavement combinations. Exhaust emissions, and especially emissions of particulate mass, can better be modelled and predicted thanks to the projects ARTEMIS and PARTICULATES. The DESIRE project showed the potential of different designs for charging schemes as to different policy objectives. Examples of major projects in the starting phase at the beginning of 2002 are GALILEI in the frame of the Galileo program and the projects within the CIVITAS targeted action. GALILEI (Co-ordinated project for local element definition, impact of interoperability on system, frequencies allocation and protection, certification standardisation, detailed service analysis and legal and institutional regulators for GALILEO; funding above € 20 million in FP5) enabled the development of various facets of the programme in a coherent manner. The activity spans technical, economical and legal issues. Under a clear management structure, it encompasses a large number of SME’s. For FP6, the Galileo Joint Undertaking will have the responsibility to develop the Galileo downstream segment during its development phase, in line with the full Galileo infrastructure developments. The projects within the CIVITAS targeted action (City Vitality Sustainability – Clean Urban Transport: 4 RTD projects and 2 accompanying measures) cover a total EU funding of 50 M€, from which 25 M€ are from GROWTH and 25 M€ are from ENERGY. Other main projects initiated by KA2 which commenced in 2002 are “Gate to Gate” (Validation of a European ATM Gate to Gate Operational Concept for 2005-2010 aiming at improving European air traffic (15 M€)), D2D (Demonstration of an integrated management and communication system for door-to-door intermodal freight transport, funding (3 M€)) and COMPRIS (Consortium Operational Management Platform River Information Services, (5 M€)). Key Action 3: Land Transport and Marine Technologies KA3 is focused on cleaner, safer, more efficient and economical goods, technologies and means of transport. It was conceived to solve problems and to respond to the major socio-economic challenges facing Europe. KA3 aims at Sustainable development, system competitiveness, improvement of performance, fuel efficiency and reduced emissions of vehicles and operations. All the goals listed above were achieved and conducted to sustainable and competitive development. In 2002, 32 new projects (15 CRAFT, 4 AM/MCF/INCO, 10 NAS1, 3 NAS2) were accepted in KA3 requiring 13.4 M€ of EC funding. A high rate of industrial participation (63% with 48% being SMEs), 18% research partners and 17% HEI is recorded. The KA3 total budget (306.8 M€) has been fully achieved for the three modes (50% Road, 11% rail, 39% marine). The budget has been allocated to Clusters, Thematic Networks, Technology Platforms and CRAFT. Thematic networks had a positive role in structuring research and provided valuable experience for the definition of the new ERA Instruments. The launch of 7 technological platforms has provided an important step towards the implementation of large-scale projects. From results by projects, the achievements of KA3 are as follows:

25

�� Environmental sustainability: reduction of 30% in CO2 emissions for new car fleet average, reduction of 20% in CO2 emissions for rail vehicle, reduction of 15% in CO2 emissions for marine vessels, development and Validation of Zero-emission Vehicle capable of marketing deployment by 2005/2010;

�� Sustainable development : improvements from 30-50% in safety in vehicles, 25% in railways, 15-20% in ships;

�� System competitiveness : 50% reduction of time to market, 50% in vehicle quality, in co-operation between manufactures, supplies and subcontractors;

�� Scientific and technical achievements : reduction of CO2, noise, 30% improvement in passive safety, new design for ship-risk etc

KA3 was very successful. The competent management of Unit officers in addition with the effective use of instruments and the synergistic and complementary application of tools resulted in attainment of the defined objectives by: �� grouping 143 critical technologies projects in 12 clusters with a budget of 248.2 M€

(80.9%); �� integrating CT results and validating KA outcome to 5 Technology Platforms with a

budget 21.7 M€ (7.1%); �� supporting research co-coordinating needs in 10 Thematic Networks with a budget 11.2

M€ (3.7%); �� satisfactory participation of SME in 37 CRAFT with a budget 22.8M€ (7.4%) and �� stimulating research networking needs by funding 8 Accompanying Measures with 2.9

M€ (0.9 %). Examples of promising projects launched are for the Rail Sector: LIBERTIN: on the generation of technical specifications, for interoperability, in urban rail transport; CORRUGATION: Strongly improved LCC, of light rail infrastructure, and environmentally friendly maintenance tools, and rail processes. For the Road Sector: GET-CO2: Downsized gasoline engine allowing a fuel consumption reduction of 30% while complying with the most stringent 2005 exhaust emissions standards. The global impact of this project on CO2 could prove to be very significant in the future since it targets the small engine vehicle class that is the most widely used in Europe. The D-ULEV and EUDIESEL cluster aims at developing a Clean Diesel engine, as clean as gasoline engine at Euro IV standard (to come into force in 2005). SUVA: Three Major European Car manufacturers have merged their effort to develop and demonstrate 3 hybrid vehicles, allowing a strong fuel consumption reduction, in particular in urban driving conditions. This project is also a response to the Japanese technology advances in this field. TRUETEC: is a cluster of various very important projects, addressing the development of key technologies for Heavy-Duty Vehicle engines with the objective to make them cleaner and more efficient. Amongst those projects, HY-SPACE is very promising as it addresses the problem of engine emissions at the source, namely aiming at minimising NOx during combustion. This project aims at developing a clean combustion process for heavy-duty vehicle engines based on the so-called Homogeneous Charged Compression Ignition (HCCI). Some preliminary work on passenger car engines show that Nitrogen Oxides can be reduced by a factor of 100 and particulates can almost be eliminated, minimising the need for a complex after treatment system. The extension of this process to Heavy Duty vehicle engines

26

– especially also with a view to reduce the carcinogenic benzo[a]pyrene-emissions - appears therefore very promising. Comments from ongoing projects indicate that the quality of the collaboration with Transport Unit officers was very good, knowledgeable, helpful and accommodating! The competent and centered management of projects by the Transport Unit resulted in the successful implementation of KA3. Key Action 4 New Perspectives in Aeronautics Following the 2001 call, the programme succeeded in matching the planning of the calls within the available budget. For most calls related to KA4, all projects recommended for funding have been supported. In particular, 2002 has been characterised by the launch of the last 3 Technology Platforms whose total costs amount to more than 200 M€. The projects relate to important industrial and socio-economic issues. Namely: AWIATOR (Aircraft Wing Advanced Technology Operations) addresses a range of specific opportunities for improving wing design, offering a range of customer benefits which relate to less noise emissions, reduced gaseous emissions, improved fuel consumption and reduced distance between aircrafts at landing (increased capacity at airports). POA (Power Optimised Aircraft) which aims to make available the necessary capabilities to provide equipment for next generation commercial aircraft. FACE (Friendly Aircraft Cabin Environment) which is focused on improving environmental comfort in the aircraft cabin and cockpit of the future European turbofan aircraft. Environmental comfort parameters affecting noise, vibration and air-quality technology are addressed, including effects on/from multimedia utilisation. With reference to composite fuselage structural-acoustic behaviour, considered as the most important issue to be treated within the acoustic area, the FACE Project is planned to use, amongst others, a fuselage barrel manufactured in the framework of an on going TP Project (TANGO). Major design and manufacturing deliverables dealing with new composites and advanced metallic materials technology applications for full scale large commercial aircraft components such as Fuselage and Lateral Wing are already reflected in impressive assemblies for structural testing of advanced technology components such as Center Wing Box or Fuselage Barrels of the size of future large commercial aircraft similar to the A380 currently in production. Amongst main results achieved in 2002 , a special mention is made of the large project ENHANCE, which can be seen as a predecessor of Technology Platforms (TPs) in FP5. ENHANCE terminated with a workshop in April 2002 providing important tools for the Multi-Site Extended Enterprise, especially targeted to the aeronautical industry. These tools are also relevant for several other industrial sectors. Generic Activity 1 Materials and Steel Although no RTD evaluations were actually carried out during 2002, much of the earlier part of the year was dedicated to negotiating proposals recommended for funding in the final calls of FP5 for the Generic Activity Materials. Of 50 proposals recommended for funding, the budget available allowed for the negotiation of 30 proposals. In addition, savings were made during negotiations to allow the funding of a further 7 reserve list proposals, amounting to an

27

overall EU contribution of 72 M€. Note that, as highlighted in the 2001 call, 25 M€ was attributed to proposals relevant to nanotechnology. The budget for Materials was completely exhausted, and as a consequence, the success rate is low, in spite of the quality of the proposals. A high rate of industrial participation was noted, 64% with 55% being SMEs.

In addition, effort was given to the successful negotiation of 27 proposals recommended for funding in the final CRAFT evaluation of FP5. This amounted to an EU contribution of 12.47 M€, taking into account savings made during negotiations.

In addition, Materials were involved in two NAS negotiations during 2002. NAS-1 attracted 22 proposals for the Generic Activity Materials, of which 18 were selected for funding and successfully negotiated (1.7 M€). NAS-2 attracted 48 proposals, of which 25 were recommended for funding. Taking into account the budget available, 17 of these were eventually retained for funding.

In general, it could be clearly noted that newer areas, such as nanotechnology, multimaterials and hybrid technologies, became increasingly evident towards the end of FP5. This can be seen in running projects that may be seen as precursors to FP6, focusing on “nanotechnology and knowledge-based multifunctional materials”. Examples of such projects are NANOFORUM (Pan-European forum on nanotechnology), PLASTRONIX (Low-cost all-polymer integrated circuits for low-end, high-volume identification applications) and NANOFIB (Nano-fabrication with focussed ion-beams).

Some projects have shown very effective cooperation and transfer of technology between academic research institutions and SMEs (e.g. NANOFIB).

Amongst the new projects launched in 2002, a trend can be seen in the integration of a large variety of disciplines, including multifunctional materials illustrated for instance by projects such as “Meniscus regeneration“ or “Molecular wires”. This trend can be clearly seen in the following figure (from the Materials and Steel Newsletter 2001). The NANOTRIB cluster started in 2002 is an excellent example of this as well as for setting the bases for future integrated projects (IPs).

N A N ON A N O

C h e m is t r yC h e m is t r y

M u lt im a t e r ia lsM u lt im a te r ia ls

In t e r fa c e sIn t e r fa c e s

P h y s ic sP h y s ic sE le c t r o n ic sE le c t r o n ic s

O p t ic sO p t ic sM a g n e t ic sM a g n e t ic s

B io lo g yB io lo g y

The illustration represents the real revolution taking place in material research where, rather than moving from macro to micro using a linear process and considerable waste of raw

28

material, the tendency now is to embrace a bottom-up approach, from micro to macro, with use of self organisation and self-repairing characteristics. This trend requires new equipment for manipulation. Preparing for the future: In order to prepare for the importance of nanotechnology in the 6th framework programme, as mentioned above, 25 M€ was allocated specifically to proposals in the final call which was successfully achieved and led to the creation of an independent Unit on Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences. In addition, a series of workshops were organised focusing on Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies and Intelligent Materials. Among those, five were co-organised with the USA (e.g. Nanomanufacturing in Puerto Rico, Social Implications in Lecce, and Nanomaterials in Boston). To achieve larger critical mass in longer-term research, international co-operation was boosted. Three co-ordinated calls for proposals were also launched in common with the National Science Foundation (USA). An implementing arrangement has been also negotiated and signed with MOST (China) and exchanges and contacts were intensified with Russia and several other Countries. A successful Sino-European forum on Science was carried out jointly in China. The GA1 materials & steel unit has participated actively in information and social awareness efforts in the nanotechnology field through the creation of a new website (www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology), joining information from all Commission services interested in nanotechnology and its research (DR RTD, DG INFSO and their various Directorates). Within communication actions a video demonstrating different areas of nanotechnologies and the impact on broad and diverse applications, e.g. health, industry, microelectronics, instrumentation, was prepared and distributed to the press and to interested stakeholders. Following the ERA goal to stimulate a taste for research and science in young people, a second video dedicated to the younger public is in preparation. The Steel sector of the Materials unit was managed within the framework of the ECSC treaty. This treaty expired in 2002, resulting in the closure of the ECSC program . A council decision was taken to create the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS). Consequently under the new RFCS treaty, the steel sector of the Materials Unit became a separate new Unit of the Directorate G, dedicated to research activities for “Coal and Steel”. Generic Activity 2 Measurements and Testing In 2002, 40 Measurement and Testing (M&T) and 11 Infrastructures projects were approved. A significant number of these projects commenced in the first part of 2003. Together with ongoing projects, a large number, in total ~300, are ongoing and will require management by POs during the coming years in which FP6 is initiated. Projects with a considerable representation from NAS countries have started. The publication of both NAS calls has also helped to increase the support to the integration of those states through the selection of 12 NAS1 and 3 NAS2 Measurements and Testing, Infrastructure proposals. M&T is also of particular importance for SMEs. Many CRAFT projects were selected under FP5, corresponding to around 13% of the total M&T budget. There is an increasingly important policy support, especially in the area of the measurement and testing for the fight against fraud. Projects have been funded dealing with e.g. illegal additives to food and foodstuff, product counterfeiting, forensic issues, anti-doping in sport.

29

The STRATFEED project (Strategies and methods to detect and quantify mammalian tissues in feedstuffs) involves the development and validation of new methods and the auto-control carried out by the feed producers. The achievements of the project will contribute to the reliable control of the ban of ruminant ingredients in ruminant feed and will increase the safety of food supply with respect to the BSE disease. Other projects launched in 2001 are expected to provide results of major importance in the near future. One example is DIAC (Dioxin analysis by using comprehensive gas chromatography) which aims to develop methods for the analysis of Dioxins and Dioxin-like PCBs in food matrices by comprehensive gas chromatography. In 2002 a book of project summaries was published and a special edition of “Growth in Action” focussing on measurement and testing was issued. A major conference was organised in Warsaw, Poland, entitled “Towards an integrated infrastructure for measurements”. Support for Research Infrastructures There has been a considerable interest for the concept of the virtual institutes (knowledge based, market oriented networks), which represent, in total for FP5, 60% of the published topics. Disappointingly there are no further calls planned in FP6 for the novel infrastructure projects, i.e. the Virtual Institutes (VI). European VIs commencing included EVIGEM (geometry measurements), VI-RM (reference materials) and EVITHERM (thermal metrology). No projects have been finalised in 2002. However, one project launched in 2001 is expected to provide results of major importance in the near future. EVIMAR (Virtual Marine Institute) is expected to equip the maritime European industry with innovative tools and solutions to meet today’s and future challenges in such areas as competitiveness, sustainability, efficiency, safety and environmental impact.

4.3 FOLLOW-UP OF ON-GOING AND COMPLETED PROJECTS 4.3.1 Financial concerns Comments from ongoing projects indicate that time to contract remains a problem. Also de facto reaction time on deliverables handed in to the Commission and time to process amendments by the Commission could be shortened significantly. Delays in making payments are also sources of concern. The change of the responsible project officer during an ongoing project and problems with requirements of the cost statements were identified to be sources for many of these delays and inefficiencies. Facts and reasons for complaints on delays in payment should be investigated in depth. The possibility for internal rearrangements of costs/expenditures within one partner in a project (e.g. shifting resources from manpower to sub-contractor or travel costs etc.) without the requirement for any new amendment to the contract would make work more effective and reduce additional management/administration work. For any financial investigations (e.g. financial audits by certified companies), the use of personal cost rates for a project partner (e.g. hourly rates for specific groups of employees of this partner, e.g. senior researcher, researcher, technician, which already have been proven and

30

accepted by public authorities and which normally have to been used by this partner for work for public clients in his country) should be allowed. 4.3.2 Evaluation and Impact assessment The Growth programme gives high priority to the evaluation and impact assessment of on-going and completed projects. Project Quality Indicators (PQIs) are employed for internal project evaluation but the quality of their completion by POs is variable. Procedures for taking information from the PQIs to the central database have much improved. PQIs are completed 3 times during the lifetime of a project. The Technology Implementation Plan (TIP) summarises the exploitation of project results and is submitted with the Final Project Report. The TIP constitutes a major element in the evaluation of completed projects. TIPs remain unpopular with some POs and the quality of completed TIPs remains variable. Project Coordinators often do not seem to understand the role and importance of the TIP and may be poorly prepared to complete it. The use of the TIP seminars has been very limited but should be positively encouraged and pursued more vigorously. A more selective use of indicators appropriate to the project type should be considered. The TIP focuses very much on industrially / commercially exploitable RTD results. Some longer-term projects might instead be asked to define the technological roadmap of the area and needs for future work as an alternative to „routine“ completion of TIPs. The work of the Innovation Relay Centres (IRC) is progressing well and the level of activity and performance has dramatically increased in the past 2 years. The relative performance of different IRCs is being evaluated and IRCs graded as excellent, satisfactory or unsatisfactory. A budget for training and support of individual IRCs is in place. GROWTH has a long and successful track record in evaluation and impact assessment and in supporting the development of advanced methodologies. Many valuable lessons concerning the selection and operation of successful projects are already well known (see GMP 2001 Report). The financial commitment is very high. However, it is apparent that the current evaluation and impact assessment (EVIMP) projects are suffering serious delays which is resulting in problems for both the Commission and the GOPA consortium responsible for the work. Difficulties have been expressed by both sides. The Commission has voiced concerns in respect of the late submission of deliverables . GOPA has in their first contract year not received all required material in good time. The GOPA consortium made a presentation of the EVIMP projects to the Monitoring Panel. The expected supporting documents (2002 annual reports) were not available. The internal reorganization within the Commission has affected overall coordination and has impacted adversely on elements of the evaluation and impact assessment process. Responsibility for the overall coordination of evaluation and impact assessment activities is clearly assigned but the reorganization and subsequent staff changes in Directorate H and DG TREN has resulted in individual responsibilities becoming unclear. Relevant tasks are now spread throughout the Dir G, Dir H and DG TREN. Difficulties have been experienced in providing all necessary information to the external contractor, GOPA, for the EVIMP

31

exercise. Data coming from DG TREN are particularly lacking. The evaluation and impact assessment of completed projects has been adversely affected by successive changes in staff or in tasks allocated to staff (DG TREN) and by the lack of allocation of manpower to archiving (Directorate H). An effective, monitorable cooperation between Directorates must be seen to be in place; effective archiving must be in place and a matrix of responsibilities must be maintained at all times. The contractor GOPA has completed the bulk of work in evaluating individual projects. Delays are apparent in completing the analysis of these results and producing the required annual reports. The reasons contributing to these difficulties have been discussed openly with the responsible Commission staff and the GOPA management. The GOPA consortium has changed responsibilities of personnel working at the level of project coordination and redefined responsibilities of some major participants in an attempt to produce a more effective operation of the project. It will be necessary to monitor progress and developments in all aspects of this work in the course of the next 12 months. An invitation to tender for services to assist the Commission in evaluating the results and anticipated socio-economic impact of finished projects was made in 2002 but no new contract was awarded. The new call for evaluation of projects finishing in FP5, currently in preparation, will employ similar mechanics for the first level assessment but will call for a new methodology for downstream (+3 years) impact assessment. 4.4 PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 6TH FRAMEWORK

PROGRAMME GROWTH with its clear focus on industrial relevance and experience in large technology-oriented research projects has had a major influence on the shaping of the new FP6. Successful innovative projects are typically “industry--driven“, and led by big companies who have a “vision” of a practical implementation and exploitation of the results, e.g. within KA2 the “GALILEO” projects, KA3 ‘Land Transport and Marine Technologies’, KA 4 “Aeronautics” and in KA1 / GA1 in areas where “Nanotechnology” was already concerned. The Thematic Networks of Growth had a positive role in structuring research and provided valuable experience for the definition of the new ERA Instruments. The launch of Technology Platforms under Growth has provided an important step towards the implementation of large-scale projects Successful projects find an effective balance between “upstream or basic research” [e.g. approx.1/3] and “downstream research” [e.g. approx. 2/3]. The GROWTH Programme and the subsequent related Thematic Priorities of FP6, TP3 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, TP4 Aeronautics and space and TP6 Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems Part 2, Sustainable surface transport, deal with relevant research issues for the achievement of technological break-through and improvement of European competitiveness in strategic sectors such as Aeronautics (including ATM ) and Space, (linked to Sat-Com, GMES, Galileo), Surface Transport (Rail, Maritime, Automotive) and new fields like Nanotechnologies. The monitoring group share the conviction that FP6 and its related new mechanisms may represent an opportunity for change and improvement. In introducing FP6 the Commission indicated in part a response to the:

32

�� criticism towards previous programmes (Commission centralism, long and complex procedures, limited impact)

�� need for simplification for SME participation �� necessity of fixing precise goals and objectives ( e.g in nanotechnologies) �� careful monitoring by external experts �� integration of research, education and training �� reduction of time-to-contract and time-to-payment

Specifically relevant to GROWTH, 2002 saw the closure of the Measurement and Testing, Infrastructures Unit and the relocation of its personnel. A new Unit managing “Nanotechnologies” was established within Dir. G in readiness for FP6. Personnel mobility was high and staff numbers in Dir. G fell, particularly in G3 Materials. In addition there was the need for familiarisation with the new FP6 philosophical approach and its related new instruments, integrated projects (IPs) and Networks of Excellence (NoEs), the preparation of specific Work Programmes and the first FP6 Calls for 2003. The reorganisation and the transition to FP6 have placed heavy demands on the work of all staff. Overall the management has been outstanding, although some degrees of uncertainty are perceived at the operating level within and outside the Commission. At the FP level contracts for the new instruments (already planned in the 1st FP6 Call in March 2003 ) were late in completion. Issues such as those concerning project management methodologies, tools, metrics and indicators are not yet clearly set-out or as standardised as perhaps they should be in order to foster an easier implementation of new FP6 instruments dealing with large multidisciplinary research projects. 4.4.1 FP6 Work Programmes As anticipated in the previous monitoring exercise, the new Advisory Councils such as:ACARE for European Aeronautic Research (KA4), ERRAC for European Rail Research (KA3), ERTRAC for Automotive Research (KA3), and EMRAC for Maritime Research (KA3), whose missions are to develop long term commitments by all stakeholders and to establish and carry forward the so called - Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for specific Research fields, are confirming their full effectiveness in supporting the Commission to operate in accordance to a coherent overall planning of research topics and priorities (see, for example, the SRA issued by ACARE in October 2002, SRRA by ERRAC); and a timely selection of the instruments of implementation. In general, there is not a one-to-one comparability between the Key Actions and Generic Activities of the Growth Programme and the priorities of the Thematic Areas of FP6, TP3 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, TP4 Aeronautics and space and TP6 Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems Part 2, Sustainable surface transport. Sustainable Surface Transport (TP 1.6.2) The Transport Unit succeeded in matching all related transport programmes under one umbrella in FP6, i.e. 1.6.2 Sustainable Surface Transport. To this end significant progress has been made in achieving collaboration with other programmes. The Transport Unit of DG

33

RESEARCH has established links with other programmes such as KA2, Global Change, Environment, IST, and the Joint Research Center. It is worthwhile to note the close co-operation between DG Research and DG TREN of middle and top management staff. This has led to great efforts being made by Commission Officials of Directorate H and DG TREN to cooperate and define FP6 according to the FP6 objectives. This has resulted in: �� an agreement at Directorates level to share responsibilities �� launching of a common Research Rail Agenda in order to put working together a long

term research strategy for the revitalisation of the European Research Industry �� ad hoc working groups working closely in defining objectives and following the

principle of the Commission White Paper on Transport �� working together in project evaluation with parallel panels and common criteria �� common work programmes �� establishing a unique on going analysis of projects and programs to investigate links

with other programmers �� developing a common database for evaluators, observers and projects �� a data warehouse for FP5 with all proposals received and selected �� annual report to Parliament �� organized ‘global objectives’ projects such as CIVITAS �� a common IT system for FP6. Alongside the organizational cooperation between DG RESEARCH and DG TREN (and also DG IST) in preparation for FP6, the rotation of Directors, Heads of Unit and Project Officers between the different DGs during the last years seems to support cooperation and understanding between the different DG programmes. A good example of this is the CIVITAS targeted action. The passage from GROWTH to FP6 and priority 1.6.2 Sustainable Surface Transport was the natural consequence in generating a policy –driven philosophy in accordance with the objectives of ERA. Under FP5 two different Key Actions with complementary approaches carried out most transport research. In FP6 only sub-priority 1.6.2 addresses “Surface Transport” and it is managed through a single Programme Committee configuration. It is apparent that progress has been made in co-ordinating transport and research policies, for example in optimisation of Transport Systems towards such objectives as environmental impact, safety and mobility. Although the regrouping of all Surface Transport Research in one DG as recommended during the previous monitoring exercise did not occur, the merging of Surface Transport into a single activity under a single Management Committee structure represents significant improvement. For the preparation of the FP6, intense co-operation has been established with INFSO, ENTERPRISE, ENVIRONMENT and ENERGY DIRECTORATE. Permanent contact with European Federations in Brussels such as CESA, COREDES, EUCAR, CLERA, ERRI are also maintained by the Transport Unit. The Policy issues addressed by Sustainable Surface Transport are the common Transport Policy, Security of Energy Supply, the 6th Environment Action Plan and the Integrated

34

Product Policy. The objectives are developing environmentally friendly transport systems and means of transport, making surface transport safer, more effective and more competitive The RTD-Budget in FP5 -GROWTH for KA2 was 371 Meuro and for KA3 320 Meuro respectively. In FP6 the Thematic Area 1.1.6: Sustainable Development Subgroup 1.1.6.2 ‘Sustainable Surface Transport” has been allocated 610 MEuro. The main items of the new programme for Sustainable Surface Transport are: - Environmental preservation and social responsibility, - Continuously improving of the Quality of Life, - Economic and industrial development of skills, - Security of energy-supply - Promoting eco-friendly transport systems via bio-fuels and the hydrogen-car with respect to

KYOTO - EURO-II project CIVITAS II The Work Programme addresses the entire set of issues through 4 inter-linked elements: - Advanced vehicle/vessel and infrastructure concepts - Standardised design and manufacturing systems - An Integrated Transport System aiming to: promote modal shift to cleaner and safer

transport and increase the capacity of infrastructure - A collaborative research system assured by the European Research Area (ERA) Some criticisms were expressed concerning the structure, layout, lack of clarity and inclusion of overlaps evident in the FP6 Surface Transport work programme. The work programme should be examined and where necessary refined for more effective understanding, especially for new candidate participants in the research programme. Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials (TP3) The specific programme, referring to Thematic Priority 3, concentrates on: i) Nanotechnology, as a flagship of the next industrial revolution ii) Multi-functional knowledge-based materials, as critical drivers of innovation iii) New production processes and devices, as the key to sustainable development An overall Budget of 1300 MEURO is dedicated to TP3 in FP6. The first call launched on 17 December 2002 has an indicative budget of 400 M€ from which 260 M€ is foreseen to be allocated for the new IP and NoE instruments. In order to prepare the work programme of TP3, several workshops on different aspects of nanotechnology and intelligent materials were organised. A comparison of the work programme of TP3 with that of Key Action 1 and Generic Activity 1in FP5 highlights clearly the ambition of the Commission to act more and more as a strategic research policy organisation rather than a research funding agency. Within FP5 this tendency was directed towards the environmental aspect. In addition, within TP3 the approach and objectives are to accelerate the transition from a resource-based to a knowledge-based society with sustainable development. For example, the special emphasis on nanotechnologies and nanosciences, long-term interdisciplinary research, nanobiotechnologies and nanometre-scale engineering reflects the decision of promoting real breakthroughs rather than incremental

35

research. TP3 is encouraging the integration of education and skills development, as well as coverage of production aspects even in long term projects. These different aspects are also present in the first TP3 call:

1. Nanotechnologies & nanosciences: Long-term interdisciplinary research, nano-biotechnologies, nanometre-scale engineering, handling / control devices and instruments, applications and roadmaps for nanotechnology

2. Knowledge-based multifunctional materials: Development of fundamental knowledge, transformation and processing, new knowledge-based higher performance materials

3. Processes and devices: in support of transformation from traditional to high added-value industry, for flexible and intelligent manufacturing systems, cleaner, safer more eco-efficient and less waste production.

4. Integration of nanotechnology, new materials and new processes for improved security and quality of life: systems and actuators for health and security, bio –hybrid materials.

In this call the first two items deal with a generic approach, the third addresses socio-economic and industrial issues and the fourth is an integrating area. Younger areas such as nanotechnology and nanoscience are beginning to be organised at national level and even ERA and are believed to be well adapted to the new FP6 instruments. This might explain the relative high weight of nanotechnologies and related applications in this first call. Aeronautics and Space (TP4) In respect of KA4 , the related activities and topics will be further expanded within FP6 , as a result of additional research integration between Aeronautics and on-flight and some on-ground ATM (Air Traffic Management) topics and new lines of research in the field of Space linked to main European initiatives and projects such as GALILEO , GMES and Sat-Com , which has led to an overall budget of 1075 M Euro: 840 MEuro to research for Aeronautics; 235 MEuro to research for Space. The overall Work Programme 2002-2006 “Aeronautics and Space” appears well structured and in line with the achievements of ERA objectives while properly balanced between FP5 type Instruments and the new FP6 IPs and NoEs. The WP benefits from:

�� an outstanding dedication and excellent expertise, (reinforced by the experience achieved within FP5 in dealing with evaluation, monitoring and review of large aeronautic projects such as the KA4 Technology Platforms), expressed by the management and staff operating within the various Aeronautic and Space Directorates and Units within the Commission

�� the holistic approach expressed by ACARE (Advisory Council for Aeronautics) and related Advisory Groups in setting out a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA), released in October 2002, endorsed by all stakeholders extending across the European Aeronautics Industry, the governments of Members States, European Institutions and across manufacture, operation, regulation and research

�� good co-operation between DG Research (KA4) and DG TREN (KA2) concerning, for example, the European ATM, which until now has suffered from fragmentation of

36

efforts to bring the urgently needed renewal to the system clearly shown in the “Vision 2020” report and reflected accordingly in the ACARE efforts

�� promising co-ordinated efforts between the Commission and the European Space Agency.

On Aeronautics, the creation of the SRA established by ACARE with the contribution of a vast amount of work performed by dedicated working teams, systematically addressing the major challenges in terms of quality and affordability, environmental issues, safety, efficiency of the Air Transport System (ATS) and security, will allow future proposals for discrete research and programmes to be assessed for consistency, in line with ERA objectives, whether that work is proposed by Companies , Universities or under National or European schemes. On this basis and as a general comment, considering also the relevant efforts already put in place during FP5 with reference to a number of large and challenging Technology Platforms currently under development, the Work Programme for Aeronautics appears well defined, from both evolutionary and technological breakthrough perspectives. The research areas focus on:

�� strengthening the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry in the global market, by reducing both aircraft and operating cost and increasing passenger choice in terms of travel costs, time to destination, on board services and comfort

�� improving environmental impact with regard to emissions and noise �� improving aircraft safety and security �� increasing the operational capacity and safety of the air transport system, by optimising

airspace and airport utilisation and consequently reducing flight delays, through a seamlessly integrated European air traffic management system, which would facilitate the achievement of the “Single Europaen Sky” initiative .

Classical Instruments will be primarily used to open upstream research to further improve the technology base and develop innovative concepts and breakthrough technologies. The new instruments (IPs and NoEs) will be preferentially adopted for focused downstream research integrating a critical mass of technical fields, activities and resources needed to achieve ambitious objectives. In the long term, as also outlined in the SRA, there is a need to prepare the ground for incremental step changes in concepts and using more and more new and breakthrough technologies to create a future system that is distinct and different from today’s Air Transport System. From this point of view there is already a need for a more active role of the academic world which, despite the efforts put in place by the Commission, does not always appear satisfactory. One main weak point identified relates to general difficulties of the academic world to operate in accordance with a co-operative approach. A more active co-operation between the Universities, as fostered with the financing of a dedicated network, namely European Aeronautics Science Network (EASN), and better co-ordination with the industries are considered relevant for the achievement of long-term breakthrough research targets in Europe in order to counterbalance the supremacy of the industries and related agencies. In this respect the Aeronautics and Space Units are recommended to continue their stimulating action towards the Academic Institutions.

37

For Space, the co-operation between the Commission and ESA appears very promising, opening new lines of research directed towards marketable products and pre-operational services linked to initiatives and projects such as Galileo, GMES and Sat-Com focused on the Priority 4 “Aeronautics and Space” Work Programme, well in line with various European needs. Namely, within:

�� GALILEO, by fostering application and services through the Strategic European infrastructure aiming to change the transport sector

�� GMES, by enhancing the operational capability to provide information to the user community, such as:

��Land cover and vegetation ��Water resources ��Ocean and marine applications ��Atmosphere ��Risk management ��Security

�� Sat-Com by providing affordable and economically viable services to the largest possible customer base such as:

��Network and services interoperability ��End to end satellite telecommunication systems ��Convergence and integration of satellites communications with other Space

application domains. For both Aeronautics and Space, the areas of research to be addressed within FP6 are clearly detailed in the Work Programme itself. 4.4.2 Measurement and Testing The strategic decision, taken in the planning of FP6, to remove measurements and testing as an independent visible entity and to integrate all relevant activities within projects associated to the identified thematic priorities of FP6 is viewed by many as regrettable but understandable. Consequently the MTI Unit was dissolved and its staff dispersed to a number of other units. Immediate impacts are the diffusion and dilution of expertise with many staff taking on new responsibilities in relation to their new roles within FP6, and the loss of identity and standing of measurements and testing in general. Project Officers have “taken their FP5 projects” with them and remain responsible for their management. However, at present coordination and overall management of the large number of on-going projects is not well–defined and individual responsibilities are unclear. The GMP welcome the statements made by the Director H (JM) that consideration is being given to the establishment of an appropriate co-ordinating function, such as a Sector, for ensuring effective management of the many FP5 MTI projects. The responsibilities of any such Sector, its resources and mandate and the timescale for possible implementation remain to be defined. The loss of measurements and testing as an independent component of a Framework Programme may have a number of adverse impacts and consequences. There appears no requirement for proposals using the new instruments of FP6 to address European standards, measurement and testing needs explicitly and there is no evident mechanism to coordinate or integrate any measurements and testing related activities which might be undertaken in separate larger projects. A cross-Framework mechanism should be initiated to monitor and

38

analyse the extent to which European standards, measurement and testing needs are being met within the various activities of FP6. The monitoring group identifies this as an urgent action if any necessary corrective measures are to be effected. There is a long history of successful M&T related research from the inception of EC-funded research. In addition to projects supported from the dedicated programme (BCR, SMT, MTI), measurement and testing activities have often formed a vital component in many projects operating in larger programmes, e.g. BRITE EURAM, JOULE etc. Within FP6, necessary M&T activities are envisaged to form component parts of larger projects, e.g. IPs, allied to the identified key thematic priorities. The narrowing of favoured research areas, as defined in the FP6 work programmes, may mean that research problems and needs associated with standardization and metrology will not be addressed unless they form part of a larger, e.g. integrated, project.. Traditionally M&T supported research has been able to address problems in many different fields. This breadth of activities, combined with the relatively small budgets available to support the work, have resulted in many relatively small projects. The failure of the research community to integrate related M&T needs and priorities within a general sector, e.g. Construction, has been a contributing factor in the decisions taken. The loss of a distinct M&T dedicated programme will impact on advisory groups such as CEN STAR, who historically have provided recommendations for dedicated calls, and channels of communication to CEN may be weakened or lost. The responsibilities to satisfy the needs of advancing European standardization appear to have shifted to industry and national metrology laboratories who will need to play a strong role in ensuring European needs are identified, priorities set and work is undertaken either within the new instruments of FP6 or elsewhere. 4.4.3 The New Instruments: Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence Since the inception of FP5, large projects within GROWTH dealing with Critical Technologies (CT), Thematic Networks (TN) and Technologies Integration and Validation (Technology Platforms (TP)) have been selected and implemented. In this regard experiences in GROWTH have prepared staff well for improving the management of large projects in accordance to the new FP6 instruments, Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence. GROWTH has experience of the “parallel” managing of projects dealing with Critical Technologies, whose funding may be in the range of a few million of Euro and the Technology Platforms whose funding may be of the order of 100 million of Euro with numbers of partners up to 50 (including Universities, large companies, SMEs, Research Centers etc.). In the FP6 the selection criteria will insist on integration and management of research, and it is therefore expected that the new instruments will influence and reshape the organisation of research in Europe. However there is a risk that these instruments will favour the strongest organisations. Networks of Excellence aim to strengthen European excellence by networking the critical mass of resources and expertise around a joint programme of activities. This can be realised more easily especially in young areas such as nanotechnology where the recent dedicated centres are now reaching mutual agreements to reach a common strategy. NoEs appear more suited to single topics and on more long term research and may define technological

39

roadmaps. IPs may span different topics, across activities from basic research to technological transfer and training and across technical areas such as life cycle aspects, maintenance, repair etc. The aeronautics supply chain, including small and medium size enterprises, plays an important role in integrating and structuring the technological and scientific base. SME participation in Specific Targeted Research Projects, Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence is encouraged. Specific measures to stimulate their participation will be implemented throughout the Programme by means of Specific Support Actions, continuing the effort initiated in FP5. Technical domains such as design, manufacture, maintenance and the relevant Integrated Projects represent concrete opportunities for their participation. 4.4.4 Expressions of Interest A call for for Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence was made in 2002 prior to the finalisation of the work programmes of the new FP6. More than 12000 were received across the whole Framework. No feedback was given to the proposers and it is not clear how and in what ways the ideas submitted for consideration influenced the objectives and content of the work programmes of the thematic areas of FP6. The absence of feedback from the Commission to proposers is viewed as regrettable. In any future call for Expressions of Interest it is recommended that this approach should not be repeated and feedback should be provided. The Commission have stated that there were a large number of EoIs which did not fulfil the requirements for IPs (many appearing more like traditional critical technology projects) and that especially the NoEs were lacking the basic elements (institutional integration) as described in the call. In the absence of feedback such a situation causes confusion amongst the research community who genuinely seek to understand and employ the new FP6 instruments in advancing European research strengths. Aeronautics received 207 EoI’s (to both DG RTD and DG TREN parts) of which 67% were for Integrated Projects and 33% for Networks of Excellence. 1670 EoIs were received for TP3. 24% (400) were considered “Mature and Promising” (demonstrating clear or potential breakthrough), 52.5% were considered “Not Mature” and the remaining 23.5% were considered out of scope. 15% of the “Mature and Promising” EoIs were related to Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences, 29% were related to Processes and Devices, and 56% were related to Materials. Nanosciences and nanotechnologies are specifically addressed by 49 EoI, of which 12 concern integrated projects (8 on principles, including hybrid systems; 2 on instrumentation; 2 on nanobiotechnology) and 37 are Networks of Excellence (15 on principles, including hybrid systems; 9 on instrumentation; 5 on nanobiotechnology; 4 on metrology). This shows the need for long-term and fundamental research. Of the mature topics related to Materials, 23% were related to materials by design for breakthrough multi-sectoral applications; 17% were related to surface science and engineering, and 12% were in the domain of sustainable chemistry. 480 EoIs were received in relation to priority 1.6.2 Sustainable surface transport. A very encouraging fact was that 50% were industry driven and the whole work programme was covered.

40

It is observed that there is relatively low industry participation in the TP3 EoIs and most are under academic leadership. This may be due to the unclear confidentiality rules, which can be a real issue for competing industries, and/or that SMEs, who constitute the majority of industries, do not have the structure and budget to invest money if there is no obvious immediate return. Analysis of the EoIs reveals subjects that have great S&T value and potential, but are not yet sufficiently mature to become NoEs or Ips. These may be of strategic relevance for next calls and may be accommodated within FP6 as “stairway of excellence” proposals (i.e. smaller, more FP5-style projects) for projects “at the edge of knowledge”. 4.4.5 Evaluation, external experts and the new FP 6 instruments. The high degree of autonomy anticipated for the consortia involved in the operation of IPs within FP6 underlines the crucial importance of proposal evaluation and project monitoring respectively. This in turn strengthens the need for external expertise in refereeing large projects or reviewing their operation. Large projects, e.g. IPs, NoEs, place additional and exacting demands on responsible Commission staff. The Monitoring Group supports the concept of building internal PO teams to manage and run large projects and further recommends that POs be given the flexibility to build-up appropriate teams of external experts and evaluators with the backgrounds (proven research and industrial experience and the assurance that there are no conflicts of interests) necessary to ensure complementary and multidisciplinary coverage of the various technological implications and ERA-objectives relevant to these enlarged projects. The processes for selection and training of External Experts should be strengthened to enable the creation of Evaluation and Review teams consonant with the multidisciplinary expertise requirements needed for new FP6 instruments such as IPs. Appropriate training should be provided for all evaluators to enable them to carry out necessary tasks effectively. The adoption of a two-stage evaluation process for IP proposals related to TP3 is welcomed. Pending the experiences achieved, it is recommended to reconsider the possibility to extend the two-stage procedure to IP proposals related to the other thematic areas of FP6. The pre-proposal check designed to provide help to proposers should be maintained for traditional instruments operating in FP6. One benefit of the two-stage process could be also represented by an earlier involvement of external experts supporting PO’s during the Contract phase. Early involvement of external expert(s) is desirable in order to avoid any misinterpretation of technical specifications which can occur when reviewers have been engaged after project kick-off. Current procedures related to the engagement of External Experts should be improved in order to: �� shorten the time of selection and assure a timely involvement of the External Experts

(possibly at Project Contract phase and/or Kick-off Meeting) �� increase, for large projects , the duration of the contract, i.e. from six months to at least

one year, to allow both PO’s and External Experts sufficient time to plan a reliable relationship

41

�� include provisions for additional cost related to activities to be performed by the Experts in order to assure some degree of continuous monitoring between at least two formal Review Meetings.

�� include provisions for advance payments (to cover at least transport and accommodation costs) so as not to penalise the Expert’s financial exposure which , for a six month contract, may be of the order of eight months.

�� to reduce PO work-load �� to improve internal working practice between technical and legal /administrative staff 4.5 FRAMEWORK ISSUES 4.5.1 The European Research Area The GROWTH programme continues to contribute significantly to the realisation of the European Research Area. Project management and policy are increasingly integrated, fulfilling the ERA objectives and ensuring the transition from a system-approach towards an integrated European RTD-policy. Large efforts are made to involve major stakeholders, to consolidate with national policies and other European bodies, and foster synergies of the strengths, needs and priorities of national/regional facilities and centres of excellence within the Member States. Transport Unit and KA3 gathers together Transport, Environment DGs, Member States National organisations and maintains permanent contact with European Federations such as CESA, ECSA, ECMAR, COREDES (for the Maritime Industry), EUCAR, CLERA (for the automotive Industry) ERRI, UNIFE (for the Rail Industry) and also with INSO, ENTERPRISE. To assure the coherent establishment of strategies for future sustainable surface transport research in Europe, DG Research, in cooperation with ERRAC, created a Strategic Rail Research Agenda (SRRA) endorsed by all sustainable surface transport stakeholders, Member States and the Commission. ACARE established a Strategic Research Agenda for Aeronautics in Europe, endorsed by all aeronautics stakeholders, Member States and the Commission. The EAG for KA3 “Land, Rail and Marine” published its position paper “Facing the future challenges of Mobility and Competitiveness of Europe”“ that had a positive impact on FP6 preparations and the ERA objectives. DG TREN building the European Transport Policy Research AREA, bridging the gap between Research and Policy, launched the Transport Research Knowledge Center project. The major objective is to provide information for research programmes within the entire European Research Area (ERA)- EC. Program monitoring has already started for 6 pilot countries, notably Germany, France, Italy, UK, Switzerland and Czech republic. In KA4, FACE and TANGO represent good examples of Dir. H managing the objectives and priorities for 2002, focusing the implementation of large Technology Platforms in an efficient manner to ensure cross reference between the TP’s and the related critical technology. The AWIATOR Project is providing confirmation of the feasibility of coordinated research between European and national programmes in accordance to ERA Policy. AWIATOR builds on results of complementary research in Europe. Necessary critical technologies have been

42

developed by several projects within the Community Research Framework Programmes while other key enabling technologies financed nationally will also contribute to the project’s development. Similar approaches applied to other fields of research are considered an effective and pragmatic mechanism to improve the overall co-ordination and synergy between community research and national and regional programmes. In nanotechnology a new website (www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology) was created bringing together information from all Commission services interested in nanotechnology and its research (DR RTD, DG INFSO and their various Directorates). A video was distributed to the press and to interested stakeholders and, following the ERA goal to stimulate in the youth the taste for research and science, a second video is in preparation. MTI activities contribute strongly to ERA and European metrology capability is world leading. European added value is high. Measurement and testing research is an ideal vehicle for involving NAS countries and establishing a firm basis for industrial development, quality, competence and competitiveness in the enlarged community, helping to create links, develop contacts and create new consortia. 4.5.2 Participation of Small and Medium Size Enterprises In 2002 within Growth industrial partners make up 56% of all participants with 44% representing SMEs (Table 6.4). The SME budget share however is considerably lower. SME participation is highest in KA1, KA3 and GA1 Materials and lowest in KA2, KA4 and GA2 Measurement and Testing. SME participation is highest in CRAFT projects but is relatively low in RTD and thematic networks. Steps to remove barriers to SME participation, e.g. simplification of procedures, reduction in the number of required reports, prompt payment etc., must be positively encouraged and implemented. In relation to FP6, simplified procedures are indicated in the SME Working Document and the dedicated funds should succeed in stimulating greater SME participation. To facilitate SME participation in FP6 each new instrument should at least consider the provision of a dedicated budget to allow for SME related activities during the project duration. Such an approach would allow some specific competencies which are lacking to be brought inside the project for short term highly focused work and minimize financial difficulties. The specific funding of exploratory awards for proposal preparation by SMEs in FP5 (up to 45,000 € for 2 partners) will not be continued in FP6. In FP6 the SME unit within DG Research will continue to provide support and administer CRAFT proposal submission. A detailed report on SMEs in FP5 will be available in March 2003. 4.5.3 Enlargement The NAS-1 call in 2001 is assessed to be a full success. Running projects were asked for their agreement in principle to allow participation by partners from NAS countries, with additional resources being made available for such participation. Those projects agreeable to this approach have been entered into a database, allowing potential partners from NAS countries the opportunity to contact the respective coordinators directly. This approach might be repeated after the first or second calls in FP6 if the participation of NAS partners in the projects to be contracted is not satisfactory. In this case for all additional participating NAS

43

partners in a running project together, a maximum of 100K€ is planned for easier Commission side handling. The NAS-2 call aimed at support of the leading research centers in the NAS countries, mainly by enhancing collaboration from these centres with those of the member states. The added value of NAS-2 was assessed not to be so high as for NAS-1. The quality of NAS-2 proposals was in general rather disappointing and the NAS-1 projects are suffering from inappropriate timing in relation to “parent projects”. This situation was mainly due to a lack of time, which did not allow for a full integration of the NAS countries. A report on the NAS countries` participation in FP5 is expected to be available in March or April 2003. Although NAS countries have only an observer status in the different committees for preparation for FP6, they have been given good opportunity to present their opinions. 4.5.4 Women in Science Concerning gender issues there are encouraging signs relevant to Growth as a whole in relation to the recruitment of personnel and appointment of women experts. A big effort to improve the percentage of women on its own staff and the panels of experts was devoted by Directorates within the Programme. Women are preferred when renewing members of the EAG, and a positive approach towards women candidates is being taken in the recruitment of Programme Officers. From 9 END (Detached National Experts) recruited in 2002, 6 were women, as were 2 of the 3 recruited persons by MTI in 2002. Females were recruited for strategy and policy aspects, sustainable transport and space policy. However there is still a major shortage of female Project Coordinators and female participants in projects supported by Growth. The establishment of gender balance must reflect a deeper cultural change. The quantitative approach, which consists of simply counting the number of women in research programs, needs to be backed up by qualitative measures, which tackle structural inequalities through a “transformative” approach. The gender impact assessment studies launched in 2000 to evaluate the implementation procedures of FP5 were not completed within Growth. Gender issues in relation to the new instruments of FP6 must continue to be developed and reinforced. Institutional support addressing actions for gender equality inside the respective Directorates in cooperation with the unit "Women in Science" should be effected. A monitoring panel, which will target assessment of gender actions in FP6 instruments should be established and examine the extent to which the issue of equality of opportunity is integrated into the research policy and is reflected in project deliverables and outcomes. Furthermore the level of female participation could be a criterion for proposal evaluation. 4.5.5 Staff Development Despite the high competence and remarkable efforts of services-staff, the administrative process strongly influences the efficiency of the whole system. At this time it is too early to measure the effectiveness and impacts of the administrative Reform currently being implemented. It is to be hoped that ABM and the internal reorganisations underway will result in a streamlining of procedures and have a positive impact on the efficiency of the

44

administrative process. The Commission should ensure that those staff resources necessary to progress ABM efficiently are available to each Unit and, most importantly, that ABM demands by themselves do not increase the administrative workloads of POs. The administrative system should be examined against measurable indicators during the first half of FP6. Plans need to be put in place to investigate the impacts of the Reform and ABM implementation on the efficiency of the administrative process by the next full monitoring exercise in 2004. Project Officer’s workloads and staffing levels appear as continuing problems. Resources must be matched to the demands being made; and those tasks which are most important should be fully identified to ensure that POs are clear in their responsibilities. Staff development opportunities should be positively pursued. In particular, staff should be encouraged to participate more frequently in outside activities to ensure their continued professional development and maintain their scientific and technical competence. The staff of the EC show extreme dedication to their work, are highly competent and provide excellent support in all key areas. The changing roles of Project Officers in relation to new policy-driven responsibilities and the transition from FP5 to FP6 place increasing demands of staff whose workloads are already exceptionally high. Extensive reorganization within the Directorates has taken place. The reorganization clearly facilitates the management of FP6 but may have adverse effects for the continued management of FP5. Changes required by the reorganization of the Directorates G and H, are causing staff shortages, most evidently in Unit G3 Materials. Job descriptions are being revised in relation to the activity based management policy. Responsibilities are detailed and varied. Training has been provided for POs to address devolved financial responsibility. Staff development needs are complex and require further investigation. All staff are about to be appraised. Time management is difficult when staff have many competing responsibilities. Project management tools remain in development. Processes are well defined but the system is complex and lengthy. The writing and revision of procedures for management of the processes required are being progressed but many procedures still remain unfinished. Competing demands prevent the prompt completion of tasks such as the Quality Management Handbook. Development of procedures within a Directorate is an expensive and time-consuming activity. Valuable economies can be achieved where procedures can be developed cooperatively and applied in many Directorates. Some procedures will need to be adapted or varied to enable the parallel management of FP5 and FP6 projects and there is the potential for confusion as the applicability of procedures may be different. Some staff appear to have had little involvement in the development of FP6 and may be under prepared to take on new tasks and responsibilities. The enormous potential of existing human EC resources should be to exploited to a much greater extent by promoting multidisciplinary knowledge and allowing participation in knowledge-updating scientific congresses etc which are much needed in order to foster a managerial approach in dealing with new instruments like the Integrated Projects and properly interact with external European Bodies (e.g. ESA) and the new Advisory Councils (ERRAC, ACARE, ERTRAC and EMRAC), whose roles derive from an integrated view of long term

45

research needs of all relevant stakeholders. To take full advantage of the contributions provided by the new Advisory Councils and related Advisory Groups, there is a need for the Operating and Policy Units to accelerate the reinforcement of their mix of competence (by injecting new skills, as in the case of Nanotechnologies, by stressing/extending managerial training,) to enable the Commission not only to act as a Funding Agency but increasingly to cope with the overall management of the Research Policy and Strategy in Europe. 4.5.6 Financial Support for Innovation With the Barcelona-Declaration of March 2002 the European Council, upon reviewing progress towards the Lisbon-goal, agreed that R&D investment in the EU must be increased with the aim of approaching 3% of GDP by 2010 (up from the 1.9% in 2000). By this means the Barcelona-Declaration seeks to diminish the gap between the EU and US support for R&D. Resources and policies need to be mobilised to encompass much more than governments' R&D spending: Hence the Barcelona European Council called for an increase in the level of private sector funding to make investment in innovation more attractive. The main reason for the need of an additional booster is two-fold, despite the significant efforts of the Commission via the RTD-Framework-programmes and the corresponding increasing volumes spent (17,5 bn Euro for FP6). The participation of SMEs in the EC's RTD-programmes is still well below the desired level and large companies focus their efforts for projects of highest potential outside the EC's programmes if faster delivery of results is needed. Fast results are essential in fast developing markets, as "the second winner" in a competition in highly reactive markets is simply the loser. Thus, while the two new instruments, IP and NoE, and the related procedure for the call for EoIs are a good step forward in themselves, they seem insufficient to motivate strong private-sector-funding especially from industry. An additional instrument is therefore necessary to make it more attractive for industry to participate in an innovation which is more focused on European benefit and by this to increase private sector funding of European RTD. The agreement between the Commissioner Busquin and the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) leading to the creation of a Further Financial Support of Innovation (beyond the instruments of the FP) is therefore very welcome . The new additional instrument concerns the creation of VENTURE CAPTIAL FUNDS (VCFs) in Europe, offered by banks which offer to both Banks and Industries, who are candidates to use such VCFs, the opportunity for common interest to realise fast-running, highly-profitable innovations. To date it is a fact that innovation is seen by bankers as being "soft" compared to products which are already established in the market, and this makes banks reluctant to spend venture capital. Banks prefer to give credits for capacity increases for running productions for which profitability can be shown by previous years' business reports. Successful innovations, at least in their first years of exploitation, do allow significantly higher profits than those achievable with established products. The question is how to balance the statistics between success rate (% probability of coming through) and profitability of an innovative product. A bank can be encouraged to offer VCFs if the risk of failure of an

46

innovation-project is minimised for them. Thus, the new additional and until now missing instrument could be a back-insurance-like guarantee given by the EC to a bank providing VCFs for a bundle of projects proposed by the industry, the guarantee for which covers the total or even only a part of the costs in the case that a project fails. This principle is risk-minimising and hence an encouragement for the bank. With cooperation between the financial experts of the bank and scientific experts of the Commission the residual risk and the costs for such a guarantee-system can be minimised as already takes place with similar financing processes experienced in some European Countries. Guidelines which make possible such an instrument, embracing complementary funding, are in preparation. These guidelines will fit both the Commission and the financial world in optimising evaluation and control of public (EC) and private money. Through this system the participation of further financial institutions will be made attractive, while simultaneously strongly upgrading the credibility of the potential impact and exploitability of a project's outcomes. In this respect, the efforts of Directorate G to promote an innovative form of collaboration between RTD funding and bank loans are an excellent step forward. Professional project-screening in relation to its practical European benefits, together with the high scientific competence of Commission staff / Commission scientific officers in evaluating a project's technical relevance, may develop a new mechanism designed to boost and exploit European innovation power and culture.

47

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 CONCLUSIONS The Panel is pleased to praise the involved Directorates for the effective management and operation of the GROWTH programme and the attainment of the overall objectives planned for 2002. Progress in administering the final FP5 Calls has been maintained in the challenging context of the transition to the new FP6 and the implementation of the management Reform, which together have placed additional responsibilities on all staff involved. Progress has been achieved through the evident commitment of highly dedicated staff in the context of many difficulties, notably significant staff shortages, the need to implement procedures for activity based management (ABM), the development and launch of both the FP6 work programmes and its associated new instruments, and the extensive reorganization which has occurred within the respective Directorates in readiness for FP6. The Panel wishes to outline the excellent progress the Surface Transport Unit has achieved in establishing links with all related transport programmes such as KA2, Global Change, Environment, IST, Joint Research Center and in the perspective of ERA with national R&TD activities and to praise the significantly improved co-operation between DG Research and DG TREN that resulted in the launching in FP6 of a single priority for surface transport. Specifically relevant to GROWTH, 2002 witnessed

�� the creation of a unified work programme for Surface Transport within FP6 �� the closure of the Measurement and Testing, Infrastructures Unit and the relocation of

its personnel �� the establishment of new Units managing “Nanotechnologies” within Dir. G and

“Space Policy ” within Dir. H. �� a high degree of personnel mobility and redeployment �� the integration within the FP6 Priority 4 Work Programme of Aeronautic and ATM

topics and new research lines linked to Space Initiatives and Projects such as Galileo, GMES and Satcom

Despite the outstanding overall management, some measures of uncertainty are perceived at the operating level within and outside the Commission which apply to the Framework as a whole, notably

�� some lack of readiness towards the 1st 2003 Calls induced at FP6 level by the Contract Model for the new instruments which was not finalized in time

�� issues concerning project management methodologies, tools, metrics and indicators, already covered by previous monitoring exercises, which appear not yet clearly setout or standardised as perhaps they should be in order to foster an easier implementation of the new FP6 instruments such as the IPs for large multidisciplinary research projects.

With reference to previous recommendations the panel wish to outline the improvement and the strengthening of the managerial approach to setting out research policies taking advantage of the outstanding contributions from the new Advisory Councils such as ACARE, ERRAC,

48

ERTRAC, EMRAC which are confirming their full effectiveness in supporting the Commission. The achievement in creating one work programme for Surface Transport is recognized. Under FP5 most transport research was carried out in two different Key Actions with complementary approaches. In FP6, Surface Transport will be addressed within Thematic Priority 1.6, i.e. 1.6.2 Sustainable Surface Transport, under a single Programme Management Committee structure. This has been achieved through the evident commitment of highly dedicated staff in the context of many difficulties. The merging of all related transport and research policies with defined objectives and a common work programme strongly accords with the objectives of ERA. Another very promising advance is the new approach being developed through the efforts of Directorate G to set up an innovative form of collaboration between RTD funding and bank loans, which aims to provide uncomplicated fast funding via venture capital. This initiative may lead to the development of a new mechanism designed to boost and exploit European innovation and culture. Project Officer’s workloads and staffing levels appear as continuing problems. The impacts of the administrative Reform and implementation of ABM on the efficiency of the administrative process must be kept under review. Resources must be matched to the demands being made and those tasks which are most important for Programme Officers should be fully identified to ensure that POs are clear in their responsibilities. The Commission should ensure that staff resources necessary to progress ABM are available to each Unit and most importantly that ABM demands do not increase the administrative workloads of POs. PO staff development opportunities should be positively pursued to ensure their continued professional development and further enhance their scientific and technical competence. In respect of the implementation of FP6, the processes for selection and training of External Experts should be strengthened to enable the creation of Evaluation and Review teams consonant with the multidisciplinary expertise requirements needed for the new FP6 instruments. Project Officers should be encouraged to build internal PO teams to manage and run large projects and be given the flexibility to build up appropriate teams of external experts and evaluators with the backgrounds necessary to ensure complementary and multidisciplinary coverage of the various technological implications and ERA objectives relevant to these enlarged projects. To increase the participation of SMEs each IP should provide a dedicated budget to allow for a call on well focused tasks during the project duration. The gender impact assessment studies launched in 2000 to evaluate the implementation procedures of FP5 were not completed within Growth. Gender issues in relation to the new instruments of FP6 must continue to be developed and reinforced. Institutional support addressing actions for gender equality inside the respective Directorates in cooperation with the unit "Women in Science" should be effected. A monitoring panel to target assessment of gender actions in FP6 instruments should be established. The closure of the Measurement and Testing, Infrastructures Unit and the lack of visibility of work in support of the advancement of European standards within the work programmes of FP6 are matters of real concern. Two urgent issues result. Firstly, ongoing FP5 MTI projects must be effectively and consistently supported and this will be difficult with the dispersion of

49

specialist staff that has taken place. The GMP welcome the consideration being given to the establishment of an appropriate co-ordinating function, such as a Sector, for ensuring effective management of the many FP5 MTI projects. Secondly, there appears no requirement for proposals using the new instruments of FP6 to address European standards, measurement and testing needs explicitly and there is no evident mechanism to coordinate or integrate any measurement and testing related activities which might be undertaken. A cross-Framework mechanism should be initiated to monitor and analyse the extent to which European standards, measurement and testing needs are being met within the various activities of FP6. The monitoring group identifies this as an urgent action if any necessary corrective measures are to be effected. Responsibilities for this initiative may not be best situated within any MTI sector. Difficulties have become apparent which concern the ongoing management and operation of the programme’s extensive evaluation and impact assessment activities. An effective monitorable co-operation between Directorates for evaluation and impact assessment of completed projects must be seen to be in place to ensure internal responsibilities are clear. The delays being experienced by the GOPA consortium in the timely submission of EVIMP deliverables need to be overcome. An excellent step forward is the new approach being developed through the efforts of Directorate G to promote an innovative form of collaboration between RTD funding and bank loans, which aims to provide uncomplicated fast funding. Professional project-screening in relation to its practical European benefits, together with the high scientific competence of Commission staff / Commission scientific officers in evaluating a project’s technical relevance, may develop a new mechanism designed to boost and exploit European innovation power and culture.

50

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis of the Competitive and Sustainable GROWTH Programme in FP5 for the year 2002, the Programme Self-Assessment Report, the Monitoring Reports covering 2000 and 2001, and the results derived from the many interviews undertaken within and outside the Commission, the main recommendations of the 2002 GROWTH Monitoring Group are:

�� Plans need to be put in place to investigate the impacts of the Reform and ABM implementation on the efficiency of the administrative process by the next full monitoring exercise in 2004.

�� The workloads of Project Officers must be carefully monitored and responsibilities clearly identified and prioritised to ensure that work loads are reasonable.

�� To facilitate the participation of SMEs in FP6, each new instrument should at least consider the provision of a dedicated budget to allow for SME related activities during the project duration.

�� Further progress in respect of Women and Science is required. Institutional support addressing actions for gender equality inside the respective Directorates in cooperation with the unit "Women in Science" should be effected. A monitoring panel, which will target assessment of gender actions in FP6 instruments, should be established. The level of female participation could be a criterion for proposal evaluation.

�� Following the closure of the Measurement and Testing, Infrastructures (MTI) Unit, an appropriate co-ordinating function, such as a Measurement and Testing, Infrastructures “sector” should be established within Directorate H to ensure effective coordination of the many ongoing FP5 MTI projects.

�� A cross-Framework mechanism should be initiated to enable the extent to which European standards, measurement and testing needs are being met within the various activities of FP6 to be analysed.

�� An effective monitorable co-operation between Directorates for evaluation and impact assessment of completed projects must be seen to be in place to overcome difficulties exacerbated by the internal reorganisation which has taken place.

�� The processes for selection and training of External Experts should be strengthened to enable the creation of Evaluation and Review teams consonant with the multidisciplinary expertise requirements needed for new FP6 instruments such as IPs.

51

5.2.1 Key recommendations

Nr Recommendation

Progress in ERA

1 The creation of the European Research Area is a key goal of the Lisbon strategy. GROWTH and its resultant Thematic Priorities of FP6 are outstandingly placed through projects of the type “born with European dimension” (e.g. Aeronautics, Surface Transports) and emerging areas which have first to “grow into a broad European dimension” (e.g. Nanotechnology). To fulfil the ERA objectives and to ensure the transition from a system-approach towards an integrated European RTD-policy, strong involvement and consolidation with national policies and other European bodies is essential. Policy and project-management must be developed and executed in ways which foster synergies of the strengths, needs and priorities of national/regional facilities and centres of excellence within the Member States.

2 SME participation is often made difficult due to the large time investment needed to understand and address correctly the call, the long time to contract, the all too often delays in receiving stage payments and the lack of short term highly focused work within research projects. To increase the participation of SMEs each new instrument should at least consider the provision of a dedicated budget to allow for SME related activities during the project duration. Such an approach would allow some specific competencies which are lacking to be brought inside the project and minimize financial difficulties.

Participation of SMEs

3 Steps to remove barriers to SME participation, e.g. simplification of procedures, reduction in the number of required reports, prompt payment etc., must be positively encouraged and implemented.

Women and Science

4 The establishment of gender balance must reflect a deeper cultural change. The quantitative approach, which consists of simply counting the number of women in research programs, needs to be backed up by qualitative measures, which tackle structural inequalities through a “transformative” approach. The gender impact assessment studies launched in 2000 to evaluate the implementation procedures of FP5 were not completed within Growth. Gender issues in relation to the new instruments of FP6 must continue to be developed and reinforced. It is recommended to create institutional support on actions for gender equality inside the respective Directorates in cooperation with the unit "Women in Science" and establish a monitoring panel which will target assessment of gender actions in FP6 instruments and monitor the extent to which the issue of equality of opportunity is integrated into the research policy and is reflected in project deliverables and outcomes.

52

5 The high degree of autonomy anticipated to be given to the consortia involved in the operation of IPs within FP6 underlines the crucial importance of proposal evaluation and project monitoring respectively and strengthens the need for external expertise in reviewing or refereeing large projects during operation. Large projects, e.g. IPs, NoEs, place additional and exacting demands on responsible Commission staff. The Monitoring Group recommends the creation of internal PO teams to manage and run large projects and further recommends that POs be given the flexibility to build-up appropriate teams of external experts and evaluators with the backgrounds (proven research and industrial experience and the assurance that there are no conflicts of interests) necessary to ensure complementary and multidisciplinary coverage of the various technological implications and ERA-objectives relevant to these enlarged projects. Thematic networks provided valuable experience in managing big projects. However concerns have been expressed concerning the management of new instruments and notably IP which needs a clear policy objectives and quality management objectives, centered management.

6 Appropriate training should be provided for all evaluators to enable them to carry out necessary tasks effectively. The processes for selection and training of External Experts should be strengthened to enable the creation of Evaluation and Review teams consonant with the multidisciplinary expertise requirements needed for new FP6 instruments such as IPs.

7 A cross-Framework mechanism should be defined to enable the impacts of the closure of the Measurement and Testing Unit on European standardisation needs to be investigated. An assessment of the situation should be commenced within 1 year to monitor the extent to which measurements and testing specific activities relevant to European standardisation are being integrated within FP6 projects and to identify the need for any corrective measures.

8 In all future calls for Expressions of Interest, feedback should be given to the proposers, and confidentiality should be respected if requested.

9 The pre-proposal check designed to provide help to proposers should be maintained for traditional instruments. Following experience and evaluation of the first call for TP3 Nanotechnologies and nano-sciences, consideration should be given to extending the 2-step-submission procedure for the new instruments to all thematic areas of FP6.

FP6 and the new instruments

10 A lesson to be learned from FP5 is that candidate proposers require a clearer roadmap to reflect changes and modifications which take place between different calls

53

5.2.2 Management Recommendations

Nr Recommendation

11 Proper account has not been given to the practical implementation of Activity Based Management (ABM). Resources appear insufficient and the ongoing changes place additional burdens on staff. Resources must be matched to the demands being made; those tasks which are most important for Programme Officers should be fully identified to ensure that POs are clear in their responsibilities. The Commission should ensure that staff resources necessary to progress ABM are available to each Unit and most importantly that ABM demands do not increase the administrative workloads of POs.

12 The 2002 GMP recommends that the impact of the Reform on the efficiency of the administrative process should be investigated as a matter of priority by the 2004 monitoring panel.

13 Staff development opportunities should be positively pursued. In particular, staff should be encouraged to participate more frequently in outside activities to ensure their continued professional development and maintain their scientific and technical competence.

14 The 2002 GMP takes note of the Commission services' reply to recommendation nr 31 of the 2001 GMP, and recommends that the progress in reducing time to contract should be measured by the 2004 monitoring panel

Main management issues

15 An appropriate co-ordinating function, such as a Measurements and Testing, Infrastructures Sector within Directorate H, should be established to ensure effective coordination of the many ongoing FP5 MTI projects.

54

5.2.3 Monitoring & Impact Recommendations

Nr Recommendation

16 Many project participants remain unaware of the usage and benefits of Technology Implementation Plans (TIPs). The use of the TIP seminars has been very limited but should be positively encouraged and pursued more vigorously.

Project monitoring

17 A more selective use of indicators appropriate to the project type should be considered. The TIP focuses very much on industrially / commercially exploitable RTD results; some more long term projects might instead be asked to define the technological roadmap of the area and needs for future work as an alternative to routine completion of TIPs.

Specific Programme and Framework Programme Monitoring Methodology

18 The group supports the 2001 MP recommendations to undertake full-scale monitoring of the programme only every 2 years and a „light“ monitoring in alternate years. For 2003, where the monitoring will coincide with the 5-year assessment, the annual monitoring should be restricted to an assessment of the first use of the new instruments. For the entire FP this should take only one panel, which includes one expert looking specifically at each thematic priority

19 The monitoring group expresses its concern that (i) it did not receive the expected annual reports from the contractors responsible for the ongoing evaluation and impact assessment of completed projects and (ii) the evidence that extensive delays are occurring in progressing this work.

Evaluation and Impact Assessment

20 The reorganisation of the Directorates facilitates the management of FP6 but has in certain areas had an adverse impact on the continued requirement to manage the extensive ongoing FP4 and FP5 activities. For example, the evaluation and impact assessment of completed projects is adversely affected by frequent changes in staff or in tasks allocated to staff (DG TREN) and by the lack of allocation of manpower to archiving (Directorate H). An effective, monitorable cooperation between Directorates must be seen to be in place; effective archiving must be in place and a matrix of responsibilities must be maintained at all times.

55

6. ANNEXES 6.1 STATISTICAL DATA The following Tables 6.1 – 6.5 inclusive are taken from the GROWTH 2002 Self-Assessment Report.

56

Table 6.1: Summary of statistical data on proposals received by Growth programme in 2002 and on projects funded from those proposals* (status 15 October 2002)

Proposals received Resulting projects (sum of in negotiation + signed) Calculated indicators

total

number Total cost Total requested EC funding

total number Total cost* Total EC

funding** Success

rate Average total

cost** average EC funding***

average number of partners

% industrial partners****

% ind. SME****

By key action KA1 448 404.456.828 219.516.697 129 103.933.888 49.090.177 29 % 805.689 380.544 6 62 54

KA2 25 14.448.088 11.734.839 16 6.498.567 4.819.074 64 % 406.160 301.192 5 48 19

KA3 62 59.290.081 34.296.932 32 28.648.676 13.379.301 52 % 895.271 418.103 5 63 48

KA4 40 19.884.334 12.725.496 18 7.456.685 4.424.229 45 % 414.260 245.791 4 55 33

Mat. 211 171.801.903 100.637.946 71 47.574.976 18.864.338 34 % 670.070 265.695 4 64 55

M&T 119 148.398.400 85.497.967 40 29.196.697 16.415.007 34 % 729.917 410.375 5 41 25

Infra 27 41.473.585 40.716.952 11 19.757.659 15.784.058 41 % 1.796.151 1.434.914 21 39 19

Generic 4 1.223.357 1.158.698 1 410.000 330.000 25 % 410.000 330.000 5 60 60

By type of project RTD / demo /

combined 39 88.161.823 50.615.276 15 18.734.077 10.832.105 38 % 1.248.938 722.140 8 35 15

TN / CA 27 41.473.585 40.716.952 11 19.757.659 15.784.058 41 % 1.796.151 1.434.914 21 39 19

CRAFT 498 585.763.851 290.504.663 121 148.826.954 67.266.382 24 % 1.229.975 555.921 9 70 63 AM / MCF /

INCO 121 40.512.234 36.477.502 32 15.044.772 8.980.921 26 % 470.149 280.654 5 62 26

NAS-1 108 17.743.822 13.237.272 91 15.264.197 8.948.647 84 % 167.738 98.337 2 22 8

NAS-2 143 87.321.261 74.733.862 48 25.849.489 11.294.071 34 % 538.531 235.293 1

Total 936 860.976.576 506.285.527 318 243.477.148 123.106.184 34 % 765.651 387.126 6 56 44

*attention: the figures in this table do not include projects from the calls for proposals in 2001, which make up the majority of the contracts signed in 2002 ** from the proposal for projects in negotiation

*** recommended (or, in the absence thereof, requested) funding for projects in negotiation **** including a small fraction of partners of "other" types (e.g. hospitals, police / customs laboratories, consultancies)

57

Table 6.2: Received proposals evaluated in 2002 (for NAS-1: only the added budget and added participants are shown)

Type of project Number of proposals received

Total cost Total requested EC funding

Total number of partners

Industrial (or other) partners

Of which Ind.or Oth. SME

Ind.or Oth. SME less than

50 empl.

Ind.or Oth. SME 50 or more empl.

Research partners

Higher Education partners

Number of Women co-ordinators

KA1 CRAFT 303 350.272.406 173.297.866 2471 1745 1575 1131 444 474 191 22 AM / MCF / INCO 47 17.566.524 14.403.053 217 126 64 56 8 59 32 5 NAS1 38 7.652.346 5.743.848 109 30 11 7 4 40 38 NA NAS2 60 28.965.552 26.071.930 62 0 30 32 10 Total 448 404.456.828 219.516.697 2859 1901 1650 1194 456 603 293 37

KA2 CRAFT 3 3.662.683 1.828.872 22 17 15 14 1 5 AM / MCF / INCO 5 4.081.654 3.938.674 46 26 6 4 2 11 9 1 NAS1 10 1.617.519 1.486.191 27 8 4 4 15 4 NA NAS2 7 5.086.232 4.481.102 7 0 5 2 Total 25 14.448.088 11.734.839 102 51 25 22 3 36 15 1

KA3 CRAFT 34 47.847.505 23.926.626 265 184 156 124 32 47 28 AM / MCF / INCO 11 4.869.260 4.869.260 24 17 6 6 6 1 NAS1 10 1.357.186 943.091 11 1 0 2 8 NA NAS2 7 5.216.130 4.557.955 7 0 3 4 Total 62 59.290.081 34.296.932 307 202 162 130 32 58 41 0

KA4 CRAFT 7 10.942.463 5.306.765 55 38 35 28 7 8 7 AM / MCF / INCO 12 3.819.102 3.163.813 77 54 23 16 7 17 6 NAS1 14 1.409.719 1.126.868 18 3 1 1 6 9 NA NAS2 7 3.713.050 3.128.050 7 0 3 4 Total 40 19.884.334 12.725.496 157 95 59 44 15 34 26 0

Mat. CRAFT 107 122.900.071 61.070.044 923 638 577 412 165 183 80 8 AM / MCF / INCO 34 7.664.195 7.664.195 45 22 2 2 17 6 3 NAS1 22 3.943.398 2.454.940 32 3 2 1 1 25 4 NA NAS2 48 37.294.239 29.448.767 48 0 27 21 5 Total 211 171.801.903 100.637.946 1048 663 581 415 166 252 111 16

M&T RTD / dem / comb 39 88.161.823 50.615.276 291 97 37 27 10 123 71 5 CRAFT 44 50.138.723 25.074.490 358 248 230 177 53 70 33 2 AM / MCF / INCO 8 1.288.142 1.279.809 13 11 2 1 1 1 1 1 NAS1 14 1.763.654 1.482.334 28 5 2 2 12 11 NA NAS2 14 7.046.058 7.046.058 14 0 6 8 1 Total 119 148.398.400 85.497.967 704 361 271 207 64 212 124 9

Infra TN / CA 27 41.473.585 40.716.952 422 183 93 69 24 146 93 3 Total 27 41.473.585 40.716.952 422 183 93 69 24 146 93 3

Gen. AM / MCF / INCO 4 1.223.357 1.158.698 30 26 15 15 4 Total 4 1.223.357 1.158.698 30 26 15 15 0 4 0 0

Total RTD / dem / comb 39 88.161.823 50.615.276 291 97 37 27 10 123 71 5 TN / CA 27 41.473.585 40.716.952 422 183 93 69 24 146 93 3 CRAFT 498 585.763.851 290.504.663 4094 2870 2588 1886 702 787 339 32 AM / MCF / INCO 121 40.512.234 36.477.502 452 282 118 100 18 115 55 10 NAS1 108 17.743.822 13.237.272 225 50 20 14 6 100 74 0 NAS2 143 87.321.261 74.733.862 145 0 0 0 0 74 71 16 Total 936 860.976.576 506.285.527 5629 3482 2856 2096 760 1345 703 66

58

Table 6.3: Projects amongst those in table 2 that are or will be funded (signed contracts + projects "in negotiation") (as expected on 15/10/2002)

Type of project Number of projects Total cost Total EC funding Total number

of partners Industrial partners

Of which Ind. SME

Ind. SME less than 50 empl.

Ind. SME 50 or more empl.

Research partners

Higher Education partners

Number of Women co-ordinators

KA1 CRAFT 68 83.468.085 38.495.435 595 416 383 261 122 115 54 4 AM / MCF / INCO 8 3.764.254 1.869.285 49 27 18 16 2 12 10 1 NAS1 31 6.823.481 3.304.111 98 27 8 5 3 37 33 NAS2 22 9.878.068 5.421.346 22 13 9 Total 129 103.933.888 49.090.177 764 470 409 282 127 177 106 5

KA2 CRAFT 1 1.513.094 756.134 8 5 4 4 3 AM / MCF / INCO 4 3.166.694 2.430.265 38 24 6 4 2 9 5 1 NAS1 9 1.131.879 1.048.390 25 6 4 4 15 4 NAS2 2 686.900 584.285 2 2 Total 16 6.498.567 4.819.074 73 35 14 12 2 29 9 1

KA3 CRAFT 15 21.921.956 9.591.804 126 86 70 59 11 19 18 AM / MCF / INCO 4 3.783.304 2.077.079 17 12 6 6 5 NAS1 10 1.357.186 874.175 11 1 2 8 NAS2 3 1.586.230 836.243 3 2 1 Total 32 28.648.676 13.379.301 157 99 76 65 11 28 27

KA4 CRAFT 3 4.612.200 2.306.000 24 17 15 13 2 3 4 AM / MCF / INCO 3 1.454.300 978.000 25 16 6 6 5 4 NAS1 11 1.177.095 941.509 16 3 1 1 4 9 NAS2 1 213.090 198.720 1 1 Total 18 7.456.685 4.424.229 66 36 22 19 3 13 17

Mat. CRAFT 28 30.944.947 13.147.945 246 183 164 116 48 35 26 3 AM / MCF / INCO 8 1.870.022 844.009 12 7 1 1 4 1 NAS1 18 3.208.398 1.704.596 28 3 2 1 1 22 3 NAS2 17 11.551.609 3.167.788 17 12 5 Total 71 47.574.976 18.864.338 303 193 167 118 49 73 35 3

M&T RTD / dem / comb 15 18.734.077 10.832.105 116 41 17 10 7 51 24 2 CRAFT 6 6.366.672 2.969.064 55 33 32 28 4 15 6 AM / MCF / INCO 4 596.198 452.283 9 7 1 1 1 1 NAS1 12 1.566.158 1.075.866 26 5 2 2 12 9 NAS2 3 1.933.592 1.085.689 3 2 1 Total 40 29.196.697 16.415.007 209 86 52 41 11 81 41 2

Infra TN / CA 11 19.757.659 15.784.058 228 88 44 30 14 86 54 1 Total 11 19.757.659 15.784.058 228 88 44 30 14 86 54 1

Gen. AM / MCF / INCO 1 410.000 330.000 5 3 3 3 2 Total 1 410.000 330.000 5 3 3 3 2

Total RTD / dem / comb 15 18.734.077 10.832.105 116 41 17 10 7 51 24 2 TN / CA 11 19.757.659 15.784.058 228 88 44 30 14 86 54 1 CRAFT 121 148.826.954 67.266.382 1.054 740 668 481 187 190 108 7 AM / MCF / INCO 32 15.044.772 8.980.921 155 96 41 37 4 38 21 2 NAS1 91 15.264.197 8.948.647 204 45 17 12 5 92 66 NAS2 48 25.849.489 11.294.071 48 32 16 Total 318 243.477.148 123.106.184 1.805 1.010 787 570 217 489 289 12

59

Table 6.4: Indicators calculated from tables 2 and 3

Type of project Success rate Average cost Average EC funding

Average number of partners

% Industrial partners % Ind. SME % Small Ind.

SME % Medium Ind.

SME % Research

partners

% Higher Education partners

% Number of Women co-ordinators

KA1 CRAFT 22 % 1.227.472 566.109 9 70 % 64 % 44 % 21 % 19 % 9 % 6 % AM / MCF / INCO 17 % 470.532 233.661 6 55 % 37 % 33 % 4 % 24 % 20 % 13 % NAS1 82 % 220.112 106.584 3 28 % 8 % 5 % 3 % 38 % 34 % NAS2 37 % 449.003 246.425 1 59 % 41 % Total 29 % 805.689 380.544 6 62 % 54 % 37 % 17 % 23 % 14 % 4 %

KA2 CRAFT 33 % 1.513.094 756.134 8 63 % 50 % 50 % % 38 % AM / MCF / INCO 80 % 791.674 607.566 10 63 % 16 % 11 % 5 % 24 % 13 % 25 % NAS1 90 % 125.764 116.488 3 24 % 16 % 16 % 60 % 16 % NAS2 29 % 343.450 292.143 1 100 % Total 64 % 406.160 301.192 5 48 % 19 % 16 % 3 % 40 % 12 % 6 %

KA3 CRAFT 44 % 639.454 8 68 % 56 % 47 % 9 % 15 % 14 % AM / MCF / INCO 36 % 519.270 4 71 % 35 % 35 % 29 % NAS1 100 % 87.418 1 9 % 18 % 73 % NAS2 43 % 278.748 1 67 % 33 % Total 52 % 895.271 418.103 5 63 % 48 % 41 % 7 % 18 % 17 %

KA4 CRAFT 43 % 1.537.400 768.667 8 71 % 63 % 54 % 8 % 13 % 17 % AM / MCF / INCO 25 % 484.767 326.000 8 64 % 24 % 24 % 20 % 16 % NAS1 79 % 107.009 85.592 1 19 % 6 % 6 % 25 % 56 % NAS2 14 % 213.090 198.720 1 100 % Total 45 % 414.260 245.791 4 55 % 33 % 29 % 5 % 20 % 26 %

Mat. CRAFT 26 % 1.105.177 469.569 9 74 % 67 % 47 % 20 % 14 % 11 % 11 % AM / MCF / INCO 24 % 233.753 105.501 2 58 % 8 % 8 % 33 % 8 % NAS1 82 % 178.244 94.700 2 11 % 7 % 4 % 4 % 79 % 11 % NAS2 35 % 679.506 186.340 1 71 % 29 % Total 34 % 670.070 265.695 4 64 % 55 % 39 % 16 % 24 % 12 % 4 %

M&T RTD / dem / comb 38 % 1.248.938 722.140 8 35 % 15 % 9 % 6 % 44 % 21 % 13 % CRAFT 14 % 1.061.112 494.844 9 60 % 58 % 51 % 7 % 27 % 11 % AM / MCF / INCO 50 % 149.050 113.071 2 78 % 11 % 11 % 11 % 11 % NAS1 86 % 130.513 89.656 2 19 % 8 % 8 % 46 % 35 % NAS2 21 % 644.531 361.896 1 67 % 33 % Total 34 % 729.917 410.375 5 41 % 25 % 20 % 5 % 39 % 20 % 5 %

Infra TN / CA 41 % 1.796.151 1.434.914 21 39 % 19 % 13 % 6 % 38 % 24 % 9 % Total 41 % 1.796.151 1.434.914 21 39 % 19 % 13 % 6 % 38 % 24 % 9 %

Gen. AM / MCF / INCO 25 % 410.000 330.000 5 60 % 60 % 60 % 40 % Total 25 % 410.000 330.000 5 60 % 60 % 60 % 40 %

Total RTD / dem / comb 38 % 1.248.938 722.140 8 35 % 15 % 9 % 6 % 44 % 21 % 13 % TN / CA 41 % 1.796.151 1.434.914 21 39 % 19 % 13 % 6 % 38 % 24 % 9 % CRAFT 24 % 1.229.975 555.921 9 70 % 63 % 46 % 18 % 18 % 10 % 6 % AM / MCF / INCO 26 % 470.149 280.654 5 62 % 26 % 24 % 3 % 25 % 14 % 6 % NAS1 84 % 167.738 98.337 2 22 % 8 % 6 % 2 % 45 % 32 % NAS2 34 % 538.531 235.293 1 67 % 33 % Total 34 % 765.651 387.126 6 56 % 44 % 32 % 12 % 27 % 16 % 4 %

60

Table 6.5: Use of the commitments budget of the Growth programme in 2002

Amounts (in €) committed* in Anticipated total

1999 2000 2001 Budget planned for 2002 (in €) amount (in €) % of Tw

Target distribution**

Committed in 2002 (up to 16 October)

Key Action 1 123.204.966 178.784.889 154.209.200 244.268.183 700.467.238 27,2% 27,0% 245.182.336

Key Action 2 87.173.258 83.489.297 100.136.142 80.113.145 350.911.842 13,6% 13,7% 77,4 M€

Key Action 3 53.282.219 103.108.884 43.545.326 103.560.334 303.496.763 11,8% 11,8% 105.549.204

Key Action 4 181.508.783 148.142.581 178.568.166 156.878.211 665.097.741 25,8% 25,9% 159.891.048 Generic

Activities 144.975.318 100.196.589 175.973.341 98.178.174 519.323.422 20,2% 20,2% 100.063.690

Infrastructure 0 6.767.004 19.980.126 8.371.955 35.119.085 1,4% 1,4% 8.532.738 Total without expenses (Tw) 590.144.544 620.489.244 672.412.301 691.370.000 2.574.416.089 100% by definition 100

Expenses*** 27.298.581 26.447.742 33.684.000 37.530.000 124.960.323 Must be below 175.825.000 €

Total 617.443.125 646.936.986 706.096.301 728.900.000 2.699.376.412 Total budget = 2.705.000.000 €

* These figures represent the situation reflected in the Commission's financial database in October 2002. They are in general slightly lower than the sum of the commitments actually made in the mentioned year, as any funds that may have been de-comitted in the meantime (e.g. contracts which were terminated at an early stage) are no longer included in the database figures. Approx. 6 M€ have been de-comitted by October 2002, which explains why the anticipated total of the commitments appears to be some 6 M€ below the total budget.

** The Council Decision specifies a budget of 2.705 M€ (including a maximum of 175,8 M€ for expenses), broken down as 731 M€ for KA1, 371 M€ for KA2, 320 M€ for KA3, 700 M€ for KA4, 546 M€ for generic activities and 37 M€ for infrastructure. All these amounts include expenses, so there is not a fixed sum as budget available to each activity for funding projects. The Commission therefore aims at respecting the proportions specified in the Council Decision. It was agreed with the Programme Committee to break down the budget for Generic Activities as 75% for Materials and 25% for Measurements and Testing.

*** Salaries, offices and equipment, missions, meetings, evaluations, printing, etc.

61

6.2 ABBREVIATIONS ACARE Advisory Council for European Aeronautic Research AM Accompanying Measure BRITE Basic Research in Industrial Technologies for Europe CA Concerted Action CEN European Committee for Standardisation CIVITAS City Vitality Sustainability CoE Centre of Excellence CORDIS Community Research and Development Information Service COST European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific and Technical ResearchCRAFT Co-operative Research Action for Technology Stimulation Measures for

SMEs CRM Certified Reference Material CT Critical Technology DG Directorate General DG TREN Directorate General for Transportation and Energy EA Exploratory Award EAG External Advisory Group ECSE European Coal and Steel Community EMRAC European Marine Research Advisory Council EN European Standard ERA European Research Area ERTRAC European Rail and Train Research Advisory Council ETIS European Transport Policy Information System EURAB European Advisory Board EURAM European Research in Advanced Materials EURECA Framework for European Technological Co-operation FP Framework Programme FP5 Fifth Framework Programme FP6 Sixth Framework Programme GA Generic Activity GALILEO European Satellite Navigation System GOPA Consulting firm working for the Commission HLEG High Level Expert Group HoU Head of Unit IMS Intelligent Manufacturing Systems IMT Industrial and Materials Technologies INCO International Co-operation and Development Infosoc Information Society Programme IP Integrated Project IPR Intellectual Property Right IRC Innovation Relay Centre IST Information Society Technologies Programme IT Information Technology ITS Intelligent Transport Systems KA Key Action

62

M&T Measurements and Testing MAT Generic Activity for Materials MCF Marie Curie Fellowship NAS New Accession States NCP National Contact Point NoE Network of Excellence NSF National Scientific Foundation in USA PC Programme Committee PO Project Officer PQI Project Quality Indicator PTA Project Technical Assistant QoL Quality of Life R&D Research and Development ROI Return on Investment RTD Research and Technological Development RTD comb RTD combined projects RTD dem RTD demonstration SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise SMT Standards, Measurement and Testing SP Specific Programme SRA Strategic Research Agenda TEN Trans European Network TIP Technological Implementation Plan TN Thematic Network TP Technology Platforms TRA Targeted Research Action

6.3 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE EXPERTS In addition to the official documentation received, comprehensive information has been provided by the Programme Management in various forms (informal presentations, notes etc). The following is a representative list of the type of information that the Panel has received from the Commission: 6.3.1 General 1. Homepage on EUROPA: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/index.html 2. Homepage on CORDIS: http://www.cordis.lu/growth/home.html 3. The Work-Programme: http://www.cordis.lu/growth/scr/wp_en.htm 4. The Monitoring homepage: http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/monitoring/home.html 5. 2001 Monitoring Reports: http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/monitoring/rep_2001.htm 5th

Framework Programme: http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/home.html http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/about.htm 6th Framework Programme: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/index_en.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/gcc/new-fp.html, http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/

6. The European Commission’s Research Policy homepage http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/index_en.html

63

7. The Community Research & Development Information Services (CORDIS): http://www.cordis.lu/en/home.html

8. GROWTH-Programme Key Actions: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/gcc/ka01.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/gcc/ka02.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/gcc/ka03.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/gcc/ka04.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/gcc/ga01.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/gcc/ga02.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/pdf/growth-special_issue.pdf

9. Find a Partner for FP6 Brochure of the EUROPEAN COMMISSON with link to www.cordis.lu/fp6/partners/

10. Research Industrial Technologies, Leaflet of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION to Dedicated Industrial Technologies Website http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/industrial_technologies/

11. List of National Contact Points (NPC): http://www.cordis.lu/growth/src/ncps.htm 12. Link to EAG reports: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp5/eag.html#growth 13. List of Innovation Relay Centres (IRC): http://irc.cordis.lu/whoswho/home.cfm 14. Statistics on participation of woman: http://www.cordis.lu/growth/src/wo-stat.htm See

also Women & Science: http://www.cordis.lu/improving/women/home.htm 15. ENHANCE (a Brite-Euram project and an IST project). Link: http://dbs.cordis.lu/cordis-

cgi/srchidadb?ACTION=D&SESSION=161062002-11-27&DOC=1&TBL=EN_PROJ&RCN=EP_RCN:46803&CALLER=EI_EN_PROJ

16. http://dbs.cordis.lu/search/en/simple/EN_PROJ_simple.html 6.3.2 Documents Considered for the Growth Specific Monitoring Report 1. 2002 Monitoring of the Implementation of the European Research Area (ERA) and of

Community Research Framework-Programmes and Specific Programmes – - BROAD GUIDELINES

2. EUROPEAN UNION – the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS – „Community 6th Framework Programme (2002 – 2006)“

3. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT and COUNCIL - Decision No 1513/2002/EC of 27 June 2002 „Concerning the 6th Framework Programme of the EC for RTDD-activities, contributing to the creation of the ERA and to Innovation (2002 – 2006)“

4. COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS – „Research Centres and Universities in the Implementation of the 6th Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2002 - 2006)“

5. COUNCIL DECISION of 30 September 2002 „Adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: Integrating and strengthening of the European Research Area (2002 – 2006)“

6. COUNCIL DECISION of 30 September 2002 „Adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: Structuring the European Research Area (2002 - 2006)“

7. COUNCIL DECISION of 30 September 2002 „Adopting a specific programme (EURATOM) for research and training on nuclear energy (2002 – 2006)“

8. COUNCIL DECISION of 30 September 2002 „Adopting a specific programme of research, technological development and demonstration to be carried out by means of direct actions by the Joint Research Centre (2002 – 2006)“

64

9. COUNCIL DECISION of 30 September 2002 „Adopting a specific programme for research and traning to be carried out by the Joint Research Centre by means of direct actions for the European Atomic Energy Community (2002 – 2006)“

10. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION „More Research for Europe – Towards 3% GDP“

11. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION„The european research area: Providing new momentum. Strengthening – Reorienting – Opening up new perspectives“

12. 1999 Annual MONITORING REPORT on the RTD activities conducted under the EC and EURATOM Framework-Programmes

13. 2000 Annual MONITORING REPORT on the RTD activities conducted under the EC and EURATOM Research Framework-Programmes

14. 2001 MONITORING REPORT on the EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME for Research and Technological Development

15. 2000 EXTERNAL MONITORING REPORT on the Specific Programme for Research and Technological Development in the field of Competitive and Sustainable GROWTH

16. 2001 SPECIFIC MONITORING REPORT on the Specific Programme for Research and Technological Development in the field of Competitive and Sustainable GROWTH

17. 2001 SPECIFIC MONITORING REPORT on European Research Area Activities (ERA)

18. GROWTH WORK-PROGRAMME 2001-2002 19. Answer-e-mail of Nov. 14, 2002 to the question raised at the presentation on Nov. 7,

2002 in the Centre Albert Broschette:“Which measures are given in the 6th framework-

programme to support the participation of SMEs Working Document of Unit B.3, DG Research, First Edition: 4 Nov. 2002: „Support to the participation of SMEs in the sixth framework programme“

20. GROWTH-Programme: Budget and Contracted „Table 5“ (rem.-> Table 4) 21. COUNCIL DECISION of 25 January 1999 22. „Adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and

demonstration on competitive and sustainable growth (1998 to 2002)“ (1999/169/EC) 23. Situation of implementation 1998-2002 on 10/09/2002 Competitive and Sustainable

Growth Report periodically distributed to the Programme Committee 24. Final Work-Programme to Thematic Priority 3 of FP6 Nanotechnology. 25. Self assessment report 2002 GROWTH-Programme (draft) 26. Participating in European Research – 6th Framework Programme Brochure of the

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 1st edition October 2002 27. European Research 2002 PROGRAMME Brochure of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION

– Brussels Exhibition Centre 28. ACARE Strategic Research Agenda – Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in

Europe, October 2002 29. External Advisory Group for the Key Action „Innovative Products, Processes and

Organisation, “Outline of a Strategy for Future Industrial RTD Activities in Europe, Position Paper January 2001

30. Nanoscale Microscopy of Magnetic Materials, EUROPEAN COMMISSION - Community Research

31. Nanotechnology in the European Research Area, EUROPEAN COMMISSION - Community Research

32. AMICA Application Fields – Turbine Inspection, EUROPEAN COMMISSION - Community Research

65

33. AMICA Array Technologies for Maintenance, EUROPEAN COMMISSION - Community Research

34. e-mail message From: METZGER Charles-Henri (RTD) Sent: Wednesday, November 20,

35. L. Prista (DGRTD / Unit G3): „MATERIALS and STEEL „Two Groups, Two Treaties, One Team - a glance back at 2001“ Newsletter, 2001

36. L. Prista (DGRTD / Unit G3): „MATERIALS and STEEL „Two Groups, Two Treaties, One Team - Approaching the end of FP5...and the purse is empty!“Newsletter, January to June 2002

37. H.Pero „Goals changing for production“, The Competitive and Sustainable Growth Programme magazine, February 2002

38. L. Prista „Material science on move“, The Competitive and Sustainable Growth Programme magazine, February 2002

39. GOPA „Impact 96 Results (with commentary on EVAL 2000 results) 40. GROWTH-Programme; Project Quality Indicators Mid-Term 41. TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – DATA SHEETS T.I.P. Version 3.3

– 16/02/2001 42. DGXII/C – PROJECT QUALITY INDICATORS AT FINAL TERM 43. The Innovation Relay Centre (IRC) network, Exploiting EU RTD results - leaflet 44. EVIP Eval-1999-Report, GOPA-Consortium under Contract Nr. GOMA-CT-2000-

02010 „Evaluation of the Finished Projects of the EC Research Programmes in the Fields Covered by the Present Growth Programme“ - dated: March 2002

45. IMPACT 96 Results (with commentary on EVAL 2000 results) – see also 57) Powerpoint-Presentation of GOPA to the GROWTH Monitoring Panel Jan. 13,2003

46. Names‘ and Addresses‘-List of the External Advisory Group 1, Key Action: Innovative products, processes and organisation. Submitted by Evaluation-Officer of the Commission’s staff

47. Aeronautics (FP5 – KA4) EAG.xls 48. Aerospace (FP6 – TP4) advisory group.xls 49. Aerospace (FP6 – TP4) programme committee.doc 50. ERRAC members.htm 51. Growth (FP5) programme committee.doc 52. Land & Marine Transport (FP5 – KA3) EAG.xls 53. NMP (FP6 – TP3) advisory group.doc 54. Surface Transport (FP6 – TP6) advisory groups.xls 55. Surface Transport (FP6 – TP6) programme committee.doc 56. Staff Dir.G on 23-01-03.htm 57. Staff Dir.H on 23-01-03.htm 58. Self_assessment_Growth_2002.zip 59. “Measurement and Testing Newsletter” Vol.10, no 2 Dec. 2002 60. “Matrix of Recommendations” of the FP-panel and inputs by the GROWTH-panel

(Excel-file) 61. C.Renier “New Instruments of the FP6” (Powerpoint-Presentation) 62. „Action Plan – Specific Support Actions for Candidate Countries to be implemented in

the priority thematic areas“ 63. FP6_IT_S (pdf-file) 64. B. deBoissezon “SPP&ABM Presentation” 65. R. Escritt “Contribution of the FP to ERA-implementation” 66. “TIP Methodological Analysis – Task Specifications”

66

67. “TIP Vers. 3.3. Data Sheets » 68. “Calendrier”: INDICATIVE TIMETABLE FOR THE 2002 MONITORING

EXERCISE 69. Guiding principles for setting up systems of National Contact Points (NCP systems) for

the Sixth EU Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development (FP6)

70. Fifth Opinion of the external advisory group for the sustainable mobility and intermobility (KA2) Opinion 2002 SMI-AG 2002/ 12

71. List of members External Advisory Group KA2 72. Observer`s Report on the evaluation process of research proposals for the programme

“Competitive and sustainable growth”, June / July 2001 by Kurt Leichnitz 73. Key Action 2 “Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality” – Coverage of tasks, internal

working paper from DG TREN (“Estimation as on May 2002) 74. Key Action 2 “Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality”. Workprogramme

implementation and achievements. Author: Ainhoa Zubieta, Ad-hoc Working Party 30th May 2002

75. Analysis of SMEs participation to FP5 Aeronautic Research Projects-Presentation at Airshow Paris

76. TP4 Final Work Programme (2002-2006) : Aeronautics and Space (dated 22-11-2002) 77. Status Report on EASN -European Aeronautics Science Network - Presentation by DLR

to EAG - 28 November 2002 78. 6th Framework Programme: Thematic Priority - Aeronautics and Space - Presentation

made by Mr H.Von Bose Head of Unit " Aeronautics and Space" to Growth Monitoring Panel (Brussels, 22 November 2002);

67

PART B:

Responses of the Programme Management to the external Monitoring Report

RESPONSES BY COMMISSION SERVICES TO THE 2002 GROWTH MONITORING REPORT

68

Nr Experts Recommendations Commission Services’ Response Services’ Commitment (if any) Deadline

Progress in ERA

1 The creation of the European Research Area is a key goal of the Lisbon strategy. GROWTH and its resultant Thematic Priorities of FP6 are outstandingly placed through projects of the type “born with European dimension” (e.g. Aeronautics, Surface Transports) and emerging areas which have first to “grow into a broad European dimension” (e.g. Nanotechnology). To fulfil the ERA objectives and to ensure the transition from a system-approach towards an integrated European RTD-policy, strong involvement and consolidation with national policies and other European bodies is essential. Policy and project-management must be developed and executed in ways which foster synergies of the strengths, needs and priorities of national/regional facilities and centres of excellence within the Member States.

As the New Instruments become more established under the Sixth Framework Programme, patterns of technical ability and commitment will emerge. A “Survey of Networks in Nanotechnology “ has been realised and published in May 2002. This survey was produced with the view of establishing a coherent and optimised use of European research resources in the field of nanotechnology, in support of ERA. This survey will be updated in 2003. A survey of National Activities involving Member States is nearly completed for Priority 3 and this will assist in providing synergies under European Research Area. The idea of reviewing Member States synergies and priorities may be explored in conjunction with the annual Work Programme review exercises and the results of the first (2003) calls for proposals (possibility of an EU Merit label for proposals of good quality not retained for budgetary reasons). New advisory councils for space and transport (Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research -ACARE- ; European Rail Research Advisory Council -ERRAC-; European Road Transport Research Advisory Council –ERTRAC-…) will play an important role in the planning to meet European Research Area objectives.

Survey of National Activities

Review of member States synergies and priorities in conjunction with work programme reviews

2003

2004/2005


69


Participation of SME

2 SME participation is often made difficult due to the large time investment needed to understand and address correctly the call, the long time to contract, the all too often delays in receiving stage payments and the lack of short term highly focused work within research projects. To increase the participation of SMEs each new instrument should at least consider the provision of a dedicated budget to allow for SME related activities during the project duration. Such an approach would allow some specific competencies which are lacking to be brought inside the project and minimize financial difficulties.

A target allocating at least 15 % of the programme budget has been set for the Sixth Framework Programme. Good Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence are urged to consider the SME dimension.

In Priority 3, a dedicated instrument "Integrated projects for SMEs" has been launched.

3 Steps to remove barriers to SME participation, e.g. simplification of procedures, reduction in the number of required reports, prompt payment etc., must be positively encouraged and implemented.

Simplification procedures have already been introduced under the Sixth Framework Programme.

Women and Science

4 The establishment of gender balance must reflect a deeper cultural change. The quantitative approach, which consists of simply counting the number of women in research programs, needs to be backed up by qualitative measures, which tackle structural inequalities through a “transformative” approach. The gender impact assessment studies launched in 2000 to evaluate the implementation procedures of FP5 were not completed within Growth. Gender issues in relation to the new instruments of FP6 must continue to be developed and reinforced. It is recommended to create institutional support on actions for gender equality inside the respective Di t t i ti ith th it "W

The Growth programme has been very active in promoting the "Women in Science" debate and will continue its support to the “Women in Science” Initiative.

During the Sixth Framework Programme implementation a particular attention will be put on women participation in evaluation panels (target 40%) and on the Gender Action Plan in IPs and NoEs.

The progress towards gender equality in the Sixth Framework Programme will be monitored in a continuous way by the launch of a new study in 2003/2004

2004


70

Nr Experts Recommendations Commission Services’ Response Services’ Commitment (if any) Deadline Directorates in cooperation with the unit "Women in Science" and establish a monitoring panel which will target assessment of gender actions in FP6 instruments and monitor the extent to which the issue of equality of opportunity is integrated into the research policy and is reflected in project deliverables and outcomes.

The gender issue will also be included in the midterm review of the New Instruments

2004

FP6 and the new instruments

5 The high degree of autonomy anticipated to be given to the consortia involved in the operation of IPs within FP6 underlines the crucial importance of proposal evaluation and project monitoring respectively and strengthens the need for external expertise in reviewing or refereeing large projects during operation. Large projects, e.g. IPs, NoEs, place additional and exacting demands on responsible Commission staff. The Monitoring Group recommends the creation of internal PO teams to manage and run large projects and further recommends that POs be given the flexibility to build-up appropriate teams of external experts and evaluators with the backgrounds (proven research and industrial experience and the assurance that there are no conflicts of interests) necessary to ensure complementary and multidisciplinary coverage of the various technological implications and ERA-objectives relevant to these enlarged projects.

Thematic networks provided valuable experience in managing big projects. However concerns have been expressed concerning the management of new instruments and notably IP which needs a clear policy objectives and quality management objectives, centered management.

The programme management is setting up such internal teams to monitor the new instruments, and will make use of the Experts' Database in order to seek and achieve appropriate scientific, technological and management levels.

Accelerate team allocation according to Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence projects selected and negotiated during 2002 & 2004 calls.

Continuous


71


6 Appropriate training should be provided for all evaluators to enable them to carry out necessary tasks effectively. The processes for selection and training of External Experts should be strengthened to enable the creation of Evaluation and Review teams consonant with the multidisciplinary expertise requirements needed for new FP6 instruments such as IPs.

Proposal evaluators are briefed and trained.

A compilation of Frequently Asked Questions and lessons learned under Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence management would be beneficial.

Compilation of Frequently Asked Questions and lessons learned under Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence management

Continuous

7 A cross-Framework mechanism should be defined to enable the impacts of the closure of the Measurement and Testing Unit on European standardisation needs to be investigated. An assessment of the situation should be commenced within 1 year to monitor the extent to which measurements and testing specific activities relevant to European standardisation are being integrated within FP6 projects and to identify the need for any corrective measures.

Issues related to European standardisation are an integral part of all the activities of the Sixth Framework Programme.

A contact point for standardisation will be established at a coordinating level in DG Research, possibly supported by an interservice working group covering the different research areas and activities in the Sixth Framework Programme.

Establishment in DG Research of a contact point for standardisation

2003

8 In all future calls for Expressions of Interest, feedback should be given to the proposers, and confidentiality should be respected if requested.

The purpose of the Expressions of Interest in 2002 was twofold: contribute to the preparation of the work programmes and consult the research community on its readiness to using the New Instruments. The 2002 Expressions of Interest (EoI) was not part of an evaluation and selection procedure and therefore individual replies were not foreseen. In addition, the number of EoI in 2002 made it unrealistic to reply individually. More focussed work programmes topics will make replying to EoI related to a genuine evaluation procedure practicable in future exercises.

9 The pre-proposal check designed to provide help to proposers should be maintained for traditional instruments.

For Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPS), Coordination Actions (CAs) and Specific Support Actions (SSAs) this may indeed be practicable.

To be considered. 2003


72


Following experience and evaluation of the first call for TP3 Nanotechnologies and nano-sciences, consideration should be given to extending the 2-step-submission procedure for the new instruments to all thematic areas of FP6.

The first evaluations using this system will be monitored in details by two independent observers.

The experience gained and conclusions drawn will be analysed at Framework Programme level.

Monitoring of the first evaluations using this system

2003

10 A lesson to be learned from FP5 is that candidate proposers require a clearer roadmap to reflect changes and modifications which take place between different calls

Redrafting the work programme and providing clear references to changes and developments is necessary, but the changes from "Growth" under the Fifth Framework Programme to the various thematic priorities in the Sixth Framework Programme would have made such a traceability rather complex.

Under the Sixth Framework Programme, clear references to changes in work programmes will indeed be ensured.

Continuous

Main management issues

11 Proper account has not been given to the practical implementation of Activity Based Management (ABM). Resources appear insufficient and the ongoing changes place additional burdens on staff. Resources must be matched to the demands being made; those tasks which are most important for Programme Officers should be fully identified to ensure that POs are clear in their responsibilities. The Commission should ensure that staff resources necessary to progress ABM are available to each Unit and most importantly that ABM demands do not increase the administrative workloads of POs.

The Directorates are very conscious of not increasing Projects Officers workload. However, the initial change to Activity Based Management requires resources. But once the ABM system will be fully operational, its regular update and revision will increase efficiency, while allowing to manage new priorities.

Discuss with hierarchies a realistic provision for increasing the Directorate staff in support of the administration of Activity Based Management (ABM)

2003-2004

12 The 2002 GMP recommends that the impact of the Reform on the efficiency of the administrative process should be investigated as a matter of priority by the 2004 monitoring panel.

The need to evaluate within 2 years the efficiency of the reformed administrative system is recognised.

Inclusion of this issue in the monitoring 2004.

2004

13 Staff development opportunities should be positively pursued. In particular, staff should be

The new Career Development Review mechanisms puts higher emphasis on


73

Nr Experts Recommendations Commission Services’ Response Services’ Commitment (if any) Deadline encouraged to participate more frequently in outside activities to ensure their continued professional development and maintain their scientific and technical competence.

professional development and competence development. Heavy workload still limits staff's participation in external events.

14 The 2002 GMP takes note of the Commission services' reply to recommendation nr 31 of the 2001 GMP, and recommends that the progress in reducing time to contract should be measured by the 2004 monitoring panel

The need to closely monitor the progress in time to contract is recognised.

Monitoring of time to contract Continuous

15 An appropriate co-ordinating function, such as a Measurements and Testing, Infrastructures Sector within Directorate H, should be established to ensure effective coordination of the many ongoing FP5 MTI projects.

A "Measurements and Testing, Infrastructure" sector has been created within Unit H1 that is responsible for the coordination and the implementation of Measurement and Testing, Infrastructures projects (Fourth & Fifth Framework Programmes) and that will give appropriate visibility to the ongoing activities.

Achieved in summer 2003

Project monitoring

Many project participants remain unaware of the usage and benefits of Technology Implementation Plans (TIPs).

The importance of the TIP is fully recognised. The usage of it is a contractual requirement for all Fifth Framework Programme projects.

16

The use of the TIP seminars has been very limited but should be positively encouraged and pursued more vigorously.

The TIP seminars (very successful in terms of participants' satisfaction) are currently a pilot study (accompanying measure). Directorate G has announced a call for tenders to set these up as a service.

An awareness campaign will be held and should lead to a demand for at least 30 seminars per year

Target to be achieved in 2004

17 A more selective use of indicators appropriate to the project type should be considered. The TIP focuses very much on industrially / commercially exploitable RTD results; some more long term projects might instead be asked to define the technological roadmap of the area and needs for

The detailed reporting requirements within the Sixth Framework Programme projects remain to be defined. The aim will be to seek an optimal balance between amount of work required from participants and the availability of sufficient information needed for evaluation and for

Definition of detailed reporting requirements

2003


74

Nr Experts Recommendations Commission Services’ Response Services’ Commitment (if any) Deadline future work as an alternative to routine completion of TIPs.

dissemination.

Specific Programme and Framework Programme Monitoring Methodology

18 The group supports the 2001 MP recommendations to undertake full-scale monitoring of the programme only every 2 years and a „light“ monitoring in alternate years. For 2003, where the monitoring will coincide with the 5-year assessment, the annual monitoring should be restricted to an assessment of the first use of the new instruments. For the entire FP this should take only one panel, which includes one expert looking specifically at each thematic priority

The Commission shares the concern that the added value of an annual monitoring exercise does not justify the workload involved. Moreover, this form of monitoring duplicates efforts made following the Reform of the Commission services. It is therefore being considered to replace the current form of self-assessment and external annual monitoring by an essentially internal management process, assisted by few external experts. It could be based on a regular follow up of the annual management plan required from all services.

Reconfiguration of the monitoring system

2003

Evaluation and Impact Assessment

19 The monitoring group expresses its concern that (i) it did not receive the expected annual reports

from the contractors responsible for the ongoing evaluation and impact assessment of completed projects, and

(ii) the evidence that extensive delays are occurring in progressing this work.

The bulk of the work, i.e. the evaluation responsible impact assessment of hundreds of completed projects, was done with little delay during the first contract year and reasonably in time during the second contract year (the individual project evaluation reports due in December 2002 were received in December 2002); no delays are expected in the current third contract year. However, the contractor has been unable to deliver the required analysis reports in time, and these are exactly what the monitoring experts were expecting to receive in time for their analysis.

The contractor has been made clearly aware that: ��the contracts would be terminated if the missing analysis reports are not delivered by the time of publishing these responses; ��the contracts will not be extended beyond 12 December 2003 if the analysis reports due by that date are not delivered by that date.

The delayed reports were received in June and July 2003. Next deadline: 12 December 2003

20 The reorganisation of the Directorates facilitates the management of FP6 but has in certain areas

In 2001, all services involved had delays in delivering the files of projects to be evaluated.


75

Nr Experts Recommendations Commission Services’ Response Services’ Commitment (if any) Deadline had an adverse impact on the continued requirement to manage the extensive ongoing FP4 and FP5 activities. For example, the evaluation and impact assessment of completed projects is adversely affected by frequent changes in staff or in tasks allocated to staff (DG TREN) and by the lack of allocation of manpower to archiving (Directorate H). An effective, monitorable cooperation between Directorates must be seen to be in place; effective archiving must be in place and a matrix of responsibilities must be maintained at all times.

Within DG Research, this was already much improved in 2002, and is well in hand in 2003.

The archiving situation in directorate H has had virtually no adverse impact on the delivery of project files.

The Transport programme has delivered a reduced number of files towards the end of the first contract year, and has not delivered any project files in the second (nor in the third) contract year.

In the Energy and Transport DG (“DG TREN”), all matters related to evaluation have been centralised from August 2002 in Unit A1, Budget and Evaluation Cell. In addition to the Five-Year Assessment, also the Impact Assessment is now being dealt with. This attribution of tasks will be kept and probably be enhanced by an increment in the resources and more specific tasks. This will ensure a better follow-up of responses. The transfer of information will be easier through only one contact point and the coordination of activities. The evaluation function is decentralised, this means that the Operational Services will be involved in the evaluation project and provide files of projects to be evaluated.

Directorate Generals now establish annual or multiannual evaluation plans in the context of their Annual Management Plans and publish pre-information notices which foresee i.a. the external evaluation and impact assessments of all activities within the framework of their policies.