Framework Program 7 statistics
The proposed budget for the Framework 7 program for EU research over the period of next Financial Perspective i. e. 2000-2013, by the Commission was 75/8 billion Euros, which included about 4 billion Euros merely for the Euratom-related research. However, this opening bid was rejected by the December European Council and a total of 72 billion Euros was allocated for Framework Program 7, for the main budget heading “Competitiveness”. This budget also included other programmes such as Education.
In its written evidence, the CBI suggested that the final budget for FP7 was likely to fall between 40 billion Euros and 50 billion Euros and reminded that research funding should be prioritized and that by the end of the next Financial Perspective, funding for research should be 75% higher that it is not in 2006. This would amount to 8. 9 billion Euros for the year 2013. However, the Committee welcomes the increase in funding for research and development to around 7.
7 billion Euros per annum under FP7, amounting to just over 54 billion Euros overall, which is a 60% increase on FP6 (House of Lords, 2006, 5, 10). The table below shows the allotment in terms of the various research areas. These areas are expected to be independent but cross-operational. SNO Research Area Funds Allocated (In billion Euros) 1. Health 7. 4 2. Food, Agriculture and Biotechnology 11. 2 3. Nanotechnology 4. 3 4. Energy 2. 6 5. Environment 2. 2 6. Transportation (including Aviation) 5. 3 7. Social and Economic sciences and Humanities 0. 7 8. Security and Space 3. 5 (EU Commission Committee, 2005:4)
Lord Sainsbury in his oral evidence explained that he expected that the final budget for FP7 would be around 48 billion euros, which would be about 7 billion Euros for each of the seven years of the FP7. As compared to this, the FP6 budget was 5 billion Euros per annum in Q3. While earlier, it was assumed that the EU would be able to reach its target of spending 3% of GDP on research and development, Lord Sainsbury considers this as highly unlikely and suggested that within the Commission, it was accepted that 2. 6% was now a more realistic target. He further explained that the UK currently spent about 1.
9% of its GDP on research and development which was low because the ULK was successful in industries such as financials sector that has a very low research and development figure. The budget of FP7 is split between the funding of basic research and the funding of applied Research and Development to be around 15-20% for basic research and 65% of R&D. The balance would be spent under the People and Capacities headings. The ‘People’ heading includes support to training, mobility and careers development through reinforces ‘Marie Curie actions’ to strengthen the human resources for European Research.
The ‘Capacities’ heading includes enhancing research and innovation capacity throughout Europe by developing research infrastructures and by supporting regional research-driven clusters, SMEs, a closer relationship between science and society, and the development of international cooperation (House of Lords, 2006, 10-11). Of the total budget of EUR 53. 2 billion Turkish participants have received about EUR 176 million in the year 2007 and another EUR 179 million in the yea 2008, i. e. a total fund of EUR 355 million till the framework Programme 7 has been introduced.
The total number of Turkish participants that have been funded is 216. The figure is not a complete one as it is based on the funds that have been received by the participants through a total of 30 evaluated calls, as there are 19 calls thin addition to this, the share of private sector among the successful projects has also increased to 25 % during this period as opposed ot the EU target of 15% for successful Framework Programme 7 projects, which is an extremely encouraging sign (EU FP7, 2008:1). Turkey and EU relations
The relations between Turkey and EU date back to 12th September 1963, when the Ankara agreement creating an association was signed with the European Economic Community. The agreement covered three phases: a five year-preparation period, a transition period (two separate periods of 12 and 22 years as of 1973) and a final period. A Customs Union was planned to be completed by the end of the transition period. EU-Turkey relations gained a new dimension in 1993, when the Customs Union negotiations started.
After to years of negotiations, the Association Council declared by Decision no I/95 that the Customs Union between Turkey and the EU should take effect as of 1st January 1996 (Thomas, Augustyn, 2007:205). Following the second regular report by the European Commission on Turkey in October 1999, which recommended that Turkey should be provided with prospective membership; Turkey was given the status of a candidate country for EU membership at the Helsinki Summit that took place during 10-11 December 1999.
Consequently, the Accession Partnership document APD, which integrated the priority areas under a single framework together with the financial support and the implementation condition, was officially adopted by the EU Council on 8th March 2001. In the light of the APD, the Turkish government adopted the National Programme for the Adoption of Acquis APAA on 19th March 2001 that was soon revised in 2003 raking the latest developments into consideration. All the issues addressed in the APD as well as in the NPAA have been inserted in the NDPs of Turkey.
Indeed, the harmonization process of Turkish legislation with EU acquis has been carried out since 1988 under the coordination of the SPO following the membership application by Turkey in 1987, apart from the Ankara agreement (Thomas, Augustyn, 2007:205). However, the European Commission has rejected the application in 1989 on the grounds that the Turkish economy was not sufficiently developed, Turkish democracy failed to adequately guarantee political and civil rights, unemployment in Turkey would pose a threat to the EU markets, and the dispute with Greece with Cyprus remained unresolved.
Recognizing their common political, economic and security interests, however, the EU and Turkey reached the Customs agreement mentioned above, granting the Turks closer economic ties with the EU than any other non-member country at the time with the exception of Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland and opened the Turkish market of 65 million customers to EU companies (Hurd, 2007:86).
The candidature of Turkey was yet again denied in the Luxembourg in 1997, which led to the relations being cooled and Turkey announcing that they would no longer consider EU as a third party mediator in Greek-Turkish affairs and in the Cyprus controversy, vetoing the European allies’ European Security and Defense Initiative plans on agenda setting in NATO, and opting not to purchase military hardware from EU states.
The relations however thawed in December 1999, precipitated by the Greek-Turkish cooperation following the Turkish earthquake that year, the European Council met in Helsinki and reversed course, inviting Turkey to join candidates for membership fron Cenral and Eastern European countries, with the assumption that Turkey would be admitted to EU of it met the same criteria as other candidates.
This landmark decision resulted from a compromise in which the EU agreed to lift the Greek veto, and in return Turkey agreed to adapt to the acquis communautaire and work cooperatively to solve disputes with the Greece. The EU agreed to review Turkish progress by the end of 2004. Although EU did not name Turkey as a part of the official strategy of expansion until 2010, at the Nice summit in December 2000, in Febuary 2001 the European Council did declare an Accession Partnership, mentioned above, with Turkey.
In response, the Turkish government prepared its national program for the adoption of the EU membership in March that year. The relations soured yet again in Copenhagen in 2002, when the European Commission refused to set up a timetable for starting membership accession talks, outlining instead the political and economic conditions that Ankara would have to satisfy before talks would begin (Hurd, 2007:87). In reflection of Turkish progress towards satisfying the Copenhagen criteria, however in December 2004, the EU extended a conditional start date of October 2005 for the talks.
At the Brussels summit that occurred during 16-17 December 2004, the European Council decided to open accession talks with Tuurkey as of October 2005, which formed another step forward in the integration process of Turkey with the EU. For Turkey, the membership process entails the adoption of the acquis communautaire, harmonization of policies and raising the quality of standard to the European norms (Thomas, Augustyn, 2007:205). On October 2005, Turkey officially opened negotiations with the EU on the thirty-one chapters of the acquis.
To accede to the EU, Turkey will have to be deemed in compliance with the Copenhagen criteria, adopted at the EU summit in Denmark in June 1993, which stipulate that member countries must be stable democracies, respect human rights, the rule of law, and the protection of minorities; have a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with the competitive forces within the Union; and adopt the common rules, standards, and policies that make up the body of the EU law.
Negotiations are expected to take at least a decade to complete; for budgetary reasons, 2014 is the earliest date that Turkey could join the EU, and some analysts suggest that it could be as late as 2020 (Hurd, 2007:87).Sample Essay of Eduzaurus.com