Regions for Economic Change Conference - Unlocking Regional Potential through Innovation and Cooperation

1. REGIONSFOR ECONOMIC CHANGEExchanging good practice betweenEurope’sregions 23/24 June 2011, Brussels Christian SAUBLENS Interregional networks « From exchange of experience to capitalisation and mutuallearning »

2. THE ERDF PARADOX There is a lot of money in the mainstream BUT: It isn’t spend as it should be EXCEPT for the INTERREG strand which is oversubscribed as well as the regional dimension of other EU policies (RoK, Europe Innova, REGPOT, …)  Knowledge of pilot projects is not widely used or the time to market is very long!

3. WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX? • A lack of good projects or capability? It’s unbelievable as there are in the EU: • 400 + RDAs/RIAs • 200 + science parks • 500 + incubators • 2000 + chambers of commerce • 850 + universities Aren’t they capable of designing good projects?

4. WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX? • A problem of governance? • An assymetry between policy, politics and practice • A regional vision not based on a real documented strategy or asset evidence? • Regional (over)expectations/ambitions about local capabilities?  Will Smart Specialisation Strategies help to better assess the assets and the needs to maximise them?

5. GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGY Source: EURADA

6. WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX? • A wrongway to innovate or support innovation in the public sector • Lookingbackwards • Benchmarking • Adoptingbuzz concepts Instead of thinkingforwards(letshope S3willbe part of the solution)

7. WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX? • The example of non technology and service innovation: the intentions in ERDF O.P.: • National: 19 countries: 59 O.P. • Multiregional: 4 countries: 13 O.P. • Regional: 171 O.P. • Nearly all of themrefer to • Technology innovation • Clusters • Tourism and cultural heritage • ICT • e-Business (commerce, health, governance, …) • Urban/rural regeneration • Innovation finance for SMEs • Sustainableenvironment • Energy • ± 75 O.P. have a clearreference to support non technological innovation (1 out of 3)

8. WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX? • A lack of methodology to define • Wherewe are/stand • Wherewe go • How we go there • What are the killingparameters

9. WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX? • Oversized and inbalanced budget between the policies • Cumulative effects of the JIMA and silo syndromes • Perverse effect of bureaucracy? • Introspection of regional stakeholders when it comes to import INTERREG results? Is there a « not invented here » syndrome?

10. THE WAY FORWARD We know about models, benchmarks, success stories and tools but we face difficulties translating them into knowledge/tools in a given rather static ecosystem  Designing a new business model for INTERREG V in order to absorb and integrate the knowledge in regional policy

11. FROM EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCE TO MUTUAL LEARNING: THE CURRENT INTERREG IV C PLAYFIELD Mutual learning

12. CURRENT TOOLS VS MUTUAL LEARNING Current Future • Seminars • Websites • Study visits • (Good) practice guides • Toolkits • Benchmarking studies • … • Staff exchange • Coaching • Training • Foresightexercise • Scenario building • Self-assessment guides • Market/regional intelligence • Proof of concept • Evaluation indicators • Think tanks

13. … TO JOINT ACTIONS Mutual learning Joint actions

14. JOINT ACTIVITIESLET’S MOVE FROM CONTAINERS TO CONTENTS • Transregional cluster cooperation • University/SME cooperation • Marketreplication • Pre-commercial procurements • Proof of concept and European voucher schemes • Technology showcase • Soft landing package • Financial showcase • …

15. WHY NOT A SMART INTERREGIONAL COOPERATION COMMUNITY INITIATIVE? 50% of current Interreg IV, i.e. .................................................. € 6,600,000,000 50% of current 'Research for SMEs' strand of FP7 ...................... € 668,000,000 100% of Regions of Knowledge ...................................................... € 126,000,000 100% of Regpot .............................................................................. € 340,000,000 Sub-total ...................................................................................... € 7,734,000,000 Contribution of Regions and Member States ............................ € 7,734,000,000 TOTAL …………………………………………………………………........ ± € 15,500,000,000 In order to implement the move from exchange of experience to capitalisation and mutuallearning and joint activities, wecandream of the following scenario, based on merging INTERREG with the regional dimension strands of FP.

16. PROPOSAL 1 Reshape the notion of EU added value conditionality and subsidiarity applied to INTERREG

17. PROPOSAL 2 A new INTERREG architecture for post 2013 • INTERREG Academy (engine for knowledgetransfer) • Repository • For best practice scans • For Regional Innovation Monitor analysis • For Regional Innovation Scoreboard data • For projectresults (RoK, Europe Innova, INTERREG, …) • For TAKE IT UP (CIP) reports • For studies • Learning • Events • Publications • Market place for toolstransfer • Dissemination • INTERREG Laboratory (engine for implementationwillingness) • Coaching • Joint actions (ERA-Net type, vouchers, proof of concept, …) • EGCT for permanent interregionalpartnerships

18. IMPLICATIONS • Identify, translate and apply • Focus on differentiation + designing the right policy mixes as opposed to imitation • Towards real cooperation and pooling of efforts • Promote open networks • Support networking along complementary specialisation patterns • Encourage construction of critical mass • Promote/build platforms for co-investment (e.g. VC) and joint trans-border innovation schemes (e.g. joint voucher schemes, market intelligence and internationalisation, public procurement, etc.) • Encourage joint interregional actions

19. Food for thought

20. INFORMAL PARTICIPATION IN A QUIZ: A POOL OF KNOWLEDGE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NEED TO CREATE AN INTERREG ACADEMY Who knows: The name of the INTERREG IVC projectthat tests pre-commercial procurement as a way to boost innovation in regions? The name of the Europe Innova projecttesting the concept of crowdfunding? Two practice transfersbetweenpartners of the Minieuropeproject (INTERREG IVC)? The name of the leadpartner of the Cradle to Cradle INTERREG IVC project? The name of the regionimplementing the Campus project (funding for university spin-off) {mainstream + peerreview Pro Inno}

21. The name of the sole universitythat has receivedfundingfrom the EIF to put in place an IPR commercialisation fund? The name of the regionwhichismember of an agrofoodRoKproject, managing a living lab in thatsector. The SME challenge covered by the « vitrine technologique » project put in place by the Province of Quebec (Canada)? The name of the region, perceived as a S3 champion, supporting the technology assistant scheme? The name of the country in which G.E. has tested the « reverse innovation » concept, their alternative to « open innovation »?

22. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!Questions? Comments? Disagreements? EURADA Avenue des Arts 12, bte 7 / 1210 Brussels / BELGIUM Tel. +32 2 218 43 13 / Fax +32 2 218 45 83 info@eurada.org