Trans-national cooperation of NCPs Regional 1 THE FUTURE OF REGIONS OF KNOWLEDGE Małgorzata Snarska-Świderska Member of PC Regions of Knowledge, Research

Trans-national cooperation of NCPs Regional

1

THE FUTURE OF REGIONS OF KNOWLEDGE

Małgorzata Snarska-Świderska

Member of PC Regions of Knowledge,

Research Potential and CDRP

2nd Regional NCP Forum

Copenhagen, 25th of October 2012


2

Structure of the presentation:

• Final Report – Assesment of the impact of the „Regions of Knowledge” programme

• Final Report of the Synergies Expert Group

• The Future of the Regions of Knowledge


3

Main objectives of the RoK :

• Foster regional growth and competitiveness;• Enhance regional investment in research and

innovation and the ability to mobilize all types of funding therefore, including potential synergies with SF, CIP and any other source of funding;

• Facilitate transnational cooperation of clusters and emergence of European networks on the global stage;

• Reach inclusion of more regions into ERA


4

Main conclusions according to the programme objectives (i) :

• Programme development - A ‘steering’ of the programme towards a focus on excellence and existing research-driven clusters rather than including more regions in the ERA;

• Programme management - A cost-effective programme with broadly appreciated and flexible management at Commission, but which would gain from a better definition of objectives;

• Regional growth and competitiveness - A targeted programme playing a non negligible role in the smart specialisation of regions;

• Transnational cooperation and emergence of clusters on the global stage - Balanced partnerships in terms of ‘triple helix’ and newly established regional linkages


5

Main conclusions according to the programme objectives (ii) :

• Regional investment in research and innovation and the ability to mobilise all types of funding - Sustainability of the results remains unsure and focus on FP rather than national/regional funds for JAP implementation;

• Inclusion of regions in the European Research Area - RoK’s ‘reach’ limited to a core group of large countries and main regional ‘nodes’ in (preexisting) networks;

• Synergies with other programmes - RoK serves a distinct group of ‘clients’ with respect to other EU transnational cluster initiatives


6

Flow of the analysis


7

Inception phase:

• Understand of logic programme;

• Refine methodology;

• Initial programme level analysis.


8

Analysis at project level:

• Understand project coverage and focus;

• Assess effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of projects funded;

• Analyse collaborations


9

Relevance of the RoK programme

Main types of activities funded in the RoK programme are:

•Analysis: studies and foreward-looking axercises to identify strenghts and weaknesses and prepare roadmamps for the future;

•Mentoring: partnerships between technologically advanced and less advanced regions to identify best practises that can lead to cluster development;

•Integration: trans-regional partnerships of clusters defining strategies and joint action plan (JAP) to maximize RTDI investment at regional level and deliver economic competitiveness.


10

Relevance of the RoK programme

The evidence collected during the study, testifies that the RoK scheme responded to a need in the European regions.

Project coordinators stressed:

•the high level of strategic importance of the RoK projects, both for their own as their partner organisations and regions; •the alignment of the RoK programme with the regional strategies for an improvement internationalisation of the RDC;•the importance of the combination of support for regional innovation, international interaction and involvement of the triple-helix components.


11

Survey results

Source: Assessment of the impact of the Regions of Knowledge programme, N.Bruno, B.Mahieu, M.Lacave, G,Kose


12

Strategic objectives of the RoK projects

• The development of a research-driven cluster, at regional and/or European level (21% EC Contribution);

• The enhancement of the R&D capabilities within the existing RDC (47% EC Contribution);

• The development of methodologies, tools, activities for an improved bridging of research and innovation, to the benefit of existing RDC (13% EC Contribution);

• The strengthening of the contribution of the existing RDC to innovation through specific awareness-raising actions and the fostering of research-industry collaboration activities, at regional or cross-regional level (19% EC Contribution);

http://www.uvsc.edu/email/images/email-at1.gif


13

Analysis at programme level:

• Analyse programme performance;

• Analyse synergies, complementaries, gaps and overlaps with comparators programmes;

• Identify facilitators and barriers


14

Relevance of the RoK programmeThe policy context:•Innovation and knowledge are key priorities in the European policy agenda since 2000.

•The response to the challenge of increasing the focus on innovation was reflected in the development of a mix of financial instruments, such as CIP, FP7, SF and a number of other initiatives.

•Synergies between the instruments for the Community research innovation and cohesion policies.

Support to clusters was considered one of the key instruments of innovation support policies at EU level as well as in a number of EU/EEA countries


15

Coherence of the RoK with the FP7 objectives

The coherence of the RoK programme objectives and activities with the overall FP7 objectives is illustrated in its pronounced objective of enhancing R&D performance in the regions through a fostering of transnational collaboration among RDCs, its predominant focus on a “deepening” and strengthening of participation in the European Research Area, and the identification of themes for the calls covering European policy objectives (such as the sustainable use of natural resources) or S&T fields that constitute a core focus for research in FP7.

http://www.uvsc.edu/email/images/email-at1.gif


16

Programmes RoK INTERREG IVC CIP (mainlyEurope Innova –PRO INNO)

French NationalProgramme “Pôlesde compétitivité”

Major policy objectives

• TransnationalcooperationBetween RDC• Strengtheninglinks between actors (Triple Helix);• Mentoring;• Improving participation to the ERA

• Territorial economic development;• Interregional cooperation and excgange of experience (including mentoring)• improving regional and local authorities

• Networking between innovative clusters;• Developing business support services for clusters;• Public policies supporting innovative clusters (PRO INNO)• Innovation support services to SMEs (Enterprise Europe Network)

• Internationalisation (going on the global market)• Cooperation with foreign clusters

Targeted public Triple Helix Actors Regional and local authorities

Europe Innova: Innovation agencies and professionalsPRO INNO: public authorities and agenciesEnterprise Europe Network: SMEs

Organisation based on the Triple Helix model

Policy objectives of the programmes


17

Cross-cutting objectives of projects across the programmes


18

Critical factors for an efficient implementation of RoK project

• A careful selection of partners for the project consortium;

• Realistically designed (considering different regional contexts) and well-respected time schedules;

• Planning and budgeting of intense communication procedures from the beginning of the project;

• Commitment of policy-makers at all levels (national and regional) during the project design stage;

• Active involvement of regional (and/or national) authorities;

• Well-designed budget ensuring active involvement of all partners and a high number of stakeholders;

• A responsive project officer in the EC who covers the project until the end


19

Conclusions and recommendations:

• Synthetise findings from various analyses;

• Assess effectiveness, efficiency and added-value of the programme;

• Identify areas for improvement;

• Formulate recommendations


20

Recommendations within 2007-2013:It is recommended:

• That the continuity in the fundamental focus of the programme should now be ensured at least until 2013 in order to ensure its readability and coherence, but also its monitoring;

• that mentoring does not remain mandatory in the programme, precisely because borders between mutual learning and mentoring are often blurred;

• for the EC to connect the Joint Action Plans, e.g. study the JAP jointly when exploring ideas for the forthcoming EU policies in the field. This includes fostering convergence with other EU programmes and policies for macroregional development

• To improve inter-project learning;• To ensure the early involvement of the major representatives of the

different multi-governance levels (all regional stakeholders, EU officers);


21

Recommendations within 2007-2013:It is recommended:

• to request the applicants to design and include in the DoW clear objectives to be met (as SMART as possible), in particular a clear definition of the problems/issues/bottlenecks to be addressed in the course of the project.

• that the EC programme management processes are streamlined and procedures are improved for increased efficiency including (but not limited to) negotiations, contract & DoW amendments.

• project guidelines are reviewed and improved in order to avoid interpretation differences between different EC Project Officers.

• One might also consider funding pilot actions once the JAP is completed (which now happens at projects’ mid-term).


22

SEG Report – Working methods

• 6 meetings,

• Docement analysis;

• Presentations and discussions with:- Commission services (DG RTD, DG REGIO, DG ENTER, DG EAC);- ESFRI, EIB;

• Group disscusion,

• Substantive written comments and inputs,

• Drafting of the reports with several feedback loops;

• Final reports 1st June 2011


23

Approach taken

• Following the ‘innovation systems’ approach

• Considering the ‘location-based dimension’ of innovation

• Orienting the different rationalities of the programmes regarding objectives, target groups and instruments towards the EU common objectives


24

Synergies

• The SEG defines ‘synergies’ as the alignment of and cooperation between policy frameworks, programmes and actions allowing more and better attainment of their objectives.

• ‘Synergies’ concern the effects produced by separate programmes that are indeed different but may produce coordinated effects by intensive interaction. This does not mean that the distinct programmes have to merge, become similar or ‘dominate’ (or duplicate) each other. They can continue to be different but at the same time they should aim to jointly contribute to converging objectives.


25

Main issues• The fragmentation of innovation policies at EU level

• The sub-optimal coordination at European, national and regional level, both within and between these levels

• A lack of common strategies in accordance with the orientations of Europe 2020

• A lack of a coherent and interacting governance structures

• Weak complementarities and compatibilities as well as interoperability of policies and programmes

• A lack of instruments for pooling of European and national funds

• Poor communication, coordination and cooperation between actors and stakeholders at all levels.


26

Policy contexts

• Current Programmes developed under Lisbon strategy (2000 and 2005)

– Previous contributions on ‘Synergies’ from ITRE, EURAB, ERAB, CREST, ERAC, REGI, ESFRI

• New policy context

– Europe 2020

• Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth– Innovation Union

• Key role of research and innovation– EU Budget Review

• Common Strategic Frameworks


27

Current programming period (i)Recommendations

• Test possibilities of the interoperability of programmes and instruments

• When strengthening innovation consider possible impacts on the formation of European project partnerships and clarify limitations defined by EU Competition Rules and WTO Rules

• Explore the potential of ‘new financial instruments’ and wider use of EIB for funding of innovation activities. Improve the access to finance for innovative SMEs and promote the use of Risk Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) funds for public research and technology transfer initiatives

• Fine-tune IPR rules for activities closer to the market considering the requirements of universities and research organisations

• Promote using Marie-Curie fellowships, the Life-long Learning programme and also the European Social Fund (ESF) to become more innovation-oriented


28

Current programming period (ii) Recommendations

• Strengthen linkages between CIP and other programmes and learn from the experiences in the ICT area

• Monitor the development of EIT KICs and test their possible catalytic function for translating FP7 and other research results into innovation

• ‘Seal of excellence’: Consider positively evaluated FP7 projects that are not funded because of budgetary limitations for funding from Structural Funds

• Exploit Structural Funds for innovative public procurement and demonstration

• Improve communication and cooperation between different bodies for advice, implementation, monitoring as well as information and assistance (NCPs, EEN)

• Follow the example of FP7 and simplify also procedures of Structural Funds


29

Next programming period (i) Basic assumption on future synergies

Two Common Strategic Frameworks

that are different but will produce coordinated effects by intensive interaction while aiming jointly to contribute to the objectives

of Europe 2020 and the Innovation Union:

• Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation (CSFRI)

• Common Strategic Framework for Cohesion Policy (CSFCP)


30

Next programming period (ii) R&D excellence & Cohesion Policy

EU R&D Policy – HORIZON 2020 EU Cohesion Policy


31

Proposed budget 2014-2020


32


33

Next programming period (iii) Principles 1

• Interoperability of the two Frameworks, improved communication

• Excellence as a general principle of orientation of all future schemes related to research and innovation. Also future actions in the CSFRI supporting innovation in the regions should privilege excellence as their primary selection criterion

• Making a reality of the knowledge triangle between education, research and innovation and promoting the Triple Helix of government authorities, industry and research institutions in order to provide favourable frameworks and eco-systems for innovation at EU, national and regional level

• Smart specialisation: regions developing their specific strengths

• International peer review

– For competitive project selection in CSFRI– In CSFCP: where appropriate, e.g. for assessing regional research and

innovation strategies, evaluation of Research Infrastructures and Regional Partner Facilities, major initiatives for human resource development for research


34

Next programming period (iv) Principles 2

• Simplification

• Interoperability of the two frameworks in the areas of research and innovation:

– Designing compatible rules & procedures, coherent application formats and evaluation criteria; synchronised roadmaps and administrative cycles

– CSFCP accepting ‘Seal of excellence’ for positively evaluated CSFRI projects– Allowing projects to be funded from different sources - CSFRI, CSFCP, others– Offering optimal access through common entry points

• Improve communication, coordination and cooperation between committees and advisory bodies; meetings between different committees (such as ERAC and COCOF)


35

Next programming period (vi) Key recommendations

• European Research Infrastructures and Regional Partner Facilities are key support structures for the European Research Area

– At EU level, CSFRI should support the general policy development, feasibility studies and the networking between and the open access to RIs and will also support the operations based on peer review

– At regional level, CSFCP (and Member States and regions) may put construction and upgrade of Research Infrastructures and of Regional Partner Facilities on the agenda of regional research and innovation strategies

• Strengthen RSFF and offer new financial instruments for technology transfer and innovation activities


36

Next programming period (vii) Key recommendations

• Align National Reform Programmes and the Development and Investment Partnership Contracts with objectives of Europe 2020 and Innovation Union

• Consider establishing a ‘performance reserve’ for awarding excellent performance of regions implementing their research and innovation strategies

• CSFCP to support capacity building offering ‘staircases to excellence’

• Focus CSFCP on clusters as favourable eco-systems for innovation; foster streamlining of EU cluster schemes

• Use CSFCP for the modernisation of universities and research organisations – infrastructure, equipment, human resource development

• Support KIC co-location centers in convergence regions


37

Next programming period (viii) Key recommendations

• Launch a unified EU technology licensing process enhancing the commercialization of RTD results from universities, non-profit organizations and SMEs across EU Member States

• Develop further and simplify public procurement including pre-commercial procurement

• Utilize the possibility of greater transnational cooperation and cross-border investment e.g. for strengthening global value chains, developing networks within macro-regions and accessing new markets or key technologies

• Allow the use of CSFCP funding in other Member States (regions) to develop, in those regions, specific industrial and technology transfer capabilities from which multiple regions can benefit


38

Regions of Knowledge

• Preferably anchor RoK in the Territorial Cooperation part of CSFCP

– Support especially research driven clusters strengthening regional research and innovation excellence

– Consider widening the focus of RoK to the networking of clusters– Fully integrate the RoK scheme in the Operational Programmes considering

smart specialisation strategies

• Integrate the REGPOT scheme as inclusive capacity building scheme into CFSCP

– Offer a centralised management approach for voluntary participation based on a common pot in order to keep EU wide competition

– Build on the evaluation experience of DG RTD– Ensure a substantially increased budget; maintain 100% funding and explore

possibilities to diversify funding sources


39

Recommendations for the post 2013 (Raport Technopolis):

• The question of having a single programme with different pillars supporting the conception, setting up, strengthening of networks of interregional innovative or research-driven clusters remains open.

• A value chain approach to transnational cluster initiatives, not aiming/trying to fully integrate them but supporting their collaboration on particularly relevant topics/issues for future EU competitiveness is recommended.


40

Recommendations for the post 2013:(Raport Technopolis)

• I Pillar - Cluster emergence/development at regional/national level should be supported regionally /nationally (SF) whereas good practices could be exchanged at EU level;

• II Pillar of the programme could be used for the definition of a common strategy for a specific sector (e.g lead markets) based on the involvement of the triple helix in all participating regions.

• III Pillar of the programme could be used for the implementation of the common research actions identified in the JAP, funded through the Framework programme, if the projects reach the quality criteria.


41

Final remarks for the next programming period (1):

• The next programming period 2014-2020 will be a decisive phase for promoting EU research and innovation activities in a new global context;

• Close coordination and cooperation of the 2 Common Strategic Frameworks CSFRI (HORIZON 2020) and CSFCP oriented towards the objectives of the Europe 2020 and Flagship Initiatives – Innovation Union will contribute to:

- Reinforcing excellence,- Coping with Grand Challenges, and- Promoting European competitiveness.

• CSFRI and CSFCP working together in complementary ways will present and important European advantage.


42

Final remarks for the next programming period (1):

HORIZON 2020 – broader access:

• For SMEs – dedicated SME projects to address societal challenges and enabling technologies;

• For all regions – tailored support to policy learning, twinning, networking, complementing Structural Funds;

• For international partners – broad access to HORIZO 2020 („mainstreaming”), strategic initiatives where there is mutual benefit;

• For all forms of innovation – social innovation, services, pilots, stimulating demand through public procurement, standard setting

Synergies with Cohesion Policy Funds:

• Linking emerging institustions, CoE and innovative regions in less developed MS to international leading counterparts elsewhere in Europe:- teaming of excellent research institutions and less developed regions- building links with innovative clusters;

• establishing „ERA Chairs”

• Supporting access to international networks

• Supporting the development and monitoring of smart specialisation strategies


43

Thank you

for your attention!

[email protected]

Documents

Trans-national cooperation of NCPs Regional 1 THE FUTURE OF REGIONS OF KNOWLEDGE Małgorzata Snarska-Świderska Member of PC Regions of Knowledge, Research