23/24 June 2011, Brussels

Christian SAUBLENS

Interregional networks« From exchange of experience to capitalisation and mutual

learning »

1

THE ERDF PARADOX

There is a lot of money in the mainstreamBUT:It isn’t spend as it should beEXCEPT for the INTERREG strand which is oversubscribed as well as the regionaldimension of other EU policies (RoK, EuropeInnova, REGPOT, …) Knowledge of pilot projects is not widely

used or the time to market is very long!

2

WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX?

1. 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 + universitiesAren’t they capable of designing good projects?

3

2. 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?

WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX?

4

GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGYGOVERNANCE AND STRATEGY

Source: EURADA5

• A wrong way to innovate or support innovation in the public sector– Looking backwards– Benchmarking– Adopting buzz conceptsInstead of thinking forwards (lets hope S3 will be part of

the solution)

WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX?

6

• The example of non technology and service innovation: the intentions in ERDF O.P.:o National: 19 countries: 59 O.P.o Multiregional: 4 countries: 13 O.P.o Regional: 171 O.P.

Nearly all of them refer to Technology innovation Clusters Tourism and cultural heritage ICT e-Business (commerce, health, governance, …) Urban/rural regeneration Innovation finance for SMEs Sustainable environment Energy

± 75 O.P. have a clear reference to support non technological innovation (1 out of 3)

WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX?

7

• A lack of methodology to define– Where we are/stand– Where we go– How we go there– What are the killing parameters

WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX?

8

3. Oversized and inbalanced budget between the policies

4. Cumulative effects of the JIMA and silo syndromes

5. Perverse effect of bureaucracy?

6. Introspection of regional stakeholders when it comes to import INTERREG results? Is there a « not invented here » syndrome?

WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX?

9

THE WAY FORWARD

We know about models, benchmarks, successstories and tools but we face difficultiestranslating them into knowledge/tools in a

givenrather static ecosystem Designing a new business model for

INTERREG V in order to absorb and integrate the knowledge in regional policy

10

FROM EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCE TO MUTUAL LEARNING: THE CURRENT INTERREG IV C PLAYFIELD

Mutual learning

11

CURRENT TOOLS VS MUTUAL LEARNING

Current FutureSeminarsWebsitesStudy visits(Good) practice guidesToolkitsBenchmarking studies…

• Staff exchange• Coaching• Training • Foresight exercise• Scenario building• Self-assessment guides• Market/regional

intelligence• Proof of concept• Evaluation indicators• Think tanks

12

… TO JOINT ACTIONS

Mutual learning Joint actions

13

JOINT ACTIVITIESLET’S MOVE FROM CONTAINERS TO CONTENTS

• Transregional cluster cooperation• University/SME cooperation• Market replication• Pre-commercial procurements• Proof of concept and European voucher

schemes• Technology showcase• Soft landing package• Financial showcase• …

14

WHY NOT A SMART INTERREGIONAL COOPERATION COMMUNITY INITIATIVE?

50% of current Interreg IV, i.e. .................................................. € 6,600,000,00050% of current 'Research for SMEs' strand of FP7 ...................... € 668,000,000100% of Regions of Knowledge ...................................................... € 126,000,000100% of Regpot .............................................................................. € 340,000,000Sub-total ...................................................................................... € 7,734,000,000Contribution of Regions and Member States ............................ € 7,734,000,000TOTAL …………………………………………………………………........ ± €

15,500,000,000

In order to implement the move from exchange of experience to capitalisation and mutual learning and joint activities, we can dream of the following scenario, based on merging INTERREG with the regional dimension strands of FP.

15

PROPOSAL 1

The concept

Today’s notion Tomorrow’s definition

Added value Transnationality In search of collective excellence in public policy and implementation tools:

• scanning and modelising• bottom up – down process cfr. smart specialisation

Conditionality

Perception of top-down

Checking the relevance of the tools and assets needed to reach excellence

Subsidiarity I know better than anybody else what is good for my region

The right to go your own way, without claiming that you didn’t receive EU funding

Reshape the notion of EU added value conditionality and subsidiarity appliedto INTERREG

16

A new INTERREG architecture for post 2013

• INTERREG Academy (engine for knowledge transfer)– Repository

• For best practice scans• For Regional Innovation Monitor analysis• For Regional Innovation Scoreboard data• For project results (RoK, Europe Innova, INTERREG, …)• For TAKE IT UP (CIP) reports• For studies

– Learning• Events• Publications• Market place for tools transfer

– Dissemination• INTERREG Laboratory (engine for implementation willingness)

– Coaching– Joint actions (ERA-Net type, vouchers, proof of concept, …)– EGCT for permanent interregional partnerships

PROPOSAL 2

17

IMPLICATIONS

Identify, translate and applyFocus on differentiation + designing the right policy mixes

as opposed to imitationTowards real cooperation and pooling of effortsPromote open networksSupport networking along complementary specialisation

patternsEncourage construction of critical massPromote/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

18

19

INFORMAL PARTICIPATION IN A QUIZ: A POOL OF KNOWLEDGE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NEED

TO CREATE AN INTERREG ACADEMY

Who knows:

1. The name of the INTERREG IVC project that tests pre-commercial procurement as a way to boost innovation in regions?

2. The name of the Europe Innova project testing the concept of crowdfunding?

3. Two practice transfers between partners of the Minieurope project (INTERREG IVC)?

4. The name of the lead partner of the Cradle to Cradle INTERREG IVC project?

5. The name of the region implementing the Campus project (funding for university spin-off) {mainstream + peer review Pro Inno}

20

6. The name of the sole university that has received funding from the EIF to put in place an IPR commercialisation fund?

7. The name of the region which is member of an agrofood RoK project, managing a living lab in that sector.

8. The SME challenge covered by the « vitrine technologique » project put in place by the Province of Quebec (Canada)?

9. The name of the region, perceived as a S3 champion, supporting the technology assistant scheme?

10. The name of the country in which G.E. has tested the « reverse innovation » concept, their alternative to « open innovation »?

21

EURADAAvenue des Arts 12, bte 7 / 1210 Brussels / BELGIUM

Tel. +32 2 218 43 13 / Fax +32 2 218 45 83info@eurada.org

22