Week of Innovative Regions in Europe: Ta K I N G S To C K A N D Mov I N G Fo Rwa R D

2010
Week of Innovative Regions in Europe
T A K I N G S T O C K A N D M O V I N G F O R W A R D
WIRE
2010
EDITORS:
Rodríguez Clemente, Rafael
Martínez Riera, Carlos
Castrillo Cancela, Rocío
AUTHORS (ALPHABETICAL ORDER):

Aguinaga, Jean-François
Altmann, Christian
Anton, Anton
Artelsmair, Georg
Bialek-Wyrzykowska, Urzula
Brunet, Olivier
Castrillo Cancela, Rocío
Edlund, Sven Gunnar
Fatorusso, Ernesto
Gavira, Manuel
Gilbert Declerck
Godin, Pierre
Goenaga, Xabier
Goicolea, Juan Ignacio
Horvat, Manfred
Izsak, Kincso
Johansson, Kent
Kayamanidou, Maria
Landabaso, Mikel
Malo, Jean-David
Martínez Riera, Carlos
Mayr, Alexandra
Mougeot, Estelle
Petrin, Tea
Portugués Carrillo, Carlos
Reppel, Katja
Rodríguez Clemente, Rafael
Saublens, Christian
Schuch, Klaus
Siemaszko, Andrzej
Soete, Luc
Tzenou, Georgia
Valverde, Antonio
Van Nistelrooij, Lambert
Vanrie, Philippe
Weiers, Stefan
DESIGN, LAYOUT AND PRINTING

Madridcolor I.D., S.L.
NIPO
470-10-019-8
LEGAL DEPOSIT
M-50185-2010
0
C O N T E N T
Contents
IRE
4
W e e k o f I n n o v a t i v e R e g i o n s i n E u r o p e 2 0 1 0
0 . C O N T E N T
Foreword 9
Executive summary 13
1. Introduction 15
2. The policy context of WIRE 21
The basic concepts 23
The synergies of policies and how to get there 25
The governance issue 26
Raison d être of a regional innovation and research policy:
assets and drawbacks 26
3. Report on the conference Regions of Knowledge 29
3.1 Introduction ‒ O. Brunet 31
3.2 Round Table 2: Lessons learnt for REGIONs programme and
possible ways forward ‒ P. Godin 33
3.3 Round Table 3: Clusters: a policy or a tool for a policy?
K. Izsak 35
3.4 General report of the day ‒ E. Mougeot 39
4. Report on the conference Research Potential 41
4.1 Introduction ‒ M. Kayamanidou 43
4.2 Round Table 4: Lessons learnt for REGPOT programme and
possible ways forward ‒ G. Tzenou 46
4.3 Round Table 5: A regional policy for the Outermost regions?
S. Weiers 48
4.4 General report of the day ‒ M. Horvat 54
5. Report on the conference Regional dimension of innovation:
its instruments, governance and impact 57
5.1 Introduction 59
5.2 Round Table 1. Synergies of action: are they possible?
M. Gavira 60
5.3 Round Table 6: Academia-Industry relationship: Intellectual
Property Rights and Technology Transfer ‒ A. Valverde 64
5.4 Round Table 7: Governance. Coherence at regional,
national and European level ‒ K. Reppel 68
5.5 Round Table 8: Instruments: What are they and how can they
work in combination? How regions promote the use of different
instruments and their interactions 73
5
Contents
5.6 Round Table 9: Evaluation and impact. Conditions to

improve/increase the RTD support to regional economic
development. Future of the Cohesion Policy 75
6. Key messages from WIRE 77
7. Political impact and media impact of WIRE 83
7.1 Political impact: mention in decision-making fora 85
7.2 Media analysis 89
8. Reflections from WIRE. Moving from synergies of policies to synergies of

actions: a conceptual frame for Innovation and Research Policies 91
8.1 A conceptual framework of innovation 93
8.2 Innovation in the regional context 95
8.3 Multidimensional coordination issues 97
8.4 Synergies of action: are they possible? 98
8.5 At a glance: Six points for synergies searching 103
8.6 Ways forward: the future debate 104
List of acronyms 107
Annex I. Organization of WIRE: content and format 109
I.1 WIRE full agenda: speeches and Round Tables 111
I.2 Analysis of participation 124
I.3 Exhibition of stands 125
I.4 Exhibition of posters 126
Annex II. Selected contributions of speakers 129
Keynote speeches 131

IRE
Van Nistelrooij, L. The future of Cohesion Policy 131
Soete, L. The Role of Research and Innovation for the

Knowledge-based Economy 134
Round Table 1 135
Perglova, T. Synergies of action: are they possible?

View of main actors 135
Round Table 2 138
Gunter, C. Optimally positioning Creative Industries clusters

in the wider economic and political context 138
Altmann, C. The REGIONs programme, the Clusterplast experience 142
6
CONTENT
CONTENT
Round Table 3 145
Petrin, T. Clusters: a policy or a tool for a policy? 145
Edlund, S.G. How to build up European level strengths and

critical mass trough international cluster cooperation? 147
Round Table 4 149
Weiers, S. The Research Potential Programme (REGPOT):

lessons learned and possible ways forward 149
Fatorusso, E. The NatPharma Project. Reinforcement of research

potential for the realization of a complete drug development
scheme from natural compounds (REGPOT-2008-1) 153
Bialek-Wyrzykowska, U. REGPOT Programme Case study:

The HEALTH-PROT Project. Proteins in Health and Disease:
HEALTH-PROT, 2009-2012. 156
Anton, A. The REGPOT Programme 158
Round Table 5 160
Portugués Carrillo, C. The Outermost RegionsĆonference

of Presidents 160
Round Table 6 164
Goicolea, J.I. The experience in the Basque Country (Spain) 164
Artelsmair, G. The European Patent Office. 166
Mayr, A. IPR-Helpdesk and IPeuropAware 167
Saublens, C. Business Development, Intellectual Property

Rights and Technology Transfer University-Industry 175
Round Table 7 182
Goenaga, X. Governance: Coherence at regional, national

and European level 182
Johansson, K. Which perspective has a regional government

in a highly innovative country on the ERA? 185
Declerck, G. Challenges for a successful European Research Area. 188
Round Table 8 191
Aguinaga, J-F. The Enterprise Europe Network 191
Round Table 9 192
Vanrie, P. How to measure the impact of RTD& I to support

to regional economic development 192
Schuch, C. The Future of RTDI Evaluation in Southeast

Europe between emergence and emergency 193
7
Contents
Siemaszko, A. How to measure and how to improve the

impact of RTD and innovation support to regional economic
development 196
Annex III. Assessment of WIRE 199
Annex IV. List of participants who agreed to publish their professional details 213
IRE
8
Montserrat Torné Robert-Jan Smits © European Union, 2010
F O R E W O R D
The term of the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union
has been an intense period in which the Ministry of Science and Innovation
has brought a number of priorities at the forefront of the European
policy agenda. The close partnership, hard common work and fruitful
collaboration of the Spanish Presidency with the European Commission
has made it possible to fully develop all the objectives marked for Science
and Innovation at the beginning of the Presidency.
One of these initiatives resulting from this dynamic partnership was the
celebration of the first Week of Innovative Regions in Europe - WIRE ,
which took place on 15th-17th of March in Granada (Spain). The EU Spanish
Presidency conference, supported by the EU 7th Framework Programme for
research, technological development and demonstration activities (FP7),
brought together almost 500 stakeholders of 35 different countries, most
of them from European Member States and FP7 Associated countries.
WIRE has provided a forum for debate leading to new proposals in the
longstanding quest for solutions to the optimal use of EU instruments, with
an aim to build the knowledge economy in the regions. The conference
has been assessed very positively by participants, as witnessed by the WIRE
satisfaction survey conducted after the conference. It is worth highlighting
that 98% of the respondents have considered that the conference was
Contents
good, very good or excellent (the response rate is 22.5% of the total number
of participants).
At a political level, WIRE had a high impact, and many of its recommendations
have reached the Competitiveness Council through a number of Council
Conclusions (see conclusions 9448/10, 9449/10 and 10246/10).
The present publication compiles the results of the work carried out at the
conference. It aims at taking stock of those valuable outcomes in order to
provide solid basis for further progress. In this respect, we want to express
our sincere appreciation to the chairs, rapporteurs and all the people
who have contributed to the difficult task of distilling the most important
messages stemming from many preparatory meetings, working documents
and lively debates during the intense conference sessions.
WIRE has also been an example of how a renewed partnership between the
European Commission and the Member States, through the Presidency in
turn, yields added value results in the framework of the new Lisbon Treaty.
In this respect, we are pleased to announce that a new WIRE Conference
( WIRE II ) will be organised under the EU Hungarian Presidency, member of
the first Trio under the new Lisbon Treaty, in Debrecen (7-9 June 2011).
For all the above, we are fully confident that WIRE has marked the way ahead
to progress steadily towards an efficient and effective use of EU, national
and regional funds in support of the RTD and Innovation in Europe, a way
that needs to be walked together in true and renewed partnership, in
order to achieve the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth objective of
the EUROPE 2020 Strategy.
Montserrat Torné* - Director General Robert-Jan Smits** - Director General for

for Research and National R&D&I Plan Research, European Commission
Management, Ministry of Science and
Innovation (Spain)
IRE
* Montserrat Torné, former Director General for International Cooperation and Institutional Relations
(since October 2010)
** Robert-Jan Smits, former Director of “European Research Area: research programmes and capacity”,
Directorate General of Research, European Commission (since June 2010)
10
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of

the WIRE Steering Committee to the success of WIRE, which acts as a true
inspiration body for its development.
Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation

Ū Montserrat Torné, President of the Steering Committee, (former) Director
General for International Cooperation and Institutional Relations.
Ū Almudena Agüero (Department of European Programmes, Directorate
General for International Cooperation and Institutional Relations).
Spanish Ministry of Economics and Finance
Ū Jorge Orozco (Sub-director General for the management of the European
Regional Development Fund -ERDF-).
Ū Anatolio Alonso (Deputy Sub-director for the management of the
European Regional Development Fund -ERDF-).
European Commission
Ū Robert J. Smits, Director, DG RTD B, European Research Area: research
programmes and capacity , European Commission.
Ū Jean David Malo, (former) Head of Unit B.4 Regions of Knowledge and
Research Potential , DG RTD.
Ū Lucas Janssen, DG RTD B.4, European Commission.
Ū Mikel Landabaso, Head of Unit DG REGIO D.2, Thematic coordination,
innovation , European Commission.
Ū Pierre Godin, DG REGIO D.2, Thematic coordination, innovation , European
Commission.
Ū Katja Reppel, DG ENTR D.1, Deputy Head of Unit Innovation Policy
Development , European Commission.
Ū Kincso Izsak, DG ENTR D.2, Support for Innovation , European
Commission.
EU Council Presidencies
Ū Christer Christensen, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications,
Sweden.
Ū Pascal Goergen, Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de
lÙnion Europeene.
11
Contents
Spanish Regions
Ū Miguel Angel Aguirre (FP7 Advisor, Directorate General for Research,
Technology and Enterprise, Andalucía s Government).
Ū Carlos Campos (Director of Citandalucía, Directorate General for Research,
Technology and Enterprise, Andalucía s Government).
Ū Alfonso Braojos (Directorate General for European Funds and Planification,
Andalucía s Government).
Ū Andrea Brito (Director of Canarian Agency for Research, Innovation and
Knowledge Society, Canarias Government).
Moreover, we would like to recognize the contribution of the Andalucía

Regional Government, the Granada City Hall, the Health Technological Park
of Granada and the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) for their
sponsorship in different activities of the event.
Finally, our special appreciation go without reservation to the impressive
executive support that was received from Macarena Muñoz, Eva Montenegro
and the logistics services provider Eventos y Comunicación S.L. (Carlota
Escribano and Rosa Monereo).
IRE
12
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
The objective of this publication is to report on the organisation, content,
debates and concrete outcomes of the Week of Innovative Regions in Europe
Conference, which was jointly organized by the Spanish Ministry of Science
and Innovation and the European Commission on 15th-17th of March 2010
in Granada (Spain), regarding the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the
European Union.
A clear indicator of the success of this conference is the decision of the
Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union (first semester
2011) to organise a second edition of WIRE during its term on the first
semester of 2011. In this respect, the present report will be especially relevant
in preparing the WIRE 2 conference in Hungary in June next year.
The event was organised along three days, with one additional day devoted to
side events. WIRE was structure through plenary and parallel sessions, which
included both keynote lectures and round tables. Moreover, the conference
held two extra formats for presentation: exhibition of stands and exhibition of
posters. Apart from the working programme, three different social activities
were organised, in order to facilitate networking among participants.
WIRE brought together about 500 stakeholders from 35 different countries.
Due to the topics covered by the event, most participants came from the
European Union, although there was also a high representation of associated
countries1.
The event focused on how to move from synergies of policies to synergies
of actions for the optimal use of EU instruments, with the objective of making
regions full protagonists in building the knowledge-based society.
The Week of Innovative Regions in Europe was the result of merging three
different conferences:
A. Conference on the efficient and effective use of budget earmarked in the
Structural Funds for RTD and Innovation, including their synergies with
the FP and the CIP.
B. Research Potential conference, which focuses on the assessment of the
results and the identification of best practices of the Research Potential
programme (Capacities ‒ FP7).
C. Regions of Knowledge conference, which deals with the assessment
of the results and the identification of best practices of the Regions of
Knowledge programme (Capacities ‒ FP7).
In this publication, every conference has resulted in a different Chapter
comprising the main topics covered and the conclusions of the different
sessions2. Additionally, many speakers have prepared a summary of their
1 Annex I
2 Chapter 3, 4, 5
Contents
presentation to be included in this document, which also acts as the

Proceedings of the conference3.
Four key messages resulted from WIRE, which, in short, are4:
Ū Continue development towards greater synergies of research, innovation
and regional policies.
Ū Creating favourable conditions for these policies to interoperate via their
instruments.
Ū Fostering the ownership and empowerment of regions to accomplish
their vision of regional sustainable development in the context of the
EU2020 Strategy.
Ū Regions should play a key role in the Governance.
These key messages are consistent with the policy context5 set by the personalities
that attended WIRE, and well in line with the ambitions of the European
Union. The political importance of WIRE can be measured by the high profile
of participants in the opening and the closing session: the Spanish Minister of
Science and Innovation, Cristina Garmendia; the European Commissioner for
Regional Policy Johannes Hahn; the European Commissioner for Research Maire
Geoghegan-Quinn; the Members of the European Parliament Danuta Hübner
(former Commissioner for Regional Policy) and Lambert Van Nistelrooij; the
Minister of the Brussels region, responsible of the Belgian Presidency in the area of
Research (second semester 2010), Benoit Cerexhe; and the Regional Andalusian
Minister for Innovation, Science and Enterprise, Martín Soler, among others.
Three months after the celebration of WIRE, a satisfaction survey was launched
in order to measure the quality of the event regarding several criteria, and
to draw the lessons that can be used for the organization of WIRE 2 during
the Hungarian Presidency. Results showed a very positive opinion of WIRE
on many accounts, in particular with respect to the conference programme,
the variety of speakers, the topics covered by the sessions, networking
opportunities, location and venue, food and beverage and social activities6.
In summary, the overall assessment has been very positive: 70,4% of the
respondents have considered that the conference was very good or excellent
IRE
(two top categories out of five). This percentage increases to 98,3% if we

consider the three top categories: good, very good and excellent.
Finally, the scientific organisers of WIRE (from DG Research, DG Regional
Policy and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation) express their
gratitude to all the local and national authorities and institutions that strongly
supported this event, notably the Andalucía regional Government, the city
of Granada, the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), the Health
Technological Park in Granada, as well as to the personnel of the supporting
logistic companies and the Congress Centre of Granada.
3 Annex II
4 Chapter 6
5 Chapter 2
6 Annex III
14
1
I N T R O D U C T I O N
1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N
The Week of the Innovative Regions in Europe (WIRE) was an event jointly
organized by the Spanish Presidency to the EU (first semester 2010) and the
European Commission, aimed at opening a policy dialogue between the
regional, national and EC stakeholders on improving the effectiveness of the
EU, national and regional Governance, Instruments and Impact Measurement,
to support the implementation of the ERA.
This event was also the occasion of an assessment exercise of the programmes
Regional Potential (REGPOT) and Regions of Knowledge (REGIONS) of the
Capacities Programme of FP7. These programmes focus respectively on
increasing the research potential of research centres of excellence of the
Convergence Regions; and promoting association processes (clusters)
between administrations, research centres, companies and education centres
in all European regions, based on mutual interest and with expectations for an
increase in competitiveness in the regional production system. Moreover, by
analyzing concrete examples, the event explored possible synergies between
the different EU, national, and regional support instruments for the increased
competitiveness of European businesses, based on the use and exploitation
of scientific and technological knowledge.
WIRE was the floor for the debate and new proposals in the searching for
optimal use of EU instruments to build the knowledge economy in the
regions. This overall goal was translated to the following specific objectives:
Ū Looking for policy dialogue between the regional, national and EC
stakeholders on improving the effectiveness of the EU, national and
regional Governance, Instruments and Impact Measurement, to support
the implementation of the ERA.
Ū Identifying possible synergies between the different EU, national, and
regional support instruments for the increased competitiveness of
European businesses, based on the use and exploitation of scientific and
technological knowledge.
Ū Improving and promoting the support to regional scientific structures
and regional competitiveness. Assessment of REGPOT and REGIONS
Programmes.
Ū Stimulating interaction and association processes (clusters) between
administrations, research centres, companies and education centres,
based on mutual interest and with expectations for an increase in
competitiveness in the regional production system.
WIRE counted with the participation of several relevant political personalities
both in the opening and the closing session. In the opening session, we must
highlight the presence of the Spanish Minister of Science and Innovation,
Cristina Garmendia, the European Commissioner for Regional Policy Johannes
Hahn, the European Commissioner for Research Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, the
Members of the Euroepan Parliament Danuta Hübner (former commissioner
for Regional Policy) and Lambert Van Nistelrooij, and the regional Minister for
17
Contents
Science and Innovation of the Andalucía regional Government, Martín Soler.

In the closing session, the Spanish Secretary of State for Research, Felipe
Pétriz, joined the floor with the Minister of the Brussels region, responsible of
the Belgian Presidency in the area of Research (second semester 2010), Benoit
Cerexhe, and the Secretary General for Universities, Research and Technology
of the Andalucía regional Government, Francisco Andrés Triguero.
Opening
The Week of Innovative Regions in Europe was held in Granada, Spain, during
IRE
three days (having an extra day devoted to side events). The conference
was structured mainly around plenary and parallel sessions, which included
keynote speeches and Round Tables for discussion. Moreover, two other
additional formats for the presentation of information were organized:
stands exhibition and posters exhibition. Apart from working sessions, WIRE
organized three different social events, in order to facilitate networking
activities among participants. More information on the organization of WIRE
is presented in Annex I.
Chapter 2 deals with the policy context of the conference. In this chapter,
it is presented a summary of the keynote speeches by the highest political
instances in this area.
Subsequently, Chapter 3, 4 and 5 include the report of the different
sessions made by the rapporteurs of the conference. They have been
18
INTRODUCTION
grouped into three chapters corresponding to the three conferences

taking place under WIRE:
a. the effective and efficient use of the different funding instruments for RTD
and innovation,
b. the assessment of the results and the identification of best practices and
ways of improvement of Regions of Knowledge programme funded by
the EC 7th Framework Programme for Research (FP7), and
c. the assessment of the results and the identification of best practices and
ways of improvement of Research Potential programme funded by the EC
7th Framework Programme for Research (FP7)
Within each chapter, there is a first introduction of the issue, followed by
the report of its Round Tables. The full contributions of the speakers, when
available, are included in Annex II.
Chapter 6 comprises the main messages of the conference that were launched
at the conclusions session, on the last day of WIRE. Furthermore, Chapter 7
analyses the impact of WIRE results in the political communications, on the
one hand, and in the media, on the other.
Opening
19
Contents
Finally, Chapter 8 presents a reflection of the scientific organisers on the

expected outcomes of WIRE based on the terms of reference used for its
preparation and the results obtained. It also includes some possible concrete
actions that could be envisaged in the future to make reality the desired
synergies between policies and instruments at a European-wide scale.
Other annexes include the full contributions of speakers, organised by Round
Tables (Annex II), the assessment of the WIRE conference three months after
its organization (Annex III), and the list of participants who have agreed on
publishing their professional contact information (Annex IV).
Closing
IRE
20
2
T H E P O L I C Y C O N T E X T
O F W I R E
2 . T H E P O L I C Y
C O N T E X T O F W I R E
Based on:
Ū Intervention in WIRE of Spanish Minister Cristina Garmendia (1)
Ū Intervention in WIRE of Belgian Minister Benoît Cerexhe (2)
Ū Intervention in WIRE of Prof. Danuta Hübner, Member of the European
Parliament, Chairwoman of the Committee on Regional Development (3)
Ū Intervention in WIRE of Lambert van Nistelrooij, Member of European
Parliament (4)
Ū Intervention in WIRE of Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn (5)
Ū Intervention in WIRE of Commissioner Hahn (6)
The basic concepts

Europe is confronted to a crisis which is putting under stress many national
economies and showing weaknesses also where they were not expected. As
the Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Danuta Hübner stated, Europe
needs growth and we must put productivity gains on track (3). EU political
leaders belonging to Member States, European Parliament and European
Commission have identified research and innovation, and consequently the
development of the European Research Area (ERA), as a central objective of
the European Union s economic policy over the next 5 to 10 years, underlining
the fact that we can only succeed if there is maximum co-operation between
the EU and the Member States. The old dichotomy between Member States
actions and EU actions must be replaced by co-ordinated and complementary
actions (5). The picture that reflects the current situation can be outlined by
a few observations:
1. Sustained growth can come from advances in knowledge and
innovation.
2. Europe is too small to be able to afford leaving parts of its territory with a
growth deficit. Therefore, all regions and cities must upgrade their human
capital and capitalise on their resources via knowledge and innovation.
3. All regions must enhance the ability and willingness of their enterprises
to innovate and be internationally competitive. This will not occur
unless regions and cities boost their research centres and their academic
institutions.
4. European regional policy must be involved in enhancing innovation, building
links and exploiting synergies with other policies and programmes (3).
As Commissioners Hahn and Geoghegan-Quinn stressed, the promotion
of effective synergies in the use of the EU funding instruments for research
and innovation is at the heart of their agendas, as reflected by the European
23
Contents
Commission s priorities (5,6). In this context, the debate taking place at

European level, as MEP Hübner said, is being focused, among other, on the
following key questions:
Ū how to promote competitiveness and economic growth in Europe after
2010 through the EU2020 Strategy?,
Ū how to shape the future regional policy?,
Ū what should be the Community budget after 2013?.
These questions are interlinked and have to be tackled in a parallel and
synergic way if we want to prepare Europe for the challenges of the next ten
years at least (3).
Therefore, a large, transversal and inclusive vision of research and innovation
is needed. The political instrument is there: the EU 2020 Strategy has to be
streamlined with a global choice for creativity, in the perspective of economic
goals, but also of social and environmental goals (2). There must be a closer
link between the 2020 Strategy and the means devoted to its implementation
in the EU-budget. This also requires a reflection on better synergies between
research budget and structural funds. Structural and cohesion funds can
further support the targets of the 2020 strategy, while at the same time
aiming at providing each region with equal chances to meet the objectives
of the strategy. Putting Research and Innovation at the core of the «EU 2020»
Strategy subsequently implies progressing towards convergence of Research
and Innovation policies. This will be possible through initiatives such as Joint
Programming and through a governance model that effectively promotes
synergies (2). The targeted objective will be to strengthen every link in the
innovation chain: the generation of ideas, its financing and the protection of
intellectual property rights thereof. This includes forms of innovation which
are not directly related to research, such as new business models, designs and
service or social innovation (5).
Focusing regional support on a limited number of priorities in line with the
key drivers of growth outlined in the strategy - smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth - allows cohesion policy to provide the targeted investment needed
to create a competitive, connected and green economy. The EU 2020 Strategy
IRE
emphasises the interdependence between policies, the importance of policy

integration, the need for better synergies and stronger partnership in the
design and delivery of public policies. In order to consolidate knowledge and
innovation as drivers for future economic growth, some more actions have to
be taken, such as improving the quality of education, building on the results of
research and promoting innovation and the transfer of knowledge (4).
The development of the ERA must take into account three basic concepts:
Integration, Involvement and Inclusion, all of them reflected in the EU2020
Strategy. By Integration it must be understood that RTD+I must be at the core
of the European project. The ERA must be fully integrated with all the other
European policies, notably those addressing innovation. Involvement means
that the European, national and regional research programmes must address
the social and economical challenges, such as the ageing of population, the
new sources of energy, the setting of a low carbon economy, the climate
24
THE POLICY CONTEXT OF WIRE
change or the electric cars, etc. This multi-level involvement urgently needs
a simplification of the procedures and a better definition of its governance.
By Inclusion it must be understood the use of research as a tool for social
cohesion and fight against poverty. The territorial cohesion addressed by
the Structural Funds must be complemented by social cohesion in the
European territory (1).
Moreover, a strong public-private partnership is the only way for economic
recovery (1). There is a need to effectively coordinate public and private
investments in order to create competitive and sustainable economies in
Europe. The potential of the framework formulated by Van Nistelrooij around
three concepts for the coordination of territorial cohesion, Concentration,
Cooperation, Connection , should be considered and exploited in the efforts
to reach a more balanced, sustainable territorial development within the
European Union (4).
The synergies of policies and how to get there

Synergies, as the targeted common objective of European, National and
regional policies, is not an easy endeavour. Getting synergies in Structural
Funds has been a revolution. For the period 1989 -1993, the 4% of Structural
Funds were dedicated to innovation (2 billion out of 50); from 1994 to1999,
the 7% (7.6 billion out of 110); from 2000 to 2006, the 11% (20 billion out
of 195); and finally for the current period, 2007-2013, the 25% of Structural
Funds were dedicated to innovation (86 billion out of 345). Specifically,
Member States have devoted a total of EUR 86 billion of our regional funds
to research and innovation in their 246 National or Regional Operational
Programmes. EUR 50 billion of this has already been allocated directly for
core R&D and innovation.
The budget for cohesion policy dedicated to research and innovation should
also be considered as efficient and important as the budget of the two main
Policies supporting the R&D&I, FP7 (EUR 50.5 billion) and CIP (EUR 3.6 billion)
(4). In the European Commission, services of the Directorates General of
Regional Development, Research and Industry and Enterprise are working
co-ordinately to make synergies at the EU level a reality. However, it is very
important to work with the regional and national authorities to maximise
synergies, moving apart from a past situation of a virtual lack of joined
up thinking in the management of EU research and innovation funding.
All these new approaches need a higher awareness of beneficiaries of EU
research and innovation funding (i.e. researchers, SMEs, universities and
general public) regarding the opportunities for EU research and innovation
funding synergies, in order to help them in their identification (5).
However, as Minister Cerexhe pointed out, administrative and financial
simplification, a pre-condition for beneficial synergistic interaction, is not
a minor issue. The current rules of participation are a disincentive to the
access of small and medium sized enterprises to European programmes.
Moreover, without an effort of simplification, it will be far more difficult to
guarantee real complementarity between community, national and regional
instruments (2).
25
Contents
The governance issue

An integrated multi-level governance approach to specific policies in the
EU is necessary for the increase of the effect of structural measures on a
territory and the synergies of instruments, as MEP Van Nistelrooij and Spanish
Minister Garmendia stated (1,4). The responsibility for the implementation of
Structural Funds lies with national and regional authorities, while CIP and FP7
are centrally managed by the Commission. Therefore, functional multi-level
governance is essential for the setting and implementing performance of the
funds, especially for the earmarking objectives. Cooperation between the local
and regional authorities as well as partnership between these authorities and
the private sector has proved successful in many instances in shaping urgent
anti-crisis policy plans (4).
A conceptual political framework to attain synergies is being slowly outlined:
Ū at the political level, there are three drivers to attain the targeted objectives:
Integration, Involvement and Inclusion,
Ū at the implementation level, we should apply the principles of
Concentration, Cooperation, Connection,
Ū at the procedural level, they must be coupled with a real simplification of
procedures.
To foster innovation and economic progress, political, legal and
implementation instruments are needed to translate knowledge into
products, processes or services, but a proper regional context and an
innovation environment are also needed (6). In Europe we are very proud
of our greatest achievement - internal market (3), now it is time to establish
single market for research and innovation (5).
Raison d’être of a regional innovation and research policy:

assets and drawbacks
The economy develops primarily at a regional level.
IRE
When answering the question whether European regions are able to be

competitive at the global level, it should first be stressed that European
regions have very different levels of economic development, which makes
it hard to compare the EU s competitiveness to that of the United States or
Japan, where economic development is much more homogeneous across
the territory (3).
The most innovative regions are typically in the most innovative countries.
Nearly all the high innovating regions are in the group of innovation
leaders . Similarly all of the low innovating regions are located in countries
that have an under-average performance (6). Nevertheless, as innovation
is an important driver for growth and jobs, cohesion policy must aim at
raising the innovation performance of all regions; if not, we will face different
development of regions and the social, economic and territorial disparities
26
THE POLICY CONTEXT OF WIRE
will emerge or broaden even more (6). However, it has been observed the
so-called cohesion paradox (also referred as the Innovation-regional funding
paradox): on the one hand the number of European technological hotspots
is increasing; on the other hand the performance of a growing number of
regions is decreasing according to a centre-periphery trend.
A careful analysis of context-dependent innovation policies is still needed
because innovation and technological research are central and vital in the
economy of today and the future, but they are not bound to specific locations.
Here lies a task for Europe s leaders to take radical action on research and
innovation and show their commitment to creating an Innovative Europe.
This proves to function better by means of the formation of extended clusters
in which companies, scientific and research institutes as well as regional
authorities work closely together in specific fields (4). Differently to what
happens in research, these interactions depend on geographic proximity
and an eco-system that allows new ideas to emerge (6). For simple reasons of
efficiency, regions should be involved in the design and the implementation
of the strategies, to the same extent as central governments (2).
We can only participate in the world s competition by supporting R&D,
innovation and employment in Europe. This could be done, among other
measures, by the creation of Centres of Excellence . If we look at the most
dynamic technology industries, the common factor is not a location in or near
capital cities, but one close to the most innovative universities: this argument
is clearly illustrated by the the Oresunds University s case of international
cooperation Sweden-Denmark-Germany as driver of innovation in a cross-
borders cooperation. All this shows that innovation can only take place if
there is the political will and commitment of all actors working together,
either at local, national and European level (6).
The Belgian Presidency during 2010 will revisit instruments and governance
in the context of the knowledge triangle, with the idea that instruments
and activities have to be designed or reshaped, taking into account a dual
necessity: on the one hand, to build bridges between the departments
involved in the knowledge triangle and, on the other hand, to study the
potential for its implementation at a decentralised and regional level (2).
27
Contents
IRE
28
3
R E P O R T O N T H E C O N F E R E N C E
“ R E G I O N S O F K N O W L E D G E ”
© European Union, 2010
3 . R E P O R T O N
T H E C O N F E R E N C E
“ R E G I O N S O F
K N O W L E D G E ”
The WIRE Conference aimed at making at assessment of the development
up to present of the Programme Regions of Knowledge, based on an overall
description of the initial aims at the development of the programme, the
presentation of concrete projects and a discussion of key aspects related
to the figure of clusters as a tool to create a competent interface between
research and its economic exploitation.
Two Round Tables addressed the issues related to the programme Regions
of Knowledge .
This Chapter includes an introduction by the Programme responsible in
DG RTD, Olivier Brunet, the targeted objectives of these Round Tables, the
Summary Report of the Round tables and, as Annexes, the summary of
concrete interventions of some participants. Finally, a general report of the
Conference on Regions of Knowledge will be included at the end.
3.1 Introduction – O. Brunet7

The basics of this Programme are presented in the box below, followed by
the state of lessons learnt from the point of view of the EC.
The Regions of knowledge is a fully fledged programme under FP7

with a budget of EUR 126 million over seven years. It stems from an
experimental action which was initiated by the European Parliament in
2003. It applies to all regions of Europe.
This programme aims at promoting regional economic development
by boosting cooperation, across Europe, between at least three mature
regional research-driven clusters. These clusters associate regional or
local authorities, research organisations and businesses.
The programme supports three main activities:
Ū analysis, development and implementation of research agendas
through Joint Action Plans
Ū mentoring of regions with a less developed profile by higher
developed ones
7 Olivier Brunet is coordinator of the “Regions of Knowledge” Programme in the Directorate General for
Research, European Commission
31
Contents
Ū initiatives to improve integration of research actors and institutions

in regional economies.
It focuses on different topics every year.
Fifteen projects were selected in 2008 through calls for proposals for
maximising the benefits of research infrastructures for regional economic
development and reducing CO2 emissions.
The transnational cooperation between clusters was focused on sustainable
use of natural resources in 2009. Nine projects were funded.
The 2010 call aims at boosting the competitiveness of health-related
economy, from a regional perspective.
The 2011 call will focus on sustainable transport.
The 2012 might deal with energy.
Thanks to its regional focus, the programme aims at reinforcing the links
between research and innovation, with the involvement of businesses,
in order to concretely contribute to a more sustainable development and
more and better jobs;
The European Commission strongly supports synergies between this
programme, the Structural Funds and the Competitiveness and innovation
programme, in favour of more competitive regions through research and
innovation.
The state of lessons learnt from the point of view of the EC has focused
on:
Ū the relevance of Regions of knowledge : to which extent are the
objectives of the programme pertinent to the needs, priorities and issues
it was designed to address?
This programme is closely linked with high-level policy goals such as the
Lisbon strategy and Barcelona objectives and regions are increasingly
IRE
being recognised as important players in the European Research Area.

Efforts were made over the last two years in order to keep the programme
more focused on its objectives aiming at enhancing regional economic
competitiveness thanks to cooperation between regional research-driven
clusters through thematic calls. This programme is closely embedded in
the reflections related to the future EU priorities, as regards in particular
innovation and the EU 2020 strategy;
Ū its effectiveness: has the programme demonstrated its added value
for key target groups, notably regional research driven clusters? The
commitment of the regional authorities often proved to be the key for
success in the implementation of projects;
Ū its efficiency: to what extent could measures be taken to improve it? The
upscale of cooperation between regional research-driven clusters from
32
REPORT ON THE CONFERENCE
“REGIONS OF KNOWLEDGE”
2009 aimed at achieving a stronger impact, this led however to more

complexity in the management of larger consortia;
Ū Information & awareness raising: has access to the programme in
the EU Member States and Associated countries been supported by
adequate awareness-raising of the EC and stakeholders? This needs to be
discussed;
Ū Coherence and synergies: how could the coherence and synergies of the
programme with other Community instruments be improved? Efforts were
made in favour of stronger synergies with the EU clusters initiatives and
a close cooperation with regional policy. The coordinators of the projects
are now members of the European Clusters Alliance. Improvements
are however possible and necessary both within the existing legal and
financial framework (2007-2013) and beyond 2013;
Ū Sustainability and impact: are the impacts of the programme in
line with the initial expectations, as regards the enhancement of the
regional economic competitiveness through research and technological
development activities? This assessment will have to take into account
the limited budget of the programme, 126 Million over seven years.
In addition to all the useful lessons to be learnt which will be shared
during the WIRE conference, the speaker highlighted that the conclusions
of the Regions of knowledge impact assessment which will be available
in the first half of 2011 will be very important for shaping the future. This
assessment will both focus on projects (41 funded over 2007-08-09) and on
the programme.
3.2 Round Table 2: “Lessons learnt for REGIONs

programme and possible ways forward” – P. Godin8
Content
The bullet points under discussion were:
1. Difficulties faced by applicants or potential applicants.
2. Possible solutions and actions to be taken.
3. Possible cooperation of REGIONS with other European, national or regional
programmes.
The key questions posed to the participants were:
1. Is there sufficient awareness about what is a Research Driven Cluster?
2. Is the REGIONs programme linked to regional strategy for Innovation?
Should it be linked?
3. Is there enough awareness on the targeted objectives of the REGIONs
programme?
8 Pierre Godin is policy analyst in the Unit "Thematic Coordination, Innovation", Directorate General for
Regional Policy, European Commission.
33
Contents
Round Table participants:

Chair:
Olivier Brunet ‒ Policy Officer, Regions of Knowledge and Research
Potential Unit, Directorate General of Research, European Commission
Session rapporteur:
Pierre Godin ‒ Policy Analyst, Thematic coordination, Innovation Unit,
Directorate General for Regional Policy, European Commission
Participants:
Marta Nadaban - Deputy Director, INNOVA Regional Development and
Innovation Agency (Hungary)
Sverre Sogge - Senior Adviser, Research Council and National Contact
Point for Regions of Knowledge and Research Potential programmes
(Norway)
Sylvia Schereiber - Director, Stuttgart Region EU Office (Germany)
Christian Altmann - Cluster manager Clusterland (Austria)
Summary
1. Some difficulties faced by applicants or potential applicants

Ū changing RoK thematic priorities: it is difficult for regional clusters to have
a long term strategy for their participation in the programme, in some
Member States
Ū definition of a research driven cluster (RDC): beyond the definition given
in the Work programme, are we talking about clusters, clusters of clusters,
networks of clusters…?
Ū failure rate in the selection of the applicants: it is disappointing, due to
limited funding, even if the failure rate for RoK is lower than the one of
many other FP7 calls.
IRE
Ū coordination between the partners: it is time-consuming with many

partners, and difficult to find complementarity between partners,
Ū Triple helix difficult to realize: for instance, the involvement and
commitment of the Managing Authorities (MA) for the Structural Funds
programmes is important but it is sometimes difficult to find the key
person in the MA, not the person in charge of the financial management
but someone able to contribute to the substance of the project;
Ū What is expected as outcome of a RoK project? It is not always clear: is
it excellence, cohesion, innovation, joint strategy for action…? Which
policy mix looks the best?
2. Some possible solutions and actions to be taken

Ū training and involvement of MAs at an early stage,
34
Ū better complementarity between partners, and better promotion of Triple

Helix approach,
3. Possible cooperation between RoK and EU national or regional programmes

It is important to promote bridges between the different funding
opportunities for clusters. On the one side, we have pilot projects such
as under RoK, CIP and the Regions for Economic Change initiative with
Fast Track Networks (supported by INTERREG or URBACT). On the other
side, we have the Operational Programmes (OPs) of the Structural Funds
with huge amounts of money.
To ensure sustainability in the implementation of good practice, it is
important to speed up the transfer of good practice from the pilot scale
to the large scale under the OPs. There are some examples of action plans
and management guides funded in a first stage with pilot projects and
concerning activities that are supported at a later stage with Structural
Funds. More synergies between this programme and INTERREG IV C
should be supported.
There is a need to develop synergies at the level of the Regional Innovation
Strategies (RISs) designed for the use of the Structural Funds. RISs should
take into consideration the results coming from the pilot projects , such
as those funded under RoK, and involve FP7 National Contact Points and
Programming Committees.
The question of some possible mismatch between top down and bottom
approach was raised. There is a place for defining strategies and guidelines
at EU and national levels and then, in this context, it is up to the regions
to find their ways and their smart specialisation, according to their needs
and potential and in partnership with the relevant regional stakeholders.
3.3 Round Table 3: “Clusters: a policy or a tool for a

policy?” – K. Izsak9
Content
The Bullet Points under discussion were:
1. EU Cluster policy.
2. European Cluster Policy Group (ECPG) future recommendations.
3. Cases of running clusters and clustering of clusters.
4. Lessons learnt: success/weakness/constraints.
5. Projects networks or projects clusters? Advantages and disadvantages
of the two models.
6. Other tools to support Regional Economic Development.
9 Kincso Izsak is policy officer in the Unit "Support for Innovation", Directorate General Enterprise and
Industry, European Commission.
35
Contents
7. The engagement of the Commission Services in clusters promotion.

Assessment and future actions.
1. Clusters: a policy or a tool for a policy? Can clusters be a tool for policies
synergies?
2. Which are the driving forces for clustering? (Administration, Industry,
Academia, others)
3. Which are the expected benefits of clusters?
4. Are there constraints for international cooperation within the EU?
5. What are the best practices for collaboration models across projects?

Chair:
Charlotte Brogen - Director General at VINNOVA (Sweden)
Session rapporteur:
Kincso Izsak ‒ Policy Officer, Unit Support for Innovation , Directorate
General Enterprise and Industry, European Commission
Participants:
Patrick Vuillermoz - Research and Innovation Manager, pole of
competitiveness Plastipolis (France)
Tea Petrin ‒ Professor at University of Ljubljana, Chair of ECPG (Slovenia)
Sven-Gunnar Edlund ‒ Director at Vinnova, Baltic Sea Region Transnational
Cluster (Sweden)
Keith Harrap ‒ Managing Director of Science Consultancy Ltd, FOOD
cluster coordinator (UK)
IRE
Michel Ganoote ‒ European Delegate, Strategy and Development (OSEO)

and TACTICS/ECA coordinator (France)
Summary
Main conclusions:
Ū Clusters are an important tool for enhancing competitiveness as it provides
an arena where different actors can meet to both cross fertilize ideas into
new opportunities as well to combine forces to create concrete results
leading to new and improved business opportunities.
Ū Instrumental for the success of a cluster is a common business vision and
a cluster management capable to merge business opportunities with
possibilities of new technologies, services and business models.
36
Ū There is not one recipe for how a successful cluster can be formed,
depending on the business topic a cluster can be set up in many different
ways as long as the business perspective is shared and committed by the
participants.
Ū To make clusters a powerful tool for the European Union it is necessary
that EU, national as well regional policies and financing instruments
reinforce each others towards a common goal.
on policy synergies…
Ū Clusters are considered as an important tool for enhancing or reinforcing
competitiveness at the microeconomic level. Clusters need to be seen
as part of a broader competitiveness agenda, must have industry-driven
leadership and their further integration within European competitiveness
policies should be encouraged.
Ū Clusters can be used as an organisational basis for joining up policies such
as science policy, regional policy and industrial policy to make the best
of European, national and regional funding for R&D and innovation for
the benefit of companies. One approach could be to integrate existing
funding into one centralized instrument that provides clusters with more
leeway for development by allocating the funds to the activities they have
identified as crucial.
Ū Research and innovation programmes could increase their impact and
effectiveness by using clusters and cluster organizations to match needs of
companies, initiate and identify RDI projects and also for better valorizing
research results and diffusing knowledge for the benefit of SMEs. Clusters
can be also used as an important element for EU-level policy initiatives
such as for example the Knowledge and Innovation Communities of the
European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), the European
Technology Platforms (ETP), or the Joint Technology Initiatives.
Ū The links between Regions of Knowledge (FP7), the European Cluster
Alliance (CIP) and the European Cluster Excellence Initiative (CIP) should be
further encouraged in order to develop the impact of the funded projects
(case of ROK) and disseminate new initiatives and funding mechanisms
to be implemented through the ECA network. In this respect, the cross-
references among the programmes, respectively the participation of
Regions of Knowledge project coordinators in the work of the European
Cluster Alliance and in the training of the Cluster Excellence Initiative are
good examples.
on framework conditions…
Ū Emerging industries tend to cluster spatially and so can create tomorrow s
competitive hotspots as advantages accrue to those at the locus of
creative activity and opportunity. New clusters in these emerging areas
follow different approaches and require different sets of support policies
to maximize their market positioning. New cluster policy instruments in
37
Contents
Europe need to be explored in order to better facilitate the development

of emerging industries.
Ū Cluster-specific framework conditions must be taken more account
of. Depending on the identified needs, a cluster-specific policy mix of
instruments might involve enhancing the level of linkages of mutual
trust, demand side policies such as smart regulation, higher education
and human resources development, and measures for the promotion of
international linkages. These should be designed and implemented at
national or regional level, complemented with EU-level programmes and
initiatives.
Ū Governance and leadership are very important in order to foster successful
world-class clusters and transnational collaborations. A Triple Helix based
management team with leading representatives from the business
sector, academia and the public sector can take decisions on common
vision, goals and strategy and can ensure that the investments obtained
will be prioritized and synchronized while taking account of market
opportunities.
Ū Careful assessment of the impact of cluster policies is crucial and must
be addressed at regional, national and European level as well. Cluster
performance and the performance of cluster organisations must
be continuously monitored and benchmarked at every scalar level
internationally, nationally, regionally and institutionally in order to see the
added value clusters can bring to achieving policy objectives.
on international cooperation…
Ū The rapidly increasing global competition requires larger critical mass,
new cross sectoral combinations of knowledge and resources of a
size that regions might have difficulties to provide alone. This calls for
international cluster cooperation and new cluster concepts that facilitate
the emergence of world-class clusters in Europe. This is in turn can also
catalyse the development of stronger and larger regional and sectoral
grouping with increased competitive potential.
IRE
Ū Supporting the international mobility of cluster actors could strengthen

international linkages and the discovery of advantageous complementarities
for the benefit of companies. Creating stronger linkages between clusters
in different locations which offer complementary strengths can provide
access to the most advanced technologies and know-how.
Ū Macro-regional concepts such as the Baltic Sea or the Danube Region
should be better explored for developing international cluster cooperation.
Strategic cooperation within the macro regional clusters involving
leading companies and research organisations fosters key commercial
and innovation positions and helps clusters become attractive partners
Europe-wide and globally.
38
3.4 General report of the day – E. Mougeot10

Two open exchanges dealing with the assessment of the results and
the optimization of programme impacts and two round tables on i) the
lessons learnt and possible ways forward and ii) Clusters: involvement were
discussed by speakers during this day devoted to the Regions of Knowledge
programme.
Olivier Brunet introduced the theme by pointing out the Regions of
Knowledge programme basics, in other words, how research and innovation
in the networked clusters can improve the economic situation of the involved
regions? . Indeed, the Regions of Knowledge programme, included in the
Capacities Specific programme, is a small Programme with respect to other
Programmes in FP7. With a total of 126 million over the FP7 duration, the
Regions of Knowledge programme has been participated in the enhancement
of research and innovation throughout Europe since 2007.
In order to carry out improvements in Regions involved, main changes such
as the strategy repositioning on the targeted clusters and stronger links with
the clusters initiatives have been introduced since 2009.
Then, discussions have provided scope for:
Ū The assessment of the results
Ū The highlight of best practices and lessons learnt from case studies
Ū The bottleneck identifications
At the beginning, the Capacities Specific programme was not really well-
known by research and business actors. The Regions of Knowledge programme
is complex and the research-driven clusters concept was poorly understood
by proposers. Thanks to written instructions, briefings with applicants, work
of National Contact Points and Commission staff, the Regions of Knowledge
programme has found its audience.
This Programme encourages networking and in a second step concrete actions
with the Joint Action Plan. It is a good tool that participates, in one aspect, in
the implementation of the regional innovation agendas. Networking clusters
can turn knowledge, skills and competencies into competitive advantages
in a sustainable way. It creates better conditions for effective governance at
regional level. Indeed, under the FP7, the Regions of Knowledge programme
has the largest regional impact promoting cluster policy. It meets a need.
Cluster is a good tool for SMEs and also for funds synergies. Complementary
tools and actions must be tested in order to provide the optimal fund
coordination. Good pilot projects should be transformed in large programs.
Through various initiatives and projects, cluster policy must support the links
between all four sides of the Innovation Diamond ‒ regional authorities,
higher education, business and research centres and thus increase the
productivity of the companies or entities in the cluster, by driving innovation
in the field, and also stimulating new business in the field.
10 Estelle Mougeot Leroy is a consultant at Efficient Innovation (France).
39
Contents
The new European policies and European instruments should enhance

Europe s capacity for competitiveness and innovation. Each stage of the
innovation chain must be supported and thus change innovative projects into
industrial, concrete and cost-effective products, processes and/or services.
There is a lot at stake.
For the next programming period, speakers suggested that simplification
of the new framework is expected so that, it can be even more effective. A
true Innovation Union is looked for and a unique programme to enhance
innovation ecosystem at regional level could be a possibility. Speakers
remained us that we must have an open mind and design, why not, new
methodologies, actions and instruments.
IRE
40
4
“ R E S E A R C H P O T E N T I A L”
4 . R E P O R T O N
“ R E S E A R C H
P O T E N T I A L”
The WIRE Conference aimed at making at assessment of the development
up to present of the Programme Research Potential , based on an overall
description of the initial aims at the development of the programme, the
presentation of concrete projects and a discussion of key aspects related to
the International dimension of the programme or its impact in the Outermost
Regions..
Two Round Tables addressed the issues related to the programme Research
Potential .
This Chapter includes an introduction by the Programme responsible in DG
RTD, Maria Kayamanidou, the targeted objectives of these Round Tables,
the Summary Report of the Round tables and, as Annexes, the summary of
concrete interventions of some participants. Finally, a general report of the
Conference on Regions of Knowledge will be included at the end.
4.1 Introduction – M. Kayamanidou11

I. Objectives and State of the Art
Many research actors located in the Convergence and Outermost Regions are
still well integrated in the ERA and fell lost in the competitive approach of the
7th Framework Programme, because they are facing problems of brain drain,
infrastructure, economic and institutional organization, lack of appropriate
access to finance.
A dedicated action to stimulate the realization of the full research potential
of the European Union by unlocking and developing existing research
excellence in the EU s convergence and outermost regions has been
implemented since 2007 with the Research Potential programme under the
Capacities Programme. It helps to strengthen participation in research
activities at EU level and tackles a variety of challenges such as ‘brain gain’
through networking with other European world class research players and
industry, upgrading of relevant RTD infrastructure, recruitment of experienced
researchers and institutional mobilization as well as dynamic contribution to
the regional and European sustainable socio-economic development.
Scope and impact of the action are large since 20 Member States out of the
27 and 8 Associated Countries are concerned by Convergence or
Outermost Regions.
11 Maria Kayamanidou is coordinator of the “Research Potential” Programme in the Directorate General
43
Contents
Research Potential has a total budget of 340 M€ over 7 years and is

implemented via the Support Actions funding scheme. It addresses any
research topic covered by the EC FP7 and is implemented through the
upgrading research potential of excellent centres core call. In addition to
the core activities, Research Potential developed in 2007, 2009 and 2010
targeted calls to upgrade research potential partnerships between the EU
and respectively the Western Balkans Countries (WBC) and Mediterranean
Partners Countries (MPC) with an additional EC contribution of 24 M€,
provided by third countries appropriations (3 x 8 M€).
II. Sustainable and scientifically robust research actors across the Convergence
and Outermost Regions
The last calls within the REGPOT activity were notably focused on high
quality research centres of significant scientific and organizational size
(such as specialized institutes, university research centres and faculties, well
defined research organizations, etc), operating in a particular S&T thematic
sector. These institutions, public or private, had to demonstrate a high
quality of human, material and organizational structure. From the European
perspective, more emphasis has been put on linking these institutions to
larger interdisciplinary communities while overcoming the institutional
constraints of narrow specialization.
The experience so far demonstrated a constantly high interest from the
targeted scientific community. The implementation is characterized by a
continuity approach; this might explain the very low number of non-eligible
proposals received so far.
The self tailored approach might explain the constantly high number of
proposals submitted every year to the core call. Whilst more than 60% of
them are eligible for funding the final selection rate is one of the lowest of the
entire FP7. This will most probably not change until the end of the FP despite
the increase of community funding from 2011 onwards.
IRE
As an average, seven outstanding partnering organizations are developing

activities together with applicants in the selected proposals. This is a
demonstration of the European added value of the Research Potential
programme.
Finally, regional and national coordination with authorities and stakeholders
is part of all funded proposals, where in the frame of their respective Steering
Groups outstanding scientists, regional authorities and stakeholders discuss
with applicants the future strategy and sustainable development.
The Outermost Regions core of participation is globally as satisfactory as the
one of Convergence Regions, whilst their success rate so far is slightly better.
However, not all three countries with Outermost regions are actively involved
in Research Potential and future information and awareness campaigns
should be envisaged.
44
“RESEARCH POTENTIAL”
III. Identify and support “unmet opportunities” that strengthen the ERA, cross-
fertilize the S&T disciplines and promise significant future pay-offs for Europe
The escalating complexity of Science and Technology is moving research
towards a collaborative mode with greater focus on intellectual integration
and the requirement of effective organizational frameworks. Indeed, the
excellent Convergence and Outermost Regions research centres of
significant size should receive appropriate funding to better increase their
competitiveness and potential in close collaboration with other European
outstanding research centres. The goal, then, is twofold:
Ū Foster the emergence of top class research centres in the EU s Convergence
and Outermost Regions, thus extending the ERA to the entire European
territory;
Ū Boost-up the socio-economic development of the Convergence and
Outermost Regions where often traditional industry sectors have
difficulties in adopting new technological processes resulting to a vicious-
cycle effect in productivity, employment and future growth.
Research Potential should address complex issues using a problem-oriented
approach, in order to provide self-tailored responses, services and products to
the end-users, notably stakeholders (including industry and SMEs) and society.
To this end, an investigator-initiated problem oriented research approach
should be implemented. The objective is to support European partnerships
from in order to deliver responses, services or products to well-identified
needs of S&T and socio-economic development of the Convergence and
Outermost Regions.
IV. Geographically oriented calls: Western Balkan Countries, Mediterranean

Partner Countries
Special investment in the Western Balkan Countries was made in order to
consolidate excellence, regional initiatives, and capacity building to force
the social change and to give these institutions the best means for fully
participate in FP7 from the beginning. The two calls specifically addressed to
them (2007 and 2010, 16 M€) supported 17 excellent RTD entities, in addition
to the 10 ones financed through the main call, which demonstrate high level
partnerships between West Balkan Centres and leading research groups and
private companies of EU Member States. They cover a wide range of themes
and technology and put particular emphasis on industry involvement and
regional development.
The MED call organized in 2009, with an 8 M€ budget, allowed the conclusion
of 9 grants involving several Member States with Convergence or non-
Convergence Regions as well as Mediterranean Partner Countries. This activity
developed sustainable strategic partnership between EU and Mediterranean
research entities based on the mutual benefit principle. Scientific topics are in
line with the particular needs of the Mediterranean Partner Countries.
45
Contents
4.2 Round Table 4: “Lessons learnt for REGPOT

programme and possible ways forward” – G. Tzenou12
Content
The Bullet Points discussed were:
1. Difficulties faced by applicants or potential applicants.
2. Possible solutions and actions to be taken.
The Key Questions posed to the participants in the Round table were:
1. Are the REGPOT demands part of a regional strategy?
2. If yes, is the evaluation of a proposal taken into account in the follow up
of such strategy.
3. Should the REGPOT Programme target thematic sectors, or should remain
open to research excellence only?

Chair:
Jerzy Szwed - Deputy State Secretary for Science and Higher Education,
Poland
Session Rapporteur:
Georgia Tzenou ‒ Administrator in National Documentation Centre/NHRF,
Coordinator of European Network of Research Potential NCPs (Greece)
Alain Borgel ‒ Researcher at Institute of Research for Development (IRD),
Coordinator RUNSEASCIENCE project (France)
Ernesto Fatorusso ‒ Professor at University of Naples, Coordinator
IRE
NatPharma project (Italy)

Tayfun Akin ‒ Ph.D. in Electronical Engineering, Middle East technical
university (Turkey)
Stefan Weiers ‒ Policy Officer, Unit Regions of Knowledge and Research
Potential , Directorate General of Research, European Commission
Summary
Successful REGPOT Proposers and Projects
Research Potential is a programme addressed to excellent and promising
research organizations situated in convergence and outermost regions
of Europe. 20 Member States and 8 Associated Countries have actually
12 Georgia Tzenou is administrator in National Documentation Centre/NHRF of Greece, and coordinator

of European Network of NCPs for the „Research Potential“ Programme.
46
convergence/outermost regions, and therefore, they are eligible to participate

in the programme. The budget of the programme is 340 million euro for the
period 2007-2013.
The first 3 speakers of the Round Table were Coordinators of REGPOT projects.
Their presentations focused mainly on: a) project goals and activities, b)
difficulties encountered, c) links with regional authorities and future
prospects.
All Coordinating organizations are excellent research groups of significant
size, with long experience and important scientific records in their research
field. They have invested in their infrastructure and human potential, and
were involved in national and European projects before the REGPOT project.
However, REGPOT, as capacity-building programme, gave them a unique
opportunity to:
Ū upgrade their infrastructure and be more competitive at European level
Ū gain new experience from more advanced organizations
Ū settle networks of researchers
Ū become known and visible at the European research community.
REGPOT is a well-structured scheme, encouraging the collaborative mode
and the strengthening of human resources and infrastructure. It is not
research, nor education, nor regional development programme. The regional
dimension of the programme is given by the: a) location of the applicant, b)
evaluation of its contribution to the regional development, c) synergies with
Structural Funds, etc. The involvement/coordination with national/regional
authorities, as part of an overall strategy, is encouraged for the sustainable
development.
Stefan Weiers, Policy Officer at the Unit Regions of Knowledge and Research
Potential (DG Research), presented the main problems encountered at
proposal and implementation stage of REGPOT programme. The main
difficulty encountered by the participants is the low success rate: a high
number of excellent organizations submit very good proposals, but they
cannot be funded due to the limited budget of the programme. Some of
the Coordinators confirmed that the proposal was funded on the 2nd or 3rd
submission.
The European Network of Research Potential National Contact Points
(ResPotNet www.respotnet.eu) provides comprehensive and up-to-date
information on the programme. Partner Search Services, information material,
success stories, tips for successful participation. During the WIRE Conference,
the Network operated a Helpdesk stand for all researchers.
47
Contents
4.3 Round Table 5: “A regional policy for the Outermost

regions? – S. Weiers13
Content
The Bullet Points considered were:
1. Results of the International dimension of REGPOT. Expected Impact
measurements.
2. The Outermost regions and their neighbours.
3. Constraints/weakness/opportunities.
4. Potentials improvements
5. Common action of the Outermost regions on the improvement of their
regional Potential.
The Key Questions posed to the participants were
1. Which specific actions are needed for the Outermost regions in the
Research Potential programme, and why?
2. How can REGPOT interact with the European Neighbourhood and
Partnership Instrument (ENPI) (for Mediterranean and Western Balkan
Countries -MED and WBC-) and the Instrument for Pre-Accession
Assistance (IPA)?
3. How can the international regional policy align with the FP INCO
schemes?
4. Would it be convenient to promote the association of the Outermost
regions with their neighbouring third countries?
5. Is there a collective research Agenda for the Outermost regions?

IRE
Chair:
Juan Ruiz Alzola - Director of Agency for Research, Innovation and
Information Society, Canary Islands Government (Spain)
Session Rapporteur:
Stefan Weiers - Policy Officer, Unit Regions of Knowledge and Research
Potential , Directorate General of Research, European Commission
Carlos Portugués Carrillo - Director General for relations with Europe,
Canary Islands Government (Spain)
13 Stefan Weiers is policy officer in the Unit “Regions of Knowledge and Research Potential”, Directorate
General of Research, European Commission
48
Jose Bonfim - Senior Adviser in the Fundaçao para a Ciência e Tecnología,

Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education (Portugal)
Stephane Raud - Director of technology transfer and industrial relations,
Institute of Research for Development (IRD) (France).
Jean-Louis d Anglebermes ‒ Member of the government of New Caledonia
(France)
Summary
Bullet Points
1. Impact of REGPOT for Outermost regions (OR) and potential for Overseas
Countries and Territories (OCT)?
Thanks to the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological
Development (FP7), OR s research capacities have been strengthened and
have succeeded to move on to the excellence.
At the same time, the definition of Regional Innovation Strategies
is achieved in all regions. In the future, these strategies should be
implemented through the articulation of available funding instruments
such as Structural Funds, the FP7 and the Competitiveness and Innovation
Framework Programme (CIP).
Nevertheless, many constraints still remain e.g.: the lack of research critical
mass, the absolute need to consolidate a « capacity building » in order to
give an answer to the proposals made within the framework of the FP7,
avoiding disproportionate administrative approaches, the lack of contacts
with the network of excellent research centres. It is necessary to make
possible for the researchers of the OR to fully participate in this field.
Outermost regions are fully eligible for participation in REGPOT that seems
to be an adequate instrument to overcome typical constraints given by
the geographical isolation and lack of critical mass. In absolute figures
participation has been low with 16 submissions and 2 projects selected or
main listed so far. Nevertheless, in relative terms submission and success
are not significantly lower than for the convergence regions due to the
lower size of the target population of eligible research entities. Statistically
the success rate is even better than for the convergence regions. Ongoing
projects are running successfully and will have a significant impact on the
research capacity of the beneficiaries and improve their integration to the
European Research Area (ERA).
OCTs are part of the European family, 21 OCTs of the EU (amongst which
16 inhabited), linked to 4 MS (Denmark, France, Netherlands, United
Kingdom).
They are eligible to the European Development Fund (EDF) and to the
EU Programmes such as the Framework Programme(FP7) and the
Competitiveness and Innovation Programme(CIP). But, contrary to the
outermost regions, they are not eligible to the structural funds, such as the
FEDER (European Fund for the development for EU regions) and REGPOT.
49
Contents
However there is a potential to benefit in an equivalent manner like

the OR.
2. Needs of Outermost regions (and OCTs)
From RTD and innovation point of view there seems to be a strong need
for better networking with other scientific working groups, of sustainable
interdisciplinary partnerships to increase critical mass and the development
of particular scientific domains where outermost regions have already
proven records of excellence or particular geographical assets (examples:
marine science, tropical biodiversity, astronomy, renewable energies)
Even if the FP7 has considerably advanced in the field of the European
research policy, according to a special consideration to the OR s situation,
it is also true that these regions find important difficulties in order to
participate in the four sub-programme of FP7.
Delegates from the OR were of the view that the special characteristics
of the Outermost Regions are not fully considered in the structure of the
FP and in the rules for submission of proposals. Therefore the balance in
terms of projects submitted and approved by OR and the other countries,
remains unachieved, and which is more important, incoherencies and
asymmetric impacts of the existing systems usually appear.
Most OCT need to strengthen their capacities in their excellence areas,
which also consists to participate to increase the heavy analytical
equipment means for research laboratories. They need to improve their
access to regional networks of excellence (exchange of know-how and
experience,…). OCTs assets are diverse, some of them are common with
the OR, but not always (ex: NC with mining activities and environmental
impacts). OCT representatives believe that large scale Programmes and
‒regional cooperation can be better achieved if the instruments are
common to OCTs and OR
3. Constraints/challenges/opportunities for Outermost Regions and OCT
participation to (potentially) Research Potential and FP7.
The remoteness of some of the outermost regions is a key constraint that
IRE
hampers their researchers capability to participate in informal and ad

hoc meetings that are often the incubators of major research initiatives
in the ERA. The high degree of specialization and small size of groups is
an obstacle for building larger scale capacities and achieving visibility.
Further a review of submitted proposals demonstrated that there is often
a lack of scientific strategy and future vision. On the other hand there are
opportunities to deepen excellence in highly specialized areas (see 2) and
to develop partnerships with neighbouring third countries.
Further general constraints are typically lack of access to information, lack
of visibility on OCT s eligibility to the FP7, lack of innovation spirit, lack of
building up and management capacities of EU projects, low critical mass
of human and analytical means for research and business areas, lack of
mutualisation of means between research organisms, lack of capacities
to highlight their potentials at the EU level. OCTs share common
50
characteristics (remoteness, small size, low visibility,..) and opportunities

(partnerships with neighbouring countries) with the outermost regions.
In addition, the geographical position of most OCTs gives an access to
very extended exclusive economic zones (EEZ). For example, in the Pacific,
gathering the 3 French OCTs gives an access to 10 square kilometres
millions of marine resources, with a very high and preserved biodiversity.
Regional partnerships with ACP countries represent important
opportunities in accordance with the EU strategy for the Pacific or the
Caribbean region, and as underlined in the EU communication published
in November 2009 (elements for a the future EU-OCT partnership)
They are also attractive research fields for high income countries (USA,
Japan, Australia,...). This has led to bilateral partnerships and has increased
the know-how of OCTs in terms of international sciences and technological
programs.
There is also in most OCTs a lack of scientific strategy, and a weak structure
of the area. For example, in NC, the research strategy is being reoriented on
the thematic basis, according to public stakeholder priorities for economic,
social and cultural development, such as mining, marine, fishing, mineral
resources..).
4. Expected impact of Research Potential for Outermost Regions grants and
potentially for OCT.
The ongoing grants will upgrade the laboratory equipment of the
applicants and boost knowledge transfer by secondment of key staff to
excellent partnering organisations in Europe. This will further contribute
to the development of durable networks and help to integrate them into
European research networks.
5. Common action of the OR and potentially OCT on the improvement of
their regional Potential in RTD
We are in the beginning of a new agenda that is developing a deep
brainstorm about the design of the future Financial Perspectives post-
2013. It is extremely important to make the most of this opportunity;
nothing is lost but nothing is consolidated.
To do so, some interesting proposals were presented in the round table
by the delegates from the OR. In their point of view on the one hand,
the necessary improvement of the coordination possibilities in the
application of different existing funding instruments (ERDF, EDF, FPRD,
CIP ...), is needed in order to support research and innovation actions of
the OR regions. On the other hand, OR are an opportunity for Europe and
their neighbouring countries. Specific measures to be adopted would
enhance European capacity in areas of excellence developed in these
regions. A call for proposals in the Cooperation area of the FP to facilitate
OR s cooperation with third neighbouring countries covering fields of
excellence and associating also other European regions on a tripartite
cooperation was suggested by the OR delegates. They underlined
the view of the OR s Conference of Presidents that is convinced of the
51
Contents
importance for these regions to fully participate in the next Framework

Programme, that is to say, to participate in all of its areas: Capacities,
People, Ideas and Cooperation and proposes to introduce new rules in
the next programming period.
Finally it would be necessary to look for other innovative approaches to
support research and innovation actions of the Outermost Regions.
With regards to the French OCTs, some common actions are being
identified in the frame of the STRATOM (strategy for the overseas
countries), lead by the French ministry of research such as in the Pacific,
the GOPS (Grand Observatoire du Pacifique Sud), the project NETBIOME
and the project PACENET (Inconet for pacific region)
In the frame of the Ocean call, in July 2009, a specific action was dedicated
to the arctic region.
Key Questions
1. Which actions in Research Potential are mostly needed by the Outermost
regions and why?
A review of the proposals submitted so far has shown that there is a
particular need for networking, knowledge transfer and visibility. In relative
terms the need for new recruitments and equipment was not emphasized
alike. Further there seems to be a need for training in project management
and advice on how to develop a scientific strategy on the long term which
is based on their proven assets and excellence in specialized domains.
There should also be more efforts undertaken to raise awareness
about REGPOT in the outermost regions in order to encourage more
submissions.
For OCTs (potential participation) research equipment, human capacities
need to be reinforced. For Innovation/ businesses: R & D needs to be
better structured and federated.
IRE
2. Is there a collective research Agenda in the Outermost regions and OCT?

There is not yet any collective research agenda existing in the outermost
regions and OCT. In some OCT/OR national research agendas exist.
However, it could be an opportunity to embed the elaboration of such
an agenda in the ongoing political cooperation between the outermost
regions as demonstrated by the regular conferences of the Presidents of
OR since 1995 while taking into account the points above. Such initiative
could also look for other innovative approaches to support research and
innovation actions of the Outermost Regions
Regarding the question of how can REGPOT interact with the ENPI (MED
and WBC) and the IPA?
A Round Table took place at which most stakeholders from West Balkan
Countries participated. They all mentioned the need to strengthen the
research capacity in their country in order to become more competitive
52
under FP7 and contribute to the overall objectives of the European

Research Area. Strengthening the research capacity is necessary both with
respect to the human capital building and modernizing and upgrading the
research institutes and facilities. The FP7 Research Potential programme
was very much appreciated and seen as a good but limited response to
these needs. But much more was necessary. Accordingly it was suggested
to consider in more detail how IPA could be used in support of research
capacity as a better research capacity would in turn support the other
EU objectives for enlargement such as economic development in a
sustainable way and compliance with EU acquis in complicated areas as
public heath, food safety, environmental standards or energy targets.
53
Contents
4.4 General report of the day – M. Horvat14

The Research Potential (REGPOT) scheme has to be seen in the frame of
European policies and strategies such as Lisbon, creating the European
Research Area (ERA) and EU2020. REGPOT has a budget of 340 M€ over the
seven years of FP7 from 2007 to 2013 and the objectives of the scheme are
Ū to stimulate the realization of the full Research Potential of the enlarged Union
by unlocking and developing the research potential in the EU s (including
Associated Countries ) Convergence Regions and Outermost Regions.
Ū to contribute to the regional & European sustainable socio-economic
development,
Ū to strengthen the capacities of their excellent research entities to
successfully participate in research activities at EU level and in FP7,
Ū to support them in getting better integrated into the European Research
Area.
The basic concept of Research Potential is strengthening excellence and
capacities of the target research entities and researchers through promoting
and supporting cooperation with excellent partners in EU Member States.
It is expected that REGPOT will contribute to expanding ERA to the entire
European territory and also stimulating the development of these regions
through the production of new knowledge and technological processes
contributing to increased productivity, better employment and enhanced
growth.
Targeted calls with additional budgetary provisions for proposals addressed
the Western Balkan Countries and the Mediterranean Partner Countries.
At mid-term of FP7, the Research Potential scheme has proven that its
approach is viable and successful. The structure of the scheme ensures a
collaborative approach towards strengthening human resources for research
as well as research infrastructures. The scheme is simple and it is well
understood by potential applicants.
IRE
In the average, there are seven partners by project from the EU and associated
countries. All FP7 themes are represented in proposals and there is an
excellent geographical coverage with all 20 eligible member states and 8
associated countries presented.
There is a high demand for this scheme; however, due to the limited financial
means there is only very low success rate, unfortunately. 5-6 % success is
creating substantial frustration amongst applicants. Even projects with 14
score were not funded.
Experience and lessons learned show that coordination of the activities
with regional and national authorities is very important developing regional
strategies and orienting towards sustainable development. The involvement
14 Manfred Horvart is Professor at Vienna University of Technology and Independent Expert for European
and International Research and Technology Cooperation.
54
of international evaluation facilities raised the interest of regional and national

authorities. It is encouraging that regional or national authorities are active in
steering committees building bridges also at the strategy level.
However, there are still problems that have to be addressed during the further
development of the scheme: The consistency between SWOT analyses and
action plans need to be improved; lack of strategy; there is often too much focus
on acquisition of equipment; partnerships are often too weak and it is sometimes
difficult to attract researchers to centres in the target regions of the scheme;
there is room for improvement in management structures and processes of
REGPOT projects; despite strengthening of research centres the regional impact
remains below expectations or questionable. There should be more synergies
and cooperation with Structural Funds. This, however, faces difficulties because
of the different planning periods of FP7 and structural Funds.
For REGPOT initiatives in the Western Balkan Countries industrial involvement
was important. Furthermore, synergies with IPA (Instrument for Pre-accession
Assistance), EIB (European Investment Bank), and Western Balkan Fund of
EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) are promising.
There is also a most relevant regional initiative: the Western Balkan Technology
Fund based on engagement of venture capitalists. From the region there is a
demand for further support like through targeted calls.
The activities towards the Mediterranean Partner Countries created mutual
benefit due to the focus on topics of mutual interest.
The Outermost Regions suffer from a lack of awareness and visibility in Member
States also regarding their traditionally closest collaborators. Due to their
remoteness establishing sustainable collaborative links and networks as well
as transferring knowledge and experience are keys for positive development.
Regional assets like for example bio-diversity and excellent groups in very
specialized fields should be better utilized. In addition, they can act as bridge
builders between third countries in their neighbourhood and the European
Union. In any case, there is a need for clear strategies for cooperation.
Overseas Countries and Territories have not yet been participating in REGPOT
due to their particular status. There are political initiatives ongoing to explore
future possibilities for obtaining an equivalent status. The cooperation
between Outermost Regions bears the potential for developing strategies
and mutual learning.
For the immediate future, the continuity of the work programme is welcome
since the scheme has reached maturity. There is a need for ensuring funding for
excellent projects also from other sources than FP7 including from Structural
Funds and other regional/national funds by accepting FP7 evaluation results for
other funding and selection decisions. Also joint calls with other programmes
such as CIP (Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme) should
be considered. Regarding the synergies between FP7 and Structural Funds,
examples of good practice would be useful for applicants.
Services for applicants can be improved such as information and advice
from NCPs, improved CORDIS and/or Europe web-services, guidelines and
55
Contents
different kinds of events such as brokerage, training, and support for strategy
development.
For the period beyond 2013, the long-term orientation of regional strategies
and actions call for closer links, coordination and cooperation with the
Structural Funds. In the course of preparing the future EU RTD Framework
Programme, the different options for the most appropriate location of the
Regional Potential scheme will have to be carefully considered.
IRE
56
5
“ R E G I O N A L D I M E N S I O N O F
I N N O V A T I O N : I T S I N S T R U M E N T S ,
G O V E R N A N C E A N D I M P A C T ”
5 . R E P O R T O N
“ R E G I O N A L
D I M E N S I O N O F
I N N O V A T I O N : I T S
I N S T R U M E N T S ,
G O V E R N A N C E A N D
I M P A C T ”
5.1 Introduction
The European Strategy for EU2020 is born in a context of financial and
economic crisis. In this context, Europe has the obligation to establish a
new roadmap, perhaps more realistic than the preceding one, but with an
objective that cannot be ignored: the one of a Europe committed with a
radical transformation towards a knowledge-based society. The EU faces the
challenge of defining a new strategy allowing us to develop a new model of
economic and social growth: a strategy to exit successfully from the economic
downturn and, at the same time, lead the grand challenges of globalisation.
In this changing framework with so many expectations, it is necessary to
adopt a new approach, where more convergent and coordinated European
policies focus on investments on new sources of growth. It is about fostering
research, development and innovation, fostering the European Research
Area.
The importance of these objectives poses the question of how to move from
synergies of policies to synergies of action in the optimal use of existing EU
instruments to build the knowledge economy in the regions: in short how
can we connect the ERA instruments and actors.
The WIRE Conference has addressed some specific objectives:
1. Provide inputs for the policy dialogue between the regional, national and
EC stakeholders on improving the effectiveness of the EU, national and
regional governance, instruments and impact measurement, to support
the implementation of the ERA.
2. Identifying possible synergies between the different community, national,
and regional support instruments for the increased competitiveness of
European businesses, based on the use and exploitation of scientific and
technological knowledge.
3. Improving and promoting supporting regional scientific structures and
regional competitiveness.
59
Contents
4. Quadruple Helix concept: Stimulating interaction and association

processes (clusters) between administrations, research centres, companies
and education centres, based on mutual interest and with expectations
for an increase in competitiveness in the regional production system.
A number of Round Tables were organized to discuss some of these issues
and provide recommendations for actions. The results are summarized in the
following sections.
5.2 Round Table 1. Synergies of action: are they possible?

– M. Gavira15
Content
The Bullet Points addressed were:
1. Effective synergies: yes or no?
2. Initial Introduction to current constraints in synergies as perceived by the
actors
1. Are regions able to exploit from the breadth of opportunities offered by
the EU instruments? If not, why?
2. Examples of effective synergies, and typology of synergies (involving
two or more of the following actors: policy makers, research centres,
universities, companies, public administrations)
3. What are the barriers and limits to synergies with reference to the type of
difficulties faced by the different actors at different levels?
Chair:
Rudolf Strohmeier - Deputy Director General of Research, European
IRE
Commission
Rapporteur:
Germán Granda - Head of Unit Belgium, France and Luxembourg ,
Directorate General Regional Policy, European Commission, substituted as
rapporteur by Manuel Gavira.
Mario Pezzini - Head of Territorial Reviews and Governance Division,
OECD
Lars Montelius - Director for Öresunds Universtity, inter-country Sweden
Denmark and Germany (Sweden)
Jose Dominguez-Abascal ‒ Secretary General ABENGOA (Spain)
15 Manuel Gavira is administrator in the Unit “Belgium, France and Luxembourg”, Directorate General for
Regional Policy, European Commission
60
“REGIONAL DIMENSION OF INNOVATION: ITS
INSTRUMENTS, GOVERNANCE AND IMPACT”
Tana Perglova ‒ Deputy Director of the EU Operational Programmes

section, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (Czech Republic)
Summary
The debate and conclusions of this Round Table can be summarised as
follows:
First, we note the high level of agreement amongst Round Table members
that RTDi is key to the future and to achieving sustainable long-term economic
recovery as advocated by the European Strategy 2020. Therefore, any debate
on the need for effective synergies between different projects financed by
European funds allocated to R&D is of real relevance.
Speakers generally felt that, before the question of whether our regions and
stakeholders in RTDi have effective capacity to achieve these synergies, two
pre-conditions needed to be satisfied.
The first condition is that the different actors involved must have a clear
vision of objectives to be achieved when R&D activities are undertaken. This
in turn implies that the actors have to know the needs they want to satisfy
and the means available to do so. In the first instance (what do you mean
by this?), a specific plan of synergies would not be required; rather it would
be sufficient for the parties concerned to work with the overall objective
of maximizing the added value of EU funding for research and innovation.
The second condition is the clear understanding of the scope and
characteristics of each of the Community financial instruments; due account
needs to be paid to the fact that each instrument has been designed for
specific purposes, although their common goal is to help create an economy
and a European society based on knowledge. For this reason, it is entirely
reasonable to seek the highest possible interaction between projects and
other EU funded activities .
For example, Cohesion policy and Structural Funds (SF) concentrate most
financial effort in the economically deprived regions. Therefore, its main
objective in the context of the topics covered in this seminar is to help these
regions move towards a knowledge-based economy.
If we refer to the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), its objective is to
promote knowledge, research and technological development, preferably
through multidisciplinary actions and cooperation activities at European level.
Also the Framework Programme for Competitiveness and Innovation (CIP)
aims to promote the competitiveness of European enterprises.
As you can see, each type of activity or research, development or innovation
action, can be found in the scope of one or more of these financial instruments,
depending on their specific nature and on the policy goal that they are
designed to achieve.
Therefore, the idea of synergy arises when the added value of each of these
sources of funding can, through combining them in a complementary
manner, improve overall levels of support for RTDi projects.
61
Contents
The various contributions made by the speakers at the Roundtable confirmed

that there is an awareness in regions and amongst RTDi stakeholders of the
range of opportunities offered by the different EU instruments. This is possible
if, as already stated, the different actors have a clear understanding of project
objectives and a good knowledge of the various funding sources and the
scope for their possible interaction.
This statement was supported by the speakers with presentations of instances
in which effective synergies in RTDi activities had been the case. These concern
(1) the Oresung region and its universities (Lars Montenlius), Abengoa activities
in the field of solar and renewable energies (José Domínguez Abascal) and (2)
the working method used in the Operational Programme for Research and
Development for Innovation in the Czech Republic (Tania Perglová).
At this point we move to address the second question tackled by the speakers
of the Round Table 1. This examined the limits and barriers which prevent
deriving higher added value from the use of the various funds in the financing
of RTDi projects.
These limitations and barriers can be summarized as follows:
a. Each Community financial instrument has contact points or different
national or regional management arrangements. Thus, the managing
authorities of Structural Funds (SF) are different from the National Contact
Points of the Framework Programme (FP7, CIP). Also, in convergence
regions where there is greatest concentration level of structural funds, the
Framework Programmes (FP7, CIP) are much less well known. Therefore it
is more difficult for management authorities to obtain relevant information
on the potential synergies of these instruments.
b. Additionally, the Roundtable reiterated difficulties arising from the existence
of different eligibility rules for each respective instrument. For example,
varying financial control requirements represent a real obstacle to the
participation of enterprises and other regional players in calls for projects;
likewise, the multiplicity of schemes and administrative modalities for
accessing financial assistance from the instruments concerned. In short,
there is felt to be a disconnection between the authorities responsible for
IRE
each instrument, which actually limits the creation of synergies.

In conclusion, Round Table 1 agreed that the administrative rules, financial
controls and procedures remain complicated. There is scope for further
simplification and for further harmonization of coordination mechanisms.
In summary and as a further conclusion, it is clear from the exchanges of views
in Round Table 1, that the ability of a region to exploit the complementary use
of financial instruments of the EU depends heavily on the quality of regional
innovation systems and the intensity and quality of cooperation between
industry, universities, technology centers, financial institutions, government
agencies and other organizations. To put it in simple words, capacity of
synergies creation depends on the quality of regional governance and
the capacity in the region to interact with the innovation systems of other
regions.
62
Another finding to highlight is that, in order to maximize the added value

of the different sources of EU funding, it is essential for regions to develop
appropriate management systems and effective regional innovation
strategies, where the use of EU funds is a vehicle for promoting regional
innovation systemically. In the words of Mario Pezzini, States are not growing,
but only certain regions within States.
Synergies between actions financed by the EU should be a policy objective,
not only in the more advanced regions, but also in the less developed regions,
where the bodies responsible for the RTDi can also obtain additional benefits
as a result of multiple networking opportunities and the use of information
and other advanced services with other regions. At this point, the project
Oresung org provided interesting details about the additional benefits of
participative projects.
The importance of synergies is all the more marked during periods of
economic crisis, due to the existence of a clear correlation between the
economic cycle and RTDi spending. The current difficult economic situation
has highlighted the need to strengthen synergies between sectoral policies,
where innovation is seen as a horizontal objective and is, therefore, testing
bench for new approaches. Thus the current crisis has clearly illustrated
the need to explore new ways of designing policies in a more integrated
and coordinated manner. Traditional approaches have shown their limits.
Moreover, the creation of new bodies to smoothen and facilitate the
development of RTDi activities those in regions where a gap is found between
government priorities and those espoused by actors in regional innovation
systems.
We conclude with a reference to the difficulties imposed by the legal
frameworks governing Union funds and accessing them. The Round Table 1 has
shown that this issue must be carefully considered by the Union institutions,
including the Council and European Parliament. A consensus needs to be
reached on regulatory and procedural simplification without lowering
the level of trust necessary to ensure good governance. This is certainly a
request that has been repeated numerous times and Union institutions need
to examine how to meet such demands. Without doubt, this simplification
would enable funding instruments to generate both greater synergies and to
carry out higher value-added actions in a more efficient manner.
63
Contents
5.3 Round Table 6: “Academia-Industry relationship:

Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer” – A.
Valverde16
Content
The Bullet Points addressed were:
1. Good practices of Technology Transfer (TT) from Universities to
business.
2. The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) issue in the Academia-Companies
collaboration.
3. The knowledge-base start-ups.
The Key questions posed to the participants were:
1. How can systems with different but complementary targets, and different
systems of evaluation, be coordinated?
2. How can public Higher education and research Institutions promote
knowledge-base starts-up?
3. Can open innovation platforms be a tool to integrate the Regional
Innovation Ecology ?
Round table participants:

Chair:
Juan Ignacio Goicolea ‒ Regional Vice-Minister for Innovation and
Technology, Basque Country (Spain)
Rapporteur:
Antonio Valverde - Director of IDEA Agency, Junta de Andalucía (Spain)
Round table participants:
IRE
Georg Artelsmair - Unit Co-ordinator for Member States, European Patent

Office
Christian Saublens - Secretary General of EURADA (Belgium)
Alexandra Mayr ‒ Technology Transfer Expert at the International Project
Management Office, University of Alicante (Spain)
Summary
Governance, the link between EU decisions and their implementation at
national and regional level, is a priority in the design of EU economic strategies
to overcome the crisis.
16 Antonio Valverde is the director of IDEA Agency, Junta de Andalucía (Spain).
64
In particular, one of the key issues related to innovation policy and its future
is, again, governance, the efficiency in the use of the different instruments
and the coherence between regional, national and European policies on
innovation. One of the core questions within the debate about governance
in the innovation policy is the improvement of the relationship between
academia and business.
Innovation is one of the priorities of the Strategy EU 2020 (presented by
the Commission on the 3rd of March). One of the initiatives included in the
Strategy is the Innovation Union , the aim of which is to improve framework
conditions and access to financing for research and innovation so as to ensure
that innovative ideas can be turned into products and services that create
growth and jobs. The reinforcement of the links between education, business,
research and innovation and the improvement of the conditions for business
to innovate (i.e. create the single EU Patent and a specialized Patent Court,
modernize the framework of copyright and trademarks, improve access of
SMEs to Intellectual Property Protection, speed up setting of interoperable
standards) are core priorities if the Innovation Union.
Bullet Point 1: Good practices of Technology Transfer from Universities to

businesses
The round table has given some examples of good practices like the role of
National Patents Offices (NPO) in the technology transfer process (the case
of the Portuguese Industrial Property Office or the Dutch Patent Office). In
that case, Universities can benefit from the NPO expertise through a wide
range of services, for example, in the identification of appropriate business
partners. In addition, the support provided by National Patents Offices in the
identification and protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) can lead to
the creation of successful start-ups.
However, from a regional point of view, in the round table there also was a
debate on the Knowledge Economy, on the role of higher education and its
necessary link with business and on the gap between objectives and actions
to really connect these two sectors in order to reach a competitive regional
development. In fact, there are doubts about the efforts made to make the
links between academia and business transparent and reliable in the regional
development strategies.
It is necessary a compromise from academia, business and public sector to
change the mentality. Some examples of good practices about links between
universities and companies were given (like the INTERREG IIIC Ruisnet).
However, it was underlined that the region must choose the type of transfer
from universities business they want to foster: solving problems faced by local
clusters, enhance skills or increase knowledge absorption by local business.
Once it is done, the following step is to develop an integrated strategy with
financial and non financial measures.
Some options were mentioned to reach an organizational change, like
asking universities to react to the demand of enterprises or asking public
authorities to support, financially and non financially, SME to buy services
65
Contents
from universities instead of supporting universities to develop services for

the SME community.
Moreover, universities should have structures that bring student closer to the
entrepreneurial world and give the floor in classrooms to managers to tell
their experiences.
Bullet Point 2: The IPR issue in the Academia-Companies collaboration

The participants of the round table had different points of view. On the
one hand, some were of the opinion that it is crucial to set clarity in the IPR
issues (IP ownership, freedom to operate) before any collaboration between
Academia and Company starts, in order to create trust among the partners.
On the other hand, another proposal would be to create patent markets, either
at EU or at national or regional level. For instance, in compensation for grants
provided by regional authorities to universities and research centres (public
or private ones), public authorities should receive a certain number of patents
to build a portfolio which can then be valorised locally. Interested local SMEs
could access that portfolio (free of charge, fee etc…) or the portfolio could
become a tool to attract enterprises. This method is followed in the USA.
The IPR Helpdesk was explained. It is built on the experience of a pilot action,
and two projects funded by the European Commission under the Fifth and
Sixth Framework Programmes (2002-2005 and 2005-2007 respectively). It is
run by the University of Alicante. The objective of IPR Helpdesk is to promote
and to support the use of IP rights in international research, development and
technology transfer activities, providing an IP rights support service to actual
and potential beneficiaries of CIP and Research Framework Programme
actions, especially high-tech SMEs and Public Research Organisations.
Bullet Point 3: The knowledge-based Start-ups

The round table gave some useful suggestions and interesting conclusions.
Start-ups, in their objective to further develop a research result into a final
IRE
product, can strengthen their position through a patent application (or a

portfolio of patent applications) when searching for sources of financing
or in negotiating cross-licensing deals. Furthermore, a good use of patent
information can help them in identifying clients or markets.
Other more strategic opinions pointed out that the challenge is not the
number of start-ups created but their growth. In fact, Europe creates a great
number of start-ups (almost the same amount as in the USA) and 85-90%
of them survive after five years in our incubators, but those start-ups don t
grow as much as in the USA and they do not create the same employment
as in the USA. It was criticized that the survival of the company is the main
concern instead of its growth or it capacity to create employment. Moreover,
it was proposed to change the triple helix model to include the investors
community, as it is crucial to develop knowledge-based start-ups.
66
Key question 1: How can systems with different but complementary targets,
and different systems of evaluation, be coordinated?
Different opinions were stated. Some of them claimed for a reinforcement
of the intermediate layer (TT Office, Valorisation Centre…) between the
university research environment and the market oriented enterprises, so that
this intermediate layer could be able to communicate with both parties.
However, other more critical opinions pointed out the persistence of
fragmented approaches instead of integrated ones. Therefore, the question
should be How to foster synergies and better capitalize the results of the
different instruments? As solutions, the EU should develop an approach
which would be entitled EU Dissemination Labs: From Research to Regions ,
the aim of which would be capitalizing the support granted by the EU to
individual sectors (that would help the conversion of EU-cofounded project
outcomes into products/services) and disseminating Community Programme
outcomes throughout the EU (that would enable regional operators to
improve their innovation capacity).
Key question 2: How can public Higher Education and research institutions
promote knowledge-based starts-up?
Interesting proposals were presented. On the one hand, a good patent
knowledge by the start-up holder(s) and support from IP experienced actors
(e.g. from an NPO), as a useful tool for universities in the promotion and
strengthening of start-ups.
On the other hand, universities could receive support to develop schemes
aiming at promoting entrepreneurship activities; or help the innovators to
commercialize their ideas (suitable when the project relies on IPR); or assist start-
up entrepreneurs to buy support services from universities and research centres
or manage an excellence centre which becomes a magnet for start-ups.
Another proposal was to create a European award for the best university
spin-off as well as a ranking for the Top 500 European spin-off.
Key question 3: Can open innovation platforms be a tool to integrate the

Regional Innovation Ecology?
Some opinions stressed the existing potential to increase the intelligent use
of patent information ( patent intelligence ) in order to identify at least a
large part of the actors within the regional innovation eco-system. Platforms
including innovation actors identified in this way can foster the integration of
Regional innovation ecology .
Moreover, other opinions stated that these platforms could be a tool if the
right types of support services for the SMEs are developed, if higher education
institutions are involved in the new innovating methods from the SMEs and
if we rethink the role of the different intermediaries involved in a knowledge-
based strategy.
67
Contents
5.4 Round Table 7: “Governance. Coherence at regional,

national and European level” – K. Reppel17
Content
The Bullet points addressed were the following:
1. Definition of the relevant actors and their interactions.
2. The role of clusters and similar tools/instruments.
3. Possibility of concrete interactions between EU policies/instruments at
short/medium/long term.
The Key Questions posted to participants were:
1. How are national and regional priorities defined?
2. How are the regional priorities been taken into account at national/
European level?
3. How can the regional governance integrate the triple helix and the
public-private partnership?
4. How can systems with different but complementary targets, and different
systems of evaluation, be coordinated?
5. How can be achieved a reliable connectivity between decision-makers
and the scientific and business communities?
6. How to ensure concrete synergies between FP, CIFP, SF, Regional and
national programming?
7. Which are the main obstacles in the ERA Governance?

Chair:
Damien Périssé, Director for innovation and competitiveness, Conference
IRE
of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR)

Rapporteur:
Katja Reppel, Deputy Head of Unit to innovation policy development,
Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry, European Commission
Xabier Goenaga, Head of Knowledge for Growth Unit, Institute for
Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), European Commission
Carlos Martinez Riera, Director of the European Office, Ministry of Science
and Innovation (Spain)
17 Katja Reppel is deputy Head of Unit “Innovation policy development”, Directorate General Enterprise
and Industry, European Commission.
68
Kent Johansson, Regional Councillor of Region Västra Götaland (Sweden)

Stefania Crotta, Head of Unit Research, Innovation and Competitiveness,
Piemonte Region (Italy)
Gilbert J. Declerck, Executive Officer and Member of the Board of IMEC
International - Interuniversity MicroElectronics Center (Belgium)
Summary
The issue of governance is of crucial importance for innovation policy. To
be successful, innovation policy requires the involvement and coordination
of different types of stakeholders (private and public, enterprises, research,
training and education bodies, finance sector, etc.), different policy areas
(research, enterprise and industry, education, environment, etc.) and the
coordinated use of different types of policy instruments (grants, loans, VC,
fiscal incentives, support services, platforms, infrastructure, cluster initiatives,
public procurement, regulatory frameworks for IPR, product markets,
competition, etc.). For EU innovation policy in addition to this, a complex
system of multi-level policy and funding competences needs to be taken into
account.
Although there is no one-size-fits-all model for governance arrangements
for innovation, the European Innovation Progress Report 2009 noted that
sustained innovation performance is not a coincidence, it is derived from
persistently good governance… 18. However, there are common elements of
good innovation policy governance, in particular:
Ū Evidence-based priority setting
Ū Stakeholder involvement
Ū Coordination for the set up of a innovation support system
Ū Speed and resources set aside for the implementation
Ū Evaluation and trans-national learning
The participants in the round table focussed on two blocks of questions:
Ū First, priority setting and strategy development, both from an EU
perspective and from a national / regional perspective, in particular
regarding stakeholder involvement and smart specialisation
Ū Second, the set-up of the regional innovation systems to implement
the strategies, including a national / regional perspective on getting the
best mix of innovation support tools to match the needs of innovators
and a European perspective regarding the EU programme landscape
for innovation related support and how to get complementarities and
seamless, interoperable support between levels without overlaps.
Xabier Goenaga presented the current situation and problems with regard
to research and innovation policy governance in Europe. Carlos Martinez-
Riera gave a national government perspective on a multi-level governance
18 See: http://www.proinno-europe.eu/node/19184
69
Contents
system and suggestions on how to balance regional autonomy with need

for European cooperation. Kent Johansson provided views of a regional
government in a highly innovative Northern European country on the ERA.
Stefania Crotta contrasted this with the perspective of a Southern European
region, in particular since the Italian regions gained more competences in
the field of research an innovation in 2006. Gilbert J. Declerck presented
what stakeholders, in particular companies and research centres, expect from
European innovation and research governance. Damien Périssé summed up
the position of CPMR as an association of regions, on multi-level governance
for Europe2020, and on the coherence between regional, national and
European R&D instruments.
During the discussions, the following main conclusions emerged:
Ū Priority setting & strategy development

The Europe 2020 objective of smart growth throughout the Union provides a
suitable common objective both for R&D excellence and regional innovation
actions, in particular with a view to smart specialisation strategies that allow
regions to build on their strengths and seize opportunities for innovation and
growth through a concentration of their innovation and research measures on
specific issues where they can attain a competitive advantage. It was felt that
smart specialisation and a competitive approach to research and innovation
support should be promoted at all levels of governance and in all regions.
With regard to the concept of smart specialisation, it was seen as crucial
that the choice of the specialization is not made by a top-down decision.
The subject of a regional specialization needs to be identified in a bottom-up
entrepreneurial process. Ownership by regional level actors (public bodies
and other stakeholders) and empowerment without hierarchy ( multi-sphere
governance ) were seen as the best conditions for commitment and sustained
efforts for implementation.
A solid evidence base is indispensable for this, in particular to provide a
perspective beyond the borders of a region ‒ be it to compare its strengths
and opportunities to those of other regions to identify a competitive
IRE
advantage or to identify complementarities and cooperation opportunities

with other regions. Another success factor is to evaluate the impact of
regional innovation / smart specialisation strategies, i.e. to foresee tools and
governance arrangements to conduct such evaluations.
Ū Implementation of the strategy

In the discussions it emerged that the choice of instruments and methods for
the implementation of regional innovation strategies should be objective-
driven , not instrument-driven . In other words, the needs of the innovation
actors and the aims of the strategy should be the starting point to design
a delivery mechanism, including the types of support services, programme
managing bodies and types of support instruments.
70
The implementation methods for an innovation strategy should take into

account all regional competences and budgets, i.e. see not only financial
support mechanisms, but also ‒ if available to the regional government
- regulation, fiscal incentives for research or for the take-up of certain
innovations, support services, public procurement, etc., and to ensure
coherence and synergy between them.
Spill-over effects from other regions need also to be considered in the
design of an implementation method. For instance the closeness of research
facilities in a neighbouring region or the potential demand for participation
in collaboration platforms or living labs from enterprises in other regions
should be considered. The open innovation approach to regional innovation
support systems would mirror the open innovation strategies of enterprises,
which acknowledge the creative and innovative potential by getting fresh
ideas from outside.
In order to assess the impact/results of a regional innovation strategy and its
delivery mechanism, the indicators/deliverables need to be clear and data
material needs to be available. Such indicators may include in a short term
perspective regionalised statistics on FP7 beneficiaries in a region to assess the
short term benefits of an innovation strategy in terms of raising the capacity
of regional players to participate in the excellence-based FP7 projects. Other
indicators would need to be designed to measure the medium to long term
impacts, in particular economic impacts. These impacts can be obtained also
through investments outside the territory of a region (e.g. by contributing to
a shared research infrastructure or innovation support service structure) or
through other forms of trans-national cooperation and are not related to the
amount of EU funding attracted to the region.
In the discussions it was underlined that a strategy and its implementation can
only be as smart and mature as the designers of the strategy. The participants
thus called on the Commission to set up a comprehensive research and
innovation system training for policy designers and implementers. They
advocated a merger of the policy-learning and strategy development
support offered by the Commission s different programmes, in particular the
FP7 Capacities part for regions of Knowledge and Research Potential , the
different CIP-funded platforms for innovation policy-designers and support
providers and the INTERREG IV C projects for mutual learning among regional
policy makers.
Ū Role for EU in the context of empowered regions and strong national

policies
The round table discussions identified a range of measures and roles for the
EU in the context of good governance and coherence between regional,
national and European instruments:
Ū The EU funding was seen as the glue for European trans-national and
inter-regional collaboration, which is of paramount importance as this
type of collaboration and mix of actors and competences allows drawing
fully on the innovative and creative potential of the 500 million Europeans.
71
Contents
The opening up of regional innovation support systems and clusters to

trans-national cooperation should thus be further promoted.
Ū The EU has a major role to play with regard to fostering a favourable
environment for policies to interact. The aim should be to evolve from a
zipper model with complementarity between policies and instruments
at the different governance levels to a Velcro model, i.e. the alignment
and intertwining of those policies and instruments.
Ū There was unanimity on the need for interoperability and simplification
of the different EU-funded programmes that support research and
innovation.
Ū The EU should foster the convergence of cohesion and competitiveness
policy approaches through common orientations and incentives via
Cohesion Policy funds (e.g. towards societal challenges, as suggested in
the Europe 2020 strategy).
Ū A stronger involvement of regions in the governance of European R&D
policies and the Europe 2020 strategy also emerged as a shared concern
among the regional innovation actors.
Ū The question was raised whether Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI) and
joint programming (JP) approaches for the cross-border cooperation of
centres of excellence are suitable for the participation of small countries
and of SMEs.
IRE
72
5.5 Round Table 8: “Instruments: What are they and how

can they work in combination? How regions promote the
use of different instruments and their interactions”
Content
Bullet Points
1. Are there enough instruments?.
2. How to avoid duplication of efforts?.
3. The creation of a favourable environment for SME in the Innovation
space.
4. The role of public authorities, notably regional, and the connectivity
between EU and regional instruments.
5. The role of banks and private investors.
6. The interaction between Academia and business.
7. The role of audits.
8. The information gap.
73
Contents
Key Questions
1. Have the instruments enough focus to be seen as different and/or
complementary?
2. Can policy interaction achieve a simplification, higher flexibility and
combination capacity of different programs, and how?
3. Is it possible to coordinate the ERA instruments through the use of
financial provisions?
4. What are the obstacles for financing innovation in EU, and what kind of
financing is missing? in particular at regional level and for the SME?
5. The SME-Banking relations: can it be a win-win relationship?
6. Is auditing a hurdle or an impulse factor for innovation?

Chair:
Guy Clausse - European Investment Bank (EIB)
Rapporteur:
Jean-David Malo - Head of Unit for Regions of Knowledge and Research
Potential, EC Designated Service Manager for RSFF implementation,
Directorate General of Research, European Commission
Peter Wostner ‒ Deputy Director of Government Office for Local Self-
Government and Regional Policy (Slovenia)
Christopher John Hull ‒ General Secretary of EARTO (UK)
Geoffrey Britton - Chairman European Fed. Accountants and Auditors
(UK)
Bernrd Reicherd - Head of Unit Research and SMEs , Directorate General
IRE
of Research, European Commission

Jean-François Aguinaga - Head of Unit Business co-operation and business
support network development , Directorate General of Enterprise and
Industry, European Commission
Bettina Gladysz - Area manager for Research, Mobility and Innovation Funding,
EU-Framework Programmes, CATT Innovation Management GmbH
(Austria)
Summary
Summary not available
74
5.6 Round Table 9: “Evaluation and impact. Conditions to

improve/increase the RTD support to regional economic
development. Future of the Cohesion Policy”
Content
Bullet Points
1. The European Quality Seal in evaluation.
2. Sharing concepts in the different Programmes evaluation methodologies.
3. Impact measurements instruments.
4. Cohesion Policy impact on RTD and Innovation.
5. The Smart Guide for Innovation and Incubation.
Key Questions
1. Should an institution aiming at participating in REGPOT or REGIONS insert
its planning in the Regional Strategy (OP) of the SF?
2. Should the different projects be more standardised on the grounds of
sharing evaluation concepts?
3. Could a possible European Quality Seal of Evaluation bu used as a
reference for National and Regional Policies?

Chair:
Peter Kind - Director IPTS
Rapporteur:
Eric Dufeil - Head of Unit Spain , Directorate General for Regional Policy,
European Commission
José Luis Kaiser - Deputy Director General for Territorial Programming and
Evaluation of Community Programmes, Ministry of Economy and Finance
(Spain)
Andrzej Siemaszko - Director National Contact Points Office (Poland)
Klaus Schuch - Senior Researcher, ZSI (Social Innovation Centre) (Austria)
Philippe Vanrie - Chief executive Officer EBN (European Business network)
(Belgium)
Ian McCoull - Director of Innovation, Scotland Development Agency (UK)
Summary
Summary not available
75
Contents
IRE
76
6
K E Y M E S S A G E S F R O M W I R E
6 . K E Y M E S S A G E S
F R O M W I R E
1. Continue development toward greater synergies of research, innovation
and regional policies.
2. Creating favourable conditions for these policies to interoperate via
their instruments.
3. Fostering the ownership and empowerment of regions to accomplish
their vision of regional sustainable development in the context of the
EU2020 Strategy.
4. Regions should play a key role in the Governance.
Towards greater synergies

Ū EU and Members States must focus their actions in the coming decade
around the priorities of EU 2020 Strategy (smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth), and in particular on grand challenges.
Ū EU Research and Innovation Plan should guide the implementation of the
smart growth priority.
Ū Regional Strategies need to be framed within and connected with the EU
2020 Strategy and the European Research Area.
Ū Regions should develop integrated and tailor-made strategies pursuing
smart specialisation by defining a few research and innovation priorities
aligned to national and European objectives and on their needs and
potentials, identified in partnership with stakeholders, and concentrate
earmarked EU resources on these identified priorities.
Ū Debate needed on the future policies (post 2013) and their instruments:
Ū Better link between REGPOT and SF for Capacity Building.
Ū Better link between CIP on Clusters.
Ū Neighbourhood and outermost regions need to be taken into account in
new policy development .
Instruments
Ū Different funding instruments (FF, CIP, SF) although responding to specific
objectives, must be able to interoperate in order to obtain synergies.
Ū Proper development of existing instruments must pursue this overarching
goal.
Ū Research Potential and Regions of Knowledge Programmes are agreat
success but can be further optimised.
79
Contents
Ū Major simplification and harmonisation of rules between instruments:

Ū Clever structures and substantial simplification of participation rules
for all research and innovation funding, regardless of its origin, with
the clear objective to strengthen therefore the overall research
and innovation system, enable a more efficient use of funds and
instruments, and ensure better participation by SMEs.
Ū Design of harmonised rules governing the different instruments in
order to ensure easier synergies and complementarities.
Ū Effective contact points should be set up at regional level in order to
provide performance indicators.
Ū Regions need to use instruments in combination and put forward
showcases.
Ū Improvement of the Practical Guide on EU funding opportunities for
research and innovation.
Ū Improved information on Regions allocation of funds.
Ū Extension of the guide to other Funds.
Ū Education and employment policies instruments, including Lifelong
learning and European Social Funds.
Ū Proposal for an Observatory of European Funding.
Ū Comprehensive training on R&D and innovation funding for regional
managers and key role of trust- interfaces.
Ū Clusters: enhacement of a business-oriented tool for the Innovation
Policy.
Ū New approaches for cluster interactions.
Ū Trans-Regional alliances between within the same sector to be more
competitive abroad (e.g. Ceramic sector ES-IT).
Ū Different sectors, even from different Regions, provide each other
with competitive added value, as it is increasingly the case within the
IRE
Enterprise Europe Network.

Ū Research- driven clusters as a tool for efficient interaction of funding.
The EIT as model.
Evaluation and assessment

Ū Progress towards a culture of evaluation and assessment of performance
of the regions, towards EU2020 and ERA objectives.
Ū Indicators and voluntary assessment of regional programmes and
policies.
Ū Inclusion of a new criterion in evaluation and programmes: synergetic
use of funding.
Ū Common principles for evaluation and impact assessment of the
different funding instruments.
80
KEY MESSAGES FROM WIRE
Regions’ key role in Governance

Ū Regions must be involved in the debate on EU2020 Strategy
Ū Regions should assume their role in the governance
Ū Regions are placed in a privileged position to favor the interplay of the
different instruments available (local, regional resources, National and
European funds) through their customized portfolio of selected actions
81
Contents
IRE
82
7
P O L I T I C A L I M P A C T A N D
M E D I A I M P A C T O F W I R E
7 . P O L I T I C A L I M P A C T
A N D M E D I A I M P A C T
O F W I R E
7.1 Political impact: mention in decision-making fora
References to WIRE results (Chapter 6) can be found in the following
communications:
i . Competitiveness Council Conclusions 10246/10 (Brussels, 28 may 2010) –

“Various issues related to the development of the ERA” (pag. 6-7).
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st10/st10246.en10.pdf
3. Synergies between European, National and Regional policies and instruments in

support of R&D&I
CONSIDERS that there is scope for further measures aimed at fostering the synergies of
action between existing EU, national and regional instruments supporting research and
innovation, and CALLS for joint efforts by the Member States and the Commission aimed
at better coordination and cooperation between different policy areas such as Research,
Innovation, Education (the knowledge triangle), Competitiveness and Cohesion with the
view to fostering R&D&I along the lines and objectives defined in the Europe 2020 Strategy,
thus bringing innovative activities towards the needs of the society;
REAFFIRMS that research and innovation-driven cluster initiatives may help to align regional
and local priorities and instruments, as well as bring added value to local investments, and
INVITES the Commission to explore new approaches for cluster support through enhanced
coherence and interaction of different EU programmes and instruments, aiming at fostering
trans-regional collaboration between clusters;
INVITES the Member States and the Commission to continue improving the articulation
between their efforts in programming of and support for R&D&I, with a view to making
further progress in realising the ERA 2020 Vision and the Europe 2020 Strategy;
STRESSES the necessity to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of the information
available on EU instruments in support of R&D&I and the potential benefits for regions of
their combination and INVITES the Commission to continue progressing in this direction,
notably by improving, expanding the scope and upgrading the Practical Guide on EU
funding opportunities for research and innovation , including the modernisation of the
guide as a web-based comprehensive portal on R&D&I;
INVITES the Member States and the Commission to start a timely debate on the types of funds
that would be needed for the next financial perspectives in view of better support to R&D&I in
Europe, by taking particular account of the involvement of regions and their needs.
ii. Competitiveness Council Conclusions 10266/10 (Brussels, 28 may 2010) –

“Creating an innovative Europe” (pag. 9-10).
IV. Regional priorities
1. The regional level is key for innovation; in this respect, the European innovation policy
should ensure that adequate support for innovation actors, including SMEs is provided
85
Contents
also at regional level through the available instruments and making a synergistic use
of the existing funding opportunities and other initiatives (Competitiveness and
Innovation framework programme, Structural Funds, R&D Framework Programmes,
and the Knowledge and Innovation Communities of the EIT);
2. Clusters play an important role for innovation, gathering researchers, creative people,
enterprises and technology to create new products and services for the world market as
well as improving regional attractiveness; the efforts need to be continued to remove
barriers to trans-national cluster cooperation, and to encourage the emergence and
consolidation of world-class competitive clusters across Europe;
3. Cohesion policies in the regions regarding the competitiveness and employment
objective could contribute to focus on one or several pillars of the Europe 2020
Strategy: innovation promotion, green economy and social inclusion; the Council
STRESSES that innovation promotion, including eco-innovation and social innovation,
should become a fundamental priority for cohesion policy.
4. Furthermore, the development of Regional Partner Facilities (RPF) will increase the
innovation, technological and educational potential of the surrounding regions.
iii. Competitiveness Council Conclusions 10268/10 (Brussels, 28 may 2010)

– “Simplified and more efficient Programmes supporting European Research
and Innovation” (pag. 9).
IV. Interoperability of programmes and instruments

Ū STRESSES that, further to the simplification measures and streamlining of procedures,
a major potential for increased efficiency and synergies in supporting RTD&I in Europe
lays in the appropriate combination of different EU instruments. In this respect, INVITES
the Commission, when designing new programmes and instruments, to pay due
attention to:
Ū ensure the continuity of already existing instruments, which have proven of value
in the research community;
Ū facilitating the interactions among projects and activities to be financed, e.g. looking
for the complementary use of EU funding (FP, CIP and Structural Funds);
Ū applying the same rules to all EU programmes supporting RTD&I activities, if
appropriate given their respective objectives, when referring to the same aspects
of the financial and technical evaluation, IPR, management, reporting and auditing,
thus making easier to exploit the synergies and complementarities among them.
IRE
iv. Conclusions of the European Research Area Committee ERAC 1204/10

(Brussels, 21 June 2010) – “ERAC Opinion on recommendations and possible
options to achieve more synergies between the Knowledge Triangle and
Cohesion policies at various governance levels” (full document).
ERAC Opinion on recommendations and possible options to achieve more synergies

between the Knowledge Triangle and Cohesion policies at various governance levels
This document summarises the first results and suggestions for recommendations from the
ERAC WG on Synergies. The advice is based on the feedback received from ERAC members
to the questionnaire on Synergies between the various programmes within the Knowledge
Triangle and the Cohesion Programmes
The ERAC group on synergies was established on the basis of the Council Conclusions on
guidance on future priorities of 3 December 2009.
86
POLITICAL IMPACT AND
MEDIA IMPACT OF WIRE
The aim of the group is to explore possibilities for strengthening synergies between policies
within the Knowledge Triangle19 as well as with the Cohesion Programmes. Stronger
synergies will help to mobilize all stakeholders to realise the implementation of the ERA
2020 Vision and the Europe 2020 strategy. The results of the group will also be used as input
to the upcoming Research and Innovation Strategy and contribute to the work of the ERAC
group on instruments.
The ERAC synergies group prepared a questionnaire together with representatives of

the relevant services of the Commission. The questionnaire was submitted to all ERAC
members and subsequently the group drafted a document with key findings on the basis
of the received replies. The individual responses also contained a lot of national examples of
policies that cover the Knowledge Triangle. We recommend to use these for further work as
a basis for extracting good practices.
The results of this questionnaire were discussed at the first ERAC meeting in Santiago de
Compostela on the 10th and 11th of June. On the basis of the results of the questionnaire and
the discussion ERAC proposes the following set of recommendations and policy options to
the Council, Member States and the Commission:
At the strategic level:
1. There is a need for stronger integration and more synergies within the Knowledge
Triangle both at EU, National and Regional level. All relevant stakeholders at these
levels should be mobilized to create a common vision that will lead to holistic policy
strategies and, interoperable support programmes.
2. The Knowledge Triangle with firm roots in all governance levels can contribute to all
three priority objectives of the EU2020 strategy: smart growth, sustainable growth
and inclusive growth. These areas all require a balanced combination of Research,
Innovation, Enterprise, Education and Cohesion policies that contribute to the goal of
improving the attractiveness and competitiveness of Europe. Developing synergies
should also increase the effectiveness of investments in these areas (bang for the buck),
which is a necessity for the current and future budgetary consolidation.
Concerning governance:
3. Better policy coordination within the relevant Commission departments and among
the different Council formations - but also cross-departmental cooperation within
individual countries and regions, which is a sine qua non condition for successful
innovation policy! Various countries have experiences in this field which could be
shared for mutual learning. In general, a trust-based approach is needed to overcome
barriers between the different departments and levels.
4. Better promotion of the Knowledge Triangle as a concept to widen its acceptance.
Especially the integration of business innovation and entrepreneurship in the fields
of education and research as a major raison d être is not always the case yet. Wide
dissemination of the term at both the EU, National and Regional level will encourage
a wide uptake. This will also be further reinforced by the inclusion of the Knowledge
Triangle in other transversal recommendations like the Europe 2020 integrated
guidelines and its follow-up.
5. ERAC has the mandate to develop more synergies. This should be fixed part of the work
programme of the ERAC Committee, in cooperation with the relevant advisory groups
on education and innovation. ERAC should in consequence also develop principles
19 Conform with the definition laid down by the Council : “RECOGNISES that the Knowledge Triangle of
education, research and innovation relates to the need for improving the impact of investments in the
three forms of activity by systemic and continuous interaction;
87
Contents
(guidelines and best practices) for stronger coordination between the Knowledge
Triangle and Structural Funds building on earlier work by CREST20.
At the instrument level:

6. Strengthen synergies between FP, CIP, LLP, EIT and SF addressing the whole innovation
cycle ranging not only from research to demonstration and knowledge transfer, but
also possibly including business plan development, investor readiness etc. Regional
programmes should be designed and implemented in line with the principle of smart
specialization. It is important to take into account not only excellence but also relevance
and potential impact criteria when selecting projects for funding. In this context it will be
very important, in the planning of FP8 and the next CIP, to consider how research and
innovation support could be better integrated, either through better coordination and
opening the possibility of joint measures between FP8 and CIP or a (partial) integration
of CIP in FP8.
7. Interoperability between instruments should be a guiding principle ( Plug-in principle ).
Although their objectives are partly different the administrative conditions, financial
framework and criteria should be compatible as much as possible and administrative
barriers should be decreased. A user-perspective is needed, especially emerging
SME s should be supported by a seamless set of interoperational instruments (1 stop
approach in combination with a single set of rules to a project that makes use of several
programmes). The future financial perspectives (2014-2020) will play a crucial role here.
The general financial regulation should be the unique set of rules for all EU funding
instruments. Structural Funds managing authorities should not complicate the access
to support by gold plating the funding and control rules.
8. Important role for EIT as a pilot for a Knowledge Triangle instrument based upon
stakeholder based governance even if the experience is still limited and still has to
proof itself in practice. The KIC s cover the complete Knowledge Triangle (best practice).
In addition to large enterprises as early movers, SME s should play an important role
within the KIC s by delivering new impulses. KIC s link an international scope with co-
location and co-creation and combine in this way international networks with strong
local clusters. They can do what the future Framework Programme should also do. There
shall be no preferential treatment for sectoral or geographical entities. With view of
smart growth and specialisation, excellence can be found everywhere in the innovation
chain as long as an ecosystem provides for a level playing field.
9. Stronger accent on links between FP, Cohesion funds and Education needed (at all
education levels) for developing a systemic approach with education at the European
level. There is a lot of potential within the LLP, including Erasmus Mundus, Marie Curie
and the education mission of the EIT, focusing on increasing entrepreneurship. They
IRE
should support the implementation of the Knowledge Triangle including supporting

models for partnerships and mobility between institutions for higher education and
research and the business sector. Also, learning mobility should be enhanced together
with new types of research based education that is directly linked to business needs
and employability. Finally, transversal competences such as entrepreneurship should
be stimulated. They are key for the implementation and integration of the Knowledge
Triangle.
10. Pragmatic, flexible approach to synergies, not a panacea. The lead principle must be to
design policies and instruments in order to match the needs of users / beneficiaries. Thus
demand led policies will include often all three elements of the Knowledge Triangle, but
in a variable geometry. Ex ante impact assessment and better indicators should lead to
a well- balanced policy-mix.
20 See: CREST guidelines on coordinated use of FP7 and Structural Funds to support R&D http://cordis.
europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=FP7_NEWS&ACTION=D&DOC=40&CAT=NEWS&QUERY=1193816077227&RC
N=28339 and also the Practical Guide to EU funding opportunities for Research and Innovation http://
cordis.europa.eu/eu-funding-guide/home_en.html.
88
POLITICAL IMPACT AND
MEDIA IMPACT OF WIRE
7.2 Media analysis

Media impact was important due to the presence of the Spanish Minister
Cristina Garmendia, both Commissioners for Regional Policy, Johannes
Hahn, and for Research, Marie Geoghegan-Quinn, and the Belgian Minister
Benoit Cerexhe, among other relevant personalities.
Two press conferences were organized, after the opening session and after
the closing session respectively, which were mainly followed by national
press. While there are many references to the event in national, regional
and local press, the content was partially outshone by the publication
of the draft for the New Spanish Law of Science. This situation is easily
understandable, since the Law of Science is the most impact legislative act
for the last 30 years in this area.
Despite this fact, the conference was addressed by written press, radio and
TV. Some messages can be highlighted from written press. For example,
El Mundo (national press, 16/03/2010) entitled the news as [Ministry of]
Science asks regions not to confine to receive R&D support. Garmendia
urges regions «not to be just payees» of European funding and to play
the lead in innovation 21, and El Ideal (regional press, 16/03/2010) Spain
proposes common policies to the EU for the regions to lead productive
change .
Besides written press, WIRE was also refereed in the TV channels TVE1
Andalucía, Canal Sur and the radio channels RNE-1 Andalucía and RNE-5
Andalucía.
21 Free translation, parenthesis added.
89
Contents
IRE
90
8
R E F L E C T I O N S F R O M W I R E .
M O V I N G F R O M S Y N E R G I E S O F
P O L I C I E S T O S Y N E R G I E S O F
A C T I O N S
8 . R E F L E C T I O N S
F R O M W I R E . M O V I N G
F R O M S Y N E R G I E S
O F P O L I C I E S T O
S Y N E R G I E S O F
A C T I O N S
Rafael Rodriguez Clemente, Carlos Martinez Riera, Mikel
Landabaso, Jean-David Malo, Rocío Castrillo
Ū A conceptual framework of Innovation
Ū Innovation in the regional context
Ū Multidimensional coordination issues
Ū Synergies of action: are they possible?
Ū At a glance: Six points for synergies searching.
Ū Ways forward: the future debate
8.1 A conceptual framework of Innovation

“…A particular case is made for selecting Innovation as a core priority. Place-based
interventions, building on the strengths and taking account of the weaknesses of
previous experience as regards cohesion policy in this area, could complement policies
aimed at developing a European Research Area, by selecting in each region a limited
number of sectors in which innovation can most readily occur and a knowledge
base built up. Through such an approach – defined in the current policy debate as
“smart specialization” - the most could be made of the present diversity of industrial
agglomerations and networks, while their “openness” beyond regional or national
boundaries would be promoted…” (The Barca report, 200922)
Innovation is not R&D... and just R&D is not innovation: promoting innovation-
led regional development is not primarily about increasing R&D excellence
and RTD infrastructures (supply-push) but first and foremost about a change
of culture where efficient innovation systems mobilize the intellectual
and entrepreneurial capacities to create an innovation friendly business
environments (demand-pull), for SMEs in particular, in all regions and in all
sectors (not just high-tech). Consequently, the linear model of innovation
(from R&D to the market) is much less relevant for policy design than the
systemic or interactive model: not just patents but economic exploitation
of talent and new ideas; not just industry and big firms with R&D but also
services, competitive research and open innovation.
22 Barca, F. (2009) “An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy. A place-based approach to meeting
European Union challenges and expectations”.
93
Contents
Regional innovation capacities are more related to personal engagement,

institutions, networks, cooperation (social capital) than to narrowly focused
science and technology efforts. The main issues for regional innovation in
most regions in the EU are basically about knowledge absorption (education
and training, advanced business services) and diffusion (technology transfer,
ICT, entrepreneurship), as illustrated by the Basque Country example in Spain,
than about knowledge generation (science efforts).
Innovation has a strong territorial dimension (tacit knowledge-networked
economy) and there is no one size fits all innovation policy: regional diversity
is an asset that advocates for different routes to growth through smart
specialization . Indeed, the European Regional Policy has produced the so-
called Regional Innovation Paradox: those regions with big needs, get access
to big money, but many times they do not have the capacities to absorb the
funding, or properly exploit it in terms of innovation.
Therefore, Innovation is no longer about what or why but about how and
who. Changing cultural settings is more difficult than opening roads ‒ it
needs strategic planning capacities of regional/national governments (from
design to ongoing learning evaluation) and a culture of risk taking.
Currently in Europe, most research and innovation policies have sought to
promote the supply of innovations, whereas demand-side policies have remained
largely underdeveloped. This has led to an imbalance or bias in innovation
policies. The gradual deviation of the European research system at the supply
side has actually been astonishing: there is today a clear tendency towards
further integration of Member States national research policies in a European
framework through e.g. the concept of the so-called joint programming of
research. The conceptual idea was, and still is, that such supply-side institutional
reforms would feed and be driven by the Single Market achievements.
Demand does not really enter into the picture, except for concerns with
respect to the possible emergence in European high-tech sectors of market
dominance and lack of competition. Innovation policy remained a key policy
dimension of DG Enterprise: the concern of enterprises, apparently the only
ones confronted with demand. With the integration of innovation under the
IRE
heading of the Commissioner for Research in the new Barroso s Commission,

there is now a clear policy shift in the recognition of the need for an effective
supply-demand matching in research and for the particular role of demand-
driven innovation for growth, welfare and well-being23.
In few words, R&D excellence and Regional innovation are complementary and
we need both. Exploiting agglomeration and economies of scale is important
(as pursued by the ERA) but also diffusion and absorption mechanisms based
on regional potential. Beyond R&D expenditure and patents, we still do not
have the required indicators to properly characterize regional innovation
potential or measure policy impact. In any case, matching business demand
with RTD supply is paramount to foster economy. In the opposite way, the
openness of the business world to bet on the offers of innovative research
results, is the gateway for the knowledge society.
23 See the contribution of Luc Soete in Annex I.
94
REFLECTIONS FROM WIRE. MOVING FROM SYNERGIES
OF POLICIES TO SYNERGIES OF ACTIONS
All this shows that microeconomic competitiveness problems cannot be

efficiently tackled by overdoses of macroeconomic or sector based policies
but by integrated, place-based regional policies. Public sector should provide
leadership and vision, rather than control, and catalyze economic development
by promoting new ideas and partnerships with the private sector, avoiding
models based on the Enlightened absolutism maxim for them but without
them . Support schemes must be long-term, understandable and readily
accessible by SMEs. Place-based regional innovation strategies and action
plans integrating multi-level governance (national-regional) and horizontal
(inter-ministerial) cooperation are a necessary first step. Real ownership by
the stakeholders of innovation strategies and public procurement (green and
innovation driven) are important tools to consider.
Innovation policies require risk taking from all sides, trial and error and sound
evaluation, in addition to the necessary patience to cope with the time
lag between the investments and the results. This scenario needs political
consensus and support to cope with the possible risks.
8.2 Innovation in the regional context

The EU 2020 Strategy pointed out that RTD and Innovation are key in attaining
its objective: a smarter, more sustainable and inclusive growth . Both RTD
and Innovation are vital for increasing productivity and competitiveness
and for a better quality of life. This requires the optimal coordination and
synchronisation of a range of policies and intervention tools based on good
existing practices and new thinking.
There is a mismatch of Research and Innovation governance and connectivity
between the different levels where actions should be taken. In fact, a proof
of good governance would be the efficiency in the use of the different
instruments, and the coherence between the regional, national and European
policy toward innovation and use of the RTD capacity.
In addition to the difficulty detected in the coordination between the
community instruments (Framework Programme -FP-, Competitiveness
and Innovation Programme -CIP-, and Structural Funds -SF-), it is crucial to
incorporate other measures into the model on a national and regional level.
These are highly important, both because of their total expenditure amount
as well as their understanding of specific problems.
There is also an open debate on how the autonomy of the local authorities
can be coupled with a certain level of centralized decision on common issues
as most of the competences and budgets for attaining them are with the
Member States and their regions and local authorities. This requires a smart
and transparent multi-level governance approach providing an efficient
framework for an optimal coordination. By multi-level governance we refer
to the interaction among the three main authority structures for policy
intervention, European, national and regional/local, which interact in a
complex context and are not hierarchically dependent one from each other.
In this sense, it is necessary to propose useful models on a European scale
that also contain national and regional characteristics; without the latter, any
95
Contents
model will be greatly lacking in management. This process must be founded

on identifying good practices in different geographic and social scenarios
and on searching for a common denominator.
Some of the questions that arise when going deeper into the interaction between
the different political dimensions, or governance of the innovation, are:
Ū What types of policies are most appropriate for each dimension (European,
national, regional)? Investing in innovating capacity? Geographical
champions? Clusters? Other possibilities?
Ū What policies focused on introducing cultural change (innovation is an
attitude) can be promoted? How can academia and business be brought
closer together? What is done in each country or region? Can we learn
from each other?
Ū What are the innovation appropriation strategies on a regional level?
Ū What is the most efficient process for implementing the regional strategic
innovation agendas? What effect does the administration type have? Is it
possible to exchange good practices in innovation strategy design and
management between different regions or countries?
Ū In short: How can we improve the governance, the efficient use of
instruments and the impact of the innovation processes at regional
level?
One crucial issue for all these questions is the apparent scarcity of dialogue
between the components of the triple helix: the policy level, the academia
and the production system. The common European policies targeted at
production system support could be stimulus factors for this dialogue;
numerous European initiatives are based on scientific studies that have
identified risks and have proposed solutions, but they have not had market
response. There is no production system or sector that is able to function
in isolation from the updated or new standards or external competitors. In
fact, the appearance of clusters, a good instrument gathering the interested
parties of a sector, including the components of the triple helix even at
their different levels, has been a defensive response to the laws of global
IRE
competition; companies do not feel the need to work with external agents or
with their local competitors if they do not feel threatened.
The management of the support funds by different administrations creates
a process of cultural appropriation for each administration, making any
resource integration difficult. Dialogue between administrations is difficult,
especially when acting at different levels; and the setting of priorities responds
to different policy logistics, as well as different schedules.
Additional problems are the different ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of the
different programmes. It is difficult to match the mechanics of definition and
application of the SF Operative Programmes with the definition of priorities
and the call for projects from the FP. The assessment criteria are different,
and for most planned activities aimed at promoting innovation or support
to infrastructures needed it is difficult to combine the use of performance
96
indicators of, at least, both programmes. Moreover, Administrations usually do

not have proper criteria within its regular functioning to identify excellence,
which sometimes turns out to be a problem for sharing criteria for fund
sharing.
In summary: procedural models not supported by deep knowledge of the
cultural fundamentals and values of a particular region are heavily mortgaged
in terms of possible results.
8.3 Multidimensional coordination issues

Although at the EU level, first steps have been taken to achieve more and
better synergies of policies between 7th Framework Programme (FP7),
the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and the
Structural Funds (SF), there is still a need to foster this cooperation and further
translate these into increased synergies in practice .
As mentioned, there is a problem of governance and connectivity between the
different levels where actions should be taken in order to raise the efficiency
and effectiveness in the use of the different instruments, and the coherence
between the regional, national and European policy towards innovation,
business support and use of the RTD capacity. Platforms for developing
learning processes on these issues among regions have been developed.
However, in order to be efficient and to reach a critical mass, they need to
be more systematic and gather several Directorates-Generals. Funds driven
by cohesion and with a place-based-perspective must be complementary
with those driven by scientific and technological excellence and/or trans-
European cooperation and international opening.
The most evident barriers to achieve the multidimensional coordination are
the following:
Ū Differences in procedures which do not respond to functional differences
between instruments and lack of interaction between governance
structures (in particular committees). Nevertheless this might largely be
improved through better cooperation/coordination between SF and FP s
stakeholders, at regional, national and European levels.
Ū Evaluation models and shared management responsibility models. It is
difficult to compare programmes whose financing and management are
concentrated in a single agent from programmes where different agents
assume the tasks of financing and management. In this second case, it
is not clear who responds to the most efficient use of funds or who is in
charge of performing the evaluation.
Ū Intended impact does not always match actual result. SF optimal use should
fight against the fragmentation of the Union s joint research capacity
by investing in the context of a European added-value strategy, trans-
national cooperation perspective and synergies with well-functioning
trans-national platforms such as the Enterprise Europe Network.
Ū Lack of a comprehensive multi-level governance model. Europe 2020
97
Contents
Strategy and the EU Research and Innovation Plan should provide this
new strategic framework without duplication of efforts.
An apparent contradiction stands out between the cohesion and economic
development goals of the Structural Funds and the Framework Programme s
search for excellence. However, it is not realistic to consider that these
instruments have different goals. FP and SF are two complementary
instruments with a common objective: maximise knowledge-based
economic potential throughout the Union. The regional innovation is crucial
for demand-led innovation based on the development of innovation friendly
business environments.
In the current debate on the future EU funds under the new financial
perspectives some positions seem to suggest that the Cohesion Policy Funds
hinders the excellence of FP7 with cohesion aspects. However, the major
difference between the FP and the Structural Funds is that the latter are
mostly pre-allocated, while the FP allocations are based on competition. Both
types of funds can support excellence. Besides, the FP7 already has a small
part which is allocated on the basis of need for policy development and
capacity building, not excellence: the REGPOT projects.
8.4 Synergies of action: are they possible?

The title of this section points out one of the key questions addressed in the
WIRE conference. As replied by several speeches and round tables, the answer
is categorically YES , they are possible. However, not all stakeholders are in
the position of optimally exploiting these synergies.
For the realization of synergies, actors should meet some preconditions:
Ū Clear understanding of objectives to achieve with actions
Ū Clear idea of the scope and characteristics of EU financial instruments
Ū Capacity to look for interactions among projects and activities to finance.
We can find examples of synergies of actions in the area of clusters and
in research infrastructures. Undoubtedly, the identification of successful
IRE
experiences in combining different funding can be very useful for other

regions that want to continue this path. For example, in Spain, CDTI (National
Innovation Promotion Agency) uses Structural Funds to reinforce cooperation/
communication/coordination between National Contact Points (NCP) of
FP7 and national managers of international R&D programmes and Regional
public agents promoting, financing and stimulating R&D and Innovation
through information campaings, active search of partners and assistance
in preparation of proposals. The so-called Technology Fund 2007-2013 is
funded under the Spanish Operational Programme.
The preparation of the Operational Programme for SF in the Czech Republic24
shows that that a managing authority can encourage the creation of
synergies between different financial instruments. On two major projects
24 See the contribution of Tana Perglova in Annex I.
98
financed under the Research and Development for Innovation Operational

Programme, it was demonstrated the will of beneficiaries to combine
different EU tools. Synergies between national and different EU instruments
are possible but there are still significant barriers which make the creation of
synergies and complementary use of funds difficult. These barriers must be
identified and lifted.
The Regional Potential Programme (REGPOT) of the Capacities Programme
of FP7 is another case where synergies are possible. This Programme, aimed at
supporting excellent research centres located in Convergence regions, is one
of the most competitive programmes in FP7. In fact, the number of submitted
proposals is very high (about 500 in the last 2010 call) and those passing the
threshold of a very strict evaluation are in between 10 to 20%. However, the
number of financed proposals is only around 10 in the last calls.
These proposals, besides targeting scientific excellence, focused on increasing
the potential knowledge of the regions and supporting the innovation of the
productive sectors. In this regard, most of the proposals are supported by
the regional authorities, which usually participate in the Steering Committee
of the financed proposals. Taking into account the above arguments, a
further step can be that the Regional Authorities consider those proposals,
coming from their region and which pass all the evaluation thresholds, as
possible beneficiaries of the SF in their region. This would be possible either
incorporating the financing of the entire proposal or some of its sections
in their Operational Programme (OP) or introducing an amendment in the
revision of the OP to incorporate such funding that, we must not forget, is
aimed at improving the competitiveness of the region. Therefore, the positive
evaluation of a REGPOT proposal should deliver a Quality Stamp to those
research centres that pass it, and this Quality Stamp should be taken into
account by the regional Authorities.
Some constrains that limit the capacity for funding of the regions, mainly by
increasing the complexity of these actions, are the following:
Ū Different rules (difficulties derived from eligibility rules, financial
requirements, application procedure. No need to say that the change of
rules over time is also pernicious for the creation of synergies).
Ū Different timing.
Ū Different actors (different managers and fragmentation of contact
points).
In this context, during the conference many proposals were done, at different
levels of granularity. We have reflect on some of them in the remaining of this
section, although it should not be consider an exhaustive list.
Proposals for assuring more effective synergies
1. Improving the quality of the regional systems of innovation

The need of intensive cooperation between firms, universities, technological
centres, and government agencies has been repeatedly highlighted. Clusters
99
Contents
is an important tool for enhancing competitiveness as it provides an arena

where different actors can meet to both cross fertilize ideas into new
opportunities as well to combine forces to create concrete results leading to
new and improved business opportunities.
From the operational perspective, the success of a cluster is heavily
dependent on the true sharing of a common business vision and a cluster
management capable to merge business opportunities with possibilities of
new technologies, services and business models.
Although there is not one recipe for how a successful cluster can be formed,
from the policy perspective clusters need to be seen as part of a broader
competitiveness agenda, must have industry-driven leadership and their
further integration within European competitiveness policies should be
encouraged.
This links to the question on how to foster synergies and better capitalize the
results of the different instruments. As solutions, the EU can develop specific
dissemination tools, aiming at capitalizing the support granted by the EU to
individual sectors (that would help the conversion of EU-cofounded project
outcomes into products/services) and disseminating Community Programme
outcomes throughout the EU (that would enable regional operators to
improve their innovation capacity).
Clusters can be used as an organisational basis for joining up policies such
as science policy, regional policy and industrial policy to make the best of
European, national and regional funding for R&D and innovation for the
benefit of companies. One approach could be to integrate existing funding
into one centralized instrument that provides clusters with more leeway for
development by allocating the funds to the activities they have identified as
crucial.
New cluster policy instruments in Europe need to be explored in order to
better facilitate the development of new, emerging industries, for example
through supporting the complementarity of clusters, whereby different
sectors, even from different regions, provide each other with competitive
added value, as it is increasingly the case within the Enterprise Europe
IRE
Network. This identification of Research and technology activities links to the

concept of smart specialisation discussed in next point.
In sum, clusters represent a catalyser and a privileged vehicle to implement
innovation actions and business support in territories. Cluster initiatives may
help to align regional and local priorities and instruments, as well as adding
value to local investments, when developing regional policies within the
framework of European strategies and initiatives.
2. Regions should develop adequate governance systems and elaborate

effective regional innovation strategies
The concept of smart specialization has been recurrently used to refer what
a region can do better than competitors in terms of Science and Technology.
It was seen as crucial that the choice of the specialization is not made by
a top-down decision, neither by a foresight exercise, but by a process of
100
discovery. The subject of a regional specialization needs to be identified in

a bottom-up entrepreneurial process. Ownership by regional level actors
(public bodies and other stakeholders) and empowerment without hierarchy
( multi-level governance ) were seen as the best conditions for commitment
and sustained efforts for implementation.
The choice of instruments and methods for the implementation of regional
innovation strategies should be objective-driven , not instrument-driven . In
other words, the needs of the innovation actors and the aims of the strategy should
be the starting point to design a delivery mechanism. Therefore, further ex-post
evaluation should use as a criterion the fulfilment of the established objectives.
Moreover, spill-over effects from other regions should be considered in the
design of an implementation method. For example, the closeness of research
facilities in a neighbouring region or the potential demand for participation
in collaboration platforms or living labs from enterprises in other regions
should be considered. The open innovation approach to regional innovation
support systems would mirror the open innovation strategies of enterprises,
which acknowledge the creative and innovative potential by getting fresh
ideas from outside.
During the conference, it has arisen a proposal for the creation of an
Observatory of European funding, which would have the task of identifying
cases of good practices.
3. Innovation as a horizontal target, to strengthen policy synergies

The European Commission is taking the leading role in making Innovation a
horizontal target. Indeed, Innovation is one of the priorities of the Strategy
EU 2020, among several flagship initiatives. One of these initiatives is the
Innovation Union , which has the objective to improve framework conditions
and access to financing for research and innovation so as to ensure that
innovative ideas can be turned into products and services that create growth
and jobs.
In this way, the European Commission puts forward the improvement of
the framework conditions for innovation, which also improves the road for
interconnection of funding instruments among different Directorates-Generals.
Regarding synergies, the involvement of the Directorates-Generals for
Research, Regional Development and Enterprise in the organisation of WIRE,
and in concrete the presence of both Commissioners for Research and for
Regional Development, was a clear signal of the high commitment regarding
inter-DGs cooperation.
4. More simplification needed: European Commission, Council, and

Parliament.
There was unanimity on the need for interoperability and simplification of
the different EU-funded programmes that support research and innovation.
It was clearly highlighted that, in every future initiative, it is of paramount
importance to strive for establishing an enhanced set of coherent rules.
101
Contents
Whenever possible, they should be the same when referring to similar aspects
of the project financial and technical evaluation, Intellectual Property Rights,
management and audit, even across different instruments.
Issues to avoid would be the changing interpretation of rules (among
instruments or along time) or the prohibition of using various sources of
funding (including from different EU origins). In this sense, discussions also
pointed out to the need of fewer instruments but designed with a clear vision
of the objectives and expected results/outputs.
The European Council of Competitiveness (Research part) held on 26th of May
2010 pointed out four main areas where action is needed:
Ū Reducing complexity, through the limitation of rules and instruments.
Ū Reducing the need for audit intensity, opening the debate about the
possibility of result-oriented funding, taking into account the risky nature
of research.
Ū Improving quality, accessibility, transparency and procedures. Proposed
actions in this direction include the reduction of the time to contract and
communication in real-time on disaggregated data of the response to the
calls.
Ū Interoperability of programmes and instruments is one of the main
possibilities to increase the funding effectiveness in RTDi support. In
this regard, it is proposed to apply the same rules to all EU programmes,
whenever possible, and to homogenize evaluation criteria, taking into
account specific objectives of every instrument.
In this sense, the Plan for Research and Innovation, within the EU2020 Strategy,
will suppose an important milestone, since it has been recognised the need
for an horizontal approach for innovation policy.
5. Comprehensive research and innovation system training

A strategy and its implementation can only be as integrated in the European
Union as the designers of the strategy are. In this sense, the participants called
IRE
on the Commission to set up a comprehensive research and innovation

system training for policy designers and implementers. They advocated a
merger of the policy-learning and strategy development support offered by
the Commission s different programmes, in particular the FP7 Capacities part
for Regions of Knowledge and Research Potential , the different CIP-funded
platforms for innovation policy-designers and support providers and the
INTERREG IV C projects for mutual learning among regional policy makers.
Furthermore, in the long term it would necessary to develop a more integrated
approach of EU research, innovation, business support and education
policies and their instruments, to ensure implementation of actions taking
into account the whole value chain from the creation of knowledge until the
commercialisation of products.
102
8.5 At a glance: Six points for synergies searching

In the search of synergies, six points must be highlighted as key issues
resulting from WIRE discussions:
1. FP-CIP-SF coordination should be improved, by the analysis of
possibilities of a clear trajectory over the different funds. In this context,
the improvement of the Practical Guide on EU funding opportunities
for research and innovation is a task to be undertaken.
2. Regions: Regions should develop integrated and tailor-made strategies
pursuing smart specialisation by defining a few research and innovation
priorities based on the European objectives and on their needs and
potentials, identified in partnership with stakeholders, and concentrate
earmarked EU resources on these identified priorities.
It is also necessary the active engagement of regional policy-makers and
stakeholders in the Europe 2020 Strategy, within an overall coordinated
European approach.
3. Research-driven clusters: Development of research-driven clusters has
been identified as a tool for efficient integration of latent capacities and
interaction of funding and further analysis of potentialities should be
fostered.
4. Simplification: Clearer structures and substantial simplification of
participation rules for all research and innovation funding, regardless of
its origin, with the clear objective to strengthen therefore the overall
research and innovation system, enable a more efficient use of funds
and instruments, and ensure better participation by SMEs.
While respecting specificities of each policy, design of harmonised rules
governing the different instruments in order to ensure easier synergies
and complementarities. Shared terminology among all EU innovation
and business related instruments will help to avoid confusion among
applicants.
5. Evaluation: Definition of objectives and indicators compatible with the
Europe 2020 Strategy and the ERA, and further evaluation of progress.
Development of common projects of assessment of results of the several
community instruments and their impact in the attainment of results by
regions at the light of the EU2020 priorities.
6. Future: The debate on the next financial perspectives (beyond 2014)
must be based on an analysis of good practice in the use of funds and
the desired achievement of synergy between community, national, and
regional instruments.
103
Contents
8.6 Ways forward: the future debate
From synergies to policies…

There have been several previous initiatives that were the background of the
conference and on the further initiatives:
Ū COM (1993) Cohesion Policy and RTD Policy ‒ Synergies between
Research and Technological Development Policy and economic and
social cohesion policy .
Ū COM (1998) Reinforcing Cohesion and Competitiveness through Research
Technological Development and Innovation .
Ū COM (2001) The Regional Dimension of the European Research Area
Ū COM (2007) Competitive European Regions through Research and
Innovation Æ Following this communication, the Commission has
produced an EU Practical Guide to EU Funding opportunities for Research
and Innovation that highlights the complementarities among the
Community Funds for this purpose and explains how to use them most
appropriately.
Ū COM (2007) Regions delivering Innovation through Cohesion Policy .
Commission staff working document.
Ū European Parliament, Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy
(2007) Synergies between the EU 7th Research Framework Programme,
the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme and the
Structural Funds . IP/A/ITRE/FWC/2006-87/LOT3/C1.
Ū CREST (2007) Guidelines on Coordinating the Research Framework
Programme and the Structural Funds to support Research and
Development .
Ū ERAC (2010) ERAC Opinion on recommendations and possible options to
achieve more synergies between the Knowledge Triangle and Cohesion
policies at various governance levels . 1204/10.
IRE
Moreover, the need for synergies and interoperability of funds has been
addressed by the Competitiveness Council of the European Union by
several communications, which manifested its strategic relevance as a
political objective. In addition, ERAC (European Research Area Committee,
formerly CREST) has very recently formed a Working Group on Synergies. The
importance of this fact cannot be denied, since ERAC acts as an early strategy
Advisory Body that guides and gives advices to the Commission regarding
several issues.
Furthermore, the Research and Innovation Plan, although it is nowadays in
process of preparation, would be an important milestone for the definition of
the governance of instruments and their potential interaction. Debate should
be followed closely in the following months.
104
Regarding the regional level, there is a wide diversity in Regional Innovation

Strategies. The regions must (learn to) take advantage of the excellent global
research for regional development cases. In addition, we must know how to
exploit regional excellence on a global level. Funds intended for cohesion
policies must be complementary with those intended for scientific excellence.
The basis for this is that scientific excellence is present throughout all the
regions; it is dispersed throughout Europe. However, the ability to create
value from this research varies significantly from one region to another.
Currently, it is generally accepted that the region is the basic environment that
favours innovation since identification of the different agents and their needs
is better performed at a regional level, especially for SME. For this reason, the
regions must have clear support strategies for long-term innovation, and
these must be part of their negotiations for the operational programmes of
the Structural Funds (SF). Isolation and lack of long term vision in the design
and management process for the regional strategies aimed at innovation
should be avoided at all levels to avoid fractal clones of national or European
programmes, or programmes focused on spending. The search for a real
impact must be the driving force of regional strategies as well as its emphasis
on articulation and interplay with the national and European programmes.
… to synergies of actions
As well as the responsible institutions of synergies of policies are basically
the policy-makers, regardless the institution they come from, synergies
of actions must be pursued by institutions, which are regional tied. In this
context, several proposals have been made throughout this document:
complementary training for facilitators, smart specialization, research-driven
clusters, etc.
Regardless, further exchange of good practices is highly needed. WIRE 2011
will continue being a good opportunity for this exchange, and regional
authorities can be inspired by their homonyms in other countries in order to
implement new synergic actions.
One of the already identified good practices in use is the utilisation of Structural
Funds to finance Research Infrastructures, which generally suppose a very
important cost, and also to finance a national research plan, as in the case of
the Czech Republic. The European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures
(ESFRI) has created a roadmap including new Research Infrastructure (RI) of
pan-European interest corresponding to the long term needs of the European
research communities, to be built in the next 10 to 20 years.
Within the Capacities programme, there is a sub-programme called Research
Infrastructures, aiming at optimising the use and development of the best
infrastructures of pan-European interest in all scientific and technological
fields.
105
Contents
Proposals for synergies in “Research Infrastructures” multi-contractor projects

(Capacities).
Ū Top-down actions proposed for future ESFRI projects and projects
already in the construction/implementation phase:
For ESFRI projects having their construction/implementation between
now and 2012, applicability of possible funding for the period 2007-
2013 needs to be checked with DG REGIO in the frame of SF:
Ū verification of the content of the respective National or Regional
Sectoral Operational Programs, which may require modifications,
Ū explore interest of Managing Authorities to use such Funds for
these projects or sub-projects;
Ū For those projects for which the implementation phase is planned
after 2013, it may be useful to stimulate the Managing Authorities
to explore the possibility to include them in the future National or
Regional Sectoral Operational Programs
Ū Bottom-up actions proposed for future ESFRI projects and projects
already in the construction/implementation phase:
All relevant data needed for the use of SFs for the development of
research infrastructures or their regional partner facilities should be
communicated to all possible stakeholders (Research Infrastructures
Project participants; ESFRI representatives; Programme Committee
members; NCPs; Committee of Regions; European Parliament).
The next edition of WIRE to be held in Hungary 2011 will likely explore the
regional dimension of infrastructures, and with this aim will bring together
the ESFRI delegates and the national representatives of REGPOT and REGIONs
programmes (FP7).
New Financial Perspectives: time for debate on adaptation of funds

IRE
The debate on the next financial perspectives (beyond 2014) must be based on
an analysis of good practice in the use of funds and the desired achievement
of synergy between community, national, and regional instruments.
Therefore, it is necessary to open the debate on the feasibility and/or
pertinence to tie distribution of Funds to (measurable) objectives of the Europe
2020 strategy and ERA objectives. New models should foster the search of
synergies. In this debate, regions should be full promoters of initiatives and
not only receptors of funding. The EU has to reach its regions and become
partners in order to reach together the common goals.
Review of the EU financing framework with a view to achieving a risk tolerant
and trust-based approach for the management of research, innovation and
cohesion funding supporting the EU s policy objectives, in agreement with
the European Parliament and the Member States.
106
L I S T O F A C R O N Y M S
ACP. African, Caribbean and Pacific group of States

CI. Culture & Creative Industries
CIP. Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme
CoR. Committee of the Regions
CPMR. Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions
DG. Directorate-General
DG ENTR. Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry
DG REGIO. Directorate-General for Regional Policy
EBRD. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EC. European Commission
ECPG. European Cluster Policy Group
EEN. European Enterprise Network
EIB. European Investment Bank
EIT. European Institute of Innovation and Technology
ENPI. European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
ERA. European Research Area
ERDF. European Regional Development Fund (Structural Funds)
ESF. European Social Fund (Structural Funds)
ESFRI. European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures
ETAP. Environment Technology Action Plan
ETP. European Technology Platforms
EU. European Union.
FP. Framework Programme
FP7. 7th Framework Programme on Research and Technological
Development (2007-2013).
FP8. 8th Framework Programme on Research and Technological
Development (2014-2020).
IPA. Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance
IPR. Intellectual Property Rights
IPTS. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
107
Contents
KIC. Knowledge and Innovation Community

MA. Managing Authorities
MED. Mediterranean countries
MS. Member States
NCP. National Contact Points
NPO. National Patent Offices
OCT. Overseas Countries and Territories
OP. Operational Programmes (Structural Funds)
OR. Outermost regions
R&D. Research and Development
RDC. Research Driven Clusters
REGIONS. Regions of Knowledge programme, under the Capacities
programme (7th Framework Programme)
REGPOT. Research Potential programme, under the Capacities
RI. Research Infrastructure
RoK. Regions of Knowledge programme, under the Capacities
RTD. Research and Technological Development
RTDi. Research, Technological Development and Innovation
RUP. Outermost regions - Spanish and French acronym
SF. Structural Funds
TT. Technology Transfer
WBC. Western Balkan Regions
IRE
108
A N N E X I
O R G A N I Z A T I O N O F W I R E :
C O N T E N T A N D F O R M A T
A N N E X I .
O R G A N I Z A T I O N O F
W I R E : C O N T E N T A N D
F O R M A T
I.1 WIRE full agenda: speeches and Round Tables
All presentations and speeches (where available) can be found at the

conference webpage on http://wire.fecyt.es/Publico/Programa/index.
aspx?idioma=en.
DAY 1: MONDAY 15TH
9:30-9:45 Welcome
Montserrat Torné - Director General of International
Cooperation and Institutional Relationships, Ministry of Science
and Innovation (Spain)
Robert-Jan Smits - Director of European Research Area:
research programmes and capacity , Directorate General of
9:45-11:00 Opening session: Synergies of Policies. Spanish and EU

authorities
Cristina Garmendia - Minister of Science and Innovation
(Spain)
Johannes Hahn - Commissioner for Regional Policy, European
Commission
Maire Geoghegan-Quinn - Commissioner for Research,
Innovation and Science, European Commission
Danuta Hübner - President of the Committee for Regional
Development, European Parliament
Martin Soler ‒ Regional Minister of Innovation Science and
Enterprise of the Andalusian Government (Spain)
111
Contents
11:00-11:30 Coffee (PRESS CONFERENCE FOR MEDIA DELEGATES)
11:30-12:00 From a Knowledge Society to an Innovation society

Françoise Le Bail ‒ Deputy Director General Enterprise and
12:00-12:30 The role of Research and Innovation for the Knowledge-based

Economy
Luc Soete - Director of UNU-MERIT (the United Nations University
- Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre
on Innovation and Technology) (Belgium)
12:30-13:00 The evolution of the EU regional policy towards more support

to R&D and Innovation
Mikel Landabaso ‒ Head of Unit Thematic coordination,
Innovation , Directorate General for Regional Policy, European
Commission
Chair: Christer Christensen - Senior advisor, Division for regional
growth, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications
(Sweden)
13:00-15:00 Lunch and poster exhibition

IRE
15:00-17:00 Round Table 1: Synergies of action: are they possible? - View of

main actors
Chair: Rudolf Strohmeier ‒ Deputy Director General of Research,
European Commission
Rapporteur: Germán Granda - Head of Unit France , Directorate
General Regional Policy, European Commission
Mario Pezzini - Head of Territorial Reviews and Governance
Division, OECD
Lars Montelius - Director for Öresunds Universtity, inter-country
Sweden Denmark and Germany (Sweden)
Jose Dominguez-Abascal ‒ Secretary General ABENGOA
(Spain)
112
ANNEX I. ORGANIZATION OF WIRE:
CONTENT AND FORMAT
Tana Perglova ‒ Deputy Director of the EU Operational

Programmes section, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
(Czech Republic)
17:00-17:30 Research and Innovation in the light of the Cohesion Policy and
EU 2020 strategy
Katarina Mathernova - Deputy Director General, Directorate
General for Regional Policy, European Commission
17:30-18:00 The future of Cohesion Policy, the key role of Research and
Innovation
Lambert van Nistelrooij - Member of European Parliament
EPP (The Netherlands)
Chair: Johanna Ringhofer ‒ Representative for REGIONs and
REGPOT Committee of Austria
20:00 Social event: Visit to the Alhambra and cocktail
DAY 2: TUESDAY 16TH
9.00-9.25 PLENARY SESSION
9.00-9.25 General overview: Introduction to the Regions of Knowledge

and Research Potential conferences.
Jean-David Malo - Head of Unit for Regions of Knowledge and
Research Potential, EC Designated Service Manager for RSFF
implementation, Directorate General of Research,, European
Commission
Estelle Mougeot-Leroy - Senior consultant Efficient Technology
(France), acting as the general rapporteur for the Regions of
Knowledge conference (9:30-18:30)
Manfred Horvat - Professor at Vienna University of Technology
and Independent Expert for European and International
Research and Technology Cooperation (Austria), acting as the
general rapporteur for the Research Potential conference
(9:30-18:30)
113
Contents
9:30-18:00 CONFERENCE REGIONS OF KNOWLEDGE (PARALLEL)
This session is devoted to the Programme Regions of Knowledge , which is part of

the FP7 Capacities Programme. The objective of this programme is strengthening
the research potential of European regions, in particular by encouraging and
supporting the development, across Europe, of regional research-driven clusters
associating regional authorities, universities, research centres, enterprises and
other stakeholders (European Commission C(2009)5905 of 29 July 2009).
9:30-10:15 State of play (Facts and Figures)

Olivier Brunet ‒ Policy Officer Regions of Knowledge and
Research Potential Unit, Directorate General of Research,
European Commission
10:15-11:15 Case studies (3 projects)

Gunter Clar - Director for Regional Strategies and Innovation,
Steinbeis-Europa-Zentrum, Baden-Württemberg (Germany)
Walter Hoogland ‒ Professor at University of Amsterdam,
Coordinator REDICT Project (Netherlands)
Lucía Dobarro ‒ Project Manager at Instituto Tecnológico
de Canarias, Coordinator of Project INRES: Insular Regions
Cooperation for Maximising the Environmental and Economic
Benefits from the Research in Renewable Energy Sources
(Regions of Knowledge project) (Spain)
11:15-11:45 Coffee
IRE
11:45-13:00 Round Table 2: Lessons learnt and possible ways forward

Chair: Olivier Brunet ‒ Policy Officer, Regions of Knowledge
and Research Potential Unit, Directorate General of Research,
European Commission
Session rapporteur: Pierre Godin ‒ Policy Analyst, Thematic
coordination, Innovation Unit, Directorate General for Regional
Policy, European Commission
Marta Nadaban - Deputy Director, INNOVA Regional
Development and Innovation Agency (Hungary)
114
CONTENT AND FORMAT
Sverre Sogge - Senior Adviser, Research Council and National

Contact Point for Regions of Knowledge and Research Potential
programmes (Norway)
Sylvia Schereiber - Director, Stuttgart Region EU Office
(Germany)
Christian Altmann - Cluster manager Clusterland (Austria)
14:30-16:30 RT 3 Clusters: a policy or a tool for a policy?

Chair: Charlotte Brogen - Director General at VINNOVA
(Sweden)
Session Rapporteur: Kincso Izsak ‒ Policy Officer, Unit Support
for Innovation , Directorate General Enterprise and Industry,
European Commission
Patrick Vuillermoz - Research and Innovation Manager, pole of
competitiveness Plastipolis (France)
Tea Petrin ‒ Professor at University of Ljubljana, Chair of ECPG
(Slovenia)
Sven-Gunnar Edlund ‒ Responsible for the Baltic Sea Region
Transnational Cluster, VINNOVA (Sweden)
Keith Harrap ‒ Managing Director of Science Consultancy Ltd,
FOOD cluster coordinator (UK)
Michel Ganoote ‒ European Delegate, Strategy and
Development (OSEO) and TACTICS/ECA coordinator (France)
16:30-17:00 Coffee
17:00-18:00 How to Optimise the impact of the Regions of Knowledge

Programme.
Chair: Jean-David Malo - Head of Unit for Regions of Knowledge
and Research Potential , EC Designated Service Manager
for RSFF implementation, Directorate General of Research,
European Commission
115
Contents
Christian Saublens - Secretary General of EURADA (European

Association of Development Agencies)
Stéphane Waha ‒ Head of European Affairs, Union of Walloon
Enterprises (Belgium)
9:30-18:00 CONFERENCE RESEARCH POTENTIAL (PARALLEL)
This session is devoted to the Programme Research Potential , which is part of

the FP7 Capacities Programme. The objective of this programme is “Stimulating the
realisation of the full research potential of the enlarged Union by unlocking and developing
existing or emerging excellence in the EU’s convergence regions and outermost regions,
and helping to strengthen the capacities of their researchers to successfully participate
in research activities at Community level” (European Commission C(2009)5905 of 29
July 2009).
9:30-10:15 State of play (Facts and Figures)

Marita Kayamanidou ‒ Policy Officer, Unit Regions of
Knowledge and Research Potential , Directorate General of
10:15-11:15 Case studies (3 projects)

Michael Fardis ‒ Professor at University of Patras, coordinator
ACES project (Greece)
Doina Nicolae ‒ Senior Researcher at National Institute for
Research and Development for Optoelectronics (INOE 2000)
coordinator DELICE project (Romania)
Urzula Bialek-Wyrzykowska ‒ Associate Professor Polish
IRE
Academy of Sciences, coordinator HEALTH-PROT project

(Poland)
11:15-11:45 Coffee
11:45-13:00 RT 4 Lessons learnt and possible ways forward

Chair: Jerzy Szwed - Deputy State Secretary for Science and
Higher Education (Poland)
116
CONTENT AND FORMAT
Session Rapporteur: Georgia Tzenou ‒ Administrator in

National Documentation Centre/NHRF, Coordinator of European
Network of Research Potential NCPs (Greece)
Alain Borgel ‒ Researcher at Institute of Research for
Development (IRD), Coordinator RUNSEASCIENCE project
(France)
Ernesto Fatorusso ‒ Professor at University of Naples,
Coordinator NatPharma project (Italy)
Tayfun Akin ‒ Ph.D. in Electronical Engineering, Middle
East technical university (Turkey)
Stefan Weiers ‒ Policy Officer, Unit Regions of Knowledge and
Research Potential , Directorate General of Research, European
Commission
14:30-15:30 The role of Western Balkan Countries in the Research Potential

Programme
Chair: Robert-Jan Smits - Director of European Research Area:
Viktor Nedovic - Assistant Minister for International Cooperation
(Serbia)
Violeta Atanasovska - Ministry of Science (Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia - FYROM)
15:30-16:30 RT 5: A regional policy for the Outermost regions?

Chair: Juan Ruiz Alzola - Director of Agency for Research and
Innovation, Canary Islands Government (Spain)
Session Rapporteur: Stefan Weiers ‒ Policy Officer, Unit
Regions of Knowledge and Research Potential , Directorate
Carlos Portugués Carrillo - Director General for relations with
Europe, Canary Islands region (Spain)
Jose Bonfim ‒ Researcher CISEP - Research Centre of the Faculty
of Economics of the Technical University of Lisbon (Portugal)
Stephane Raud - Director of technology transfer and industrial
relations, Institute of Research for Development (IRD) (France)
Jean-Louis D Anglebermes - Regional Minister of New Caledonia
(France)
117
Contents
16:30-17:00 Coffee
17:00-18:00 How to optimise the impact of the Research Potential

Programme.
Chair: Maria Kayamanidou ‒ Policy Officer, Unit Regions of
Knowledge and Research Potential , Directorate General of
Anton Anton ‒ Professor at Technical University of Civil
Engineering Bucharest, former minister for Research
(Romania)
Axel Lehman - Professor at Universität der Bundeswehr, Munich
(Germany)
18:05-18:30 PLENARY SESSION
18:05-18:30 Reports of rapporteurs and Conclusions

Estelle Mougeot-Leroy - Senior consultant Efficient Technology,
acting as the general rapporteur for the Regions of Knowledge
conference (France)(9:30-18:30)
Manfred Horvat - Professor at Vienna University of Technology
and Independent Expert for European and International
Research and Technology Cooperation, acting as the general
rapporteur for the Research Potential conference (Austria)
(9:30-18:30)
Robert-Jan Smits - Director of European Research Area:
IRE

20:30 Gala dinner
118
CONTENT AND FORMAT
DAY 3: MARCH 17TH
9:00-9:05 Presentation of the journey

Rafael Rodriguez-Clemente ‒ Professor at Spanish Research
Council and Spanish representative in REGIONs and REGPOT
programmes (Spain)
9:05-9:30 OECD Study on Regional Dimension of Innovation

Claire Nauwelaers - Policy Analyst, Innovation Unit, Division
for Competitiveness and Regional Governance of the Public
Governance and Territorial Development Direction, OECD
(Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation)
Chair: Rafael Rodriguez-Clemente ‒ Professor at Spanish
Research Council and Spanish representative in REGIONs and
REGPOT programmes (Spain)
9:30-10:30 Round Table 6: Academia-Industry relationship: Intellectual

Property Rights and Technology Transfer
Chair: Juan Ignacio Goicolea ‒ Regional Vice-Minister for
Innovation and Technology, Basque Country (Spain)
Rapporteur: Antonio Valverde - Director of IDEA Agency, Junta
de Andalucía (Spain)
Georg Artelsmair - Unit Co-ordinator for Member States,
European Patent Office
Christian Saublens - Secretary General of EURADA (Belgium)
Alexandra Mayr ‒ Technology Transfer Expert at the
International Project Management Office, University of
Alicante (Spain)
10:30-11:00 Coffee
119
Contents
11:00-13:00 PARALLEL SESSION A: GOVERNANCE
11:00-13:00 RT 7 Governance. Coherence at regional, national and European

level
Chair: Damien Périssé ‒ Responsible for Innovation and
Competitiveness of the Conference of Peripherical and Maritime
Regions (CMPR)
Rapporteur: Katja Reppel - Deputy Head of Unit Innovation
policy development , Directorate General Enterprise and
Kent Johansson ‒ Regional Councillor of region Västra Götaland
(Sweden)
Xabier Goenaga Head of Knowledge for Growth Unit, Institute
for Prospective Technological Studies -IPTS-
Gilbert J. Declerck - Executive Officer and Member of the Board
of IMEC International - Interuniversity MicroElectronics Center
(Belgium)
Carlos Martinez-Riera - Director of the European Office, Ministry
of Science and Innovation (Spain)
Stefania Crotta - Head of Unit Research, Innovation and
Competitiveness, Piemonte Region (Italy)
11:00-13:00 PARALLEL SESSION B: INSTRUMENTS
11:00-13:00 RT 8 Instruments. What are they and how can they work in
combination?. How can regions promote the use of different
instruments and their interactions.
Chair: Guy Clausse - European Investment Bank (EIB)
IRE
Rapporteur: Jean-David Malo - Head of Unit for Regions of

Knowledge and Research Potential, EC Designated Service
Manager for RSFF implementation, Directorate General of
Peter Wostner ‒ Deputy Director of Government Office for
Local Self-Government and Regional Policy (Slovenia)
Christopher John Hull ‒ General Secretary of EARTO (UK)
Geoffrey Britton - Chairman European Fed. Accountants and
Auditors (UK)
Bernrd Reicherd - Head of Unit Research and SMEs , Directorate
Jean-François Aguinaga - Head of Unit Business co-operation
120
CONTENT AND FORMAT
and business support network development , Directorate

General of Enterprise and Industry, European Commission
Bettina Gladysz - Area manager for Research, Mobility and
Innovation Funding, EU-Framework Programmes, CATT
Innovation Management GmbH (Austria)
11:00-13:00 PARALLEL SESSION C: EVALUATION AND IMPACT
11:00-13:00 RT 9 How to measure the impact of RTD and Innovation support

to regional economic development.
Chair: Peter Kind - Director IPTS
Rapporteur: Eric Dufeil - Head of Unit Spain , Directorate
General for Regional Policy, European Commission
José Luis Kaiser - Deputy Director General for Territorial
Programming and Evaluation of Community Programmes,
Ministry of Economy and Finance (Spain)
Andrzej Siemaszko - Director National Contact Points Office
(Poland)
Klaus Schuch - Senior Researcher, ZSI (Social Innovation Centre)
(Austria)
Philippe Vanrie - Chief executive Officer EBN (European Business
network) (Belgium)
Ian McCoull - Director of Innovation, Scotland Development
Agency (UK)
13:00-14:00 Lunch
14:00-15:30 Round Table 10: Report by rapporteurs and discussion

Chair: Montserrat Torné - Director General of International
Cooperation and Institutional Relationships, Ministry of Science
and Innovation, (Spain)
Rapporteur: Carlos Martinez-Riera - Director of the European
Office, Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain)
RT1: Manuel Gavira - Unit France , Directorate General Regional
Policy, European Commission
121
Contents
RT6: Antonio Valverde - Director of IDEA Agency, Junta de

Andalucía (Spain)
RT7: Katja Reppel - Deputy Head of Unit Innovation policy
development , Directorate General Enterprise and Industry,
European Commission
RT8: Jean-David Malo - Head of Unit for Regions of Knowledge
and Research Potential, EC Designated Service Manager for RSFF
implementation, Directorate General of Research, European
Commission
RT9: Eric Dufeil - Head of Unit Spain , Directorate General for
Regional Policy, European Commission
15:30-16:00 Coffee
16:00-17:00 Synergies of actions: Key messages from WIRE.

Chair: Robert-Jan Smits -Director of European Research Area:
President of the Committee for Regional Development,
European Parliament
Juan Tomás Hernani - Secretary General of Innovation, Ministry
of Science and Innovation (Spain)
Bjarne Kirsebom - Chief Adviser European & International Affairs
Research, Ministry of Education (Sweden)
17:00-17:30 Concluding remarks

IRE
Chair: Felipe Pétriz - Secretary of State for Research, Ministry of

Science and Innovation (Spain)
Benoît Cerexhe ‒ Minister of the Bruxelles-Capitale region, in
charge for R&D during next Presidency (Belgium)
Francisco Andrés Triguero - Regional Secretary General for
Universities, Research and Technology, Regional Ministry of
Innovation, Science and Enterprise of the Andalucía Regional
Government (Spain)
17:30-18:00 PRESS CONFERENCE FOR MEDIA DELEGATES
122
CONTENT AND FORMAT
18:00 Visit to the Health Technological Park in Granada
DAY 4: MARCH 18TH (side events)
• Meeting for National Contact Points of REGIONs and REGPOT

programmes.
• Meeting for national representatives of REGIONs and REGPOT
programmes.
123
Contents
I.2 Analysis of participation

WIRE counted with the participation of 496 people coming from 35
different countries. Spanish participation comprised 28% of attendance
(press excluded), although this number falls to 23.8% when counting out
organization-related attendants. Due to the topics covered in the event,
most participants came from the European Union, although there was also a
high representation of associated countries. People coming from European
Union (excluding Spain) summed 60% of attendance, being represented 25
countries out of 27 (only Cyprus and Malta were not present). Additionally,
11.3% came from associated countries to the EU. Most represented countries
were France, Belgium, Sweden, Italy, Serbia and Poland, as shown in the
following graph.
Distribution of participants by country (Press delegates excluded)
Switzerland Turkey Macedonia Austria

0% Tunisia 3% 1%
0% Germany 2%F.Y.R. of
Sweden 3% Belgium Colombia
Serbia 5% 7% Bulgaria 0%
Romania 4% 1% Croaa Denmark
Czech
1% 1% 1%
Republic Slovakia
3% 1%
United Slovenia
Kingdom Portugal 1%
2% 3%
Poland
IRE
4%
The Netherlands
3%
Spain
Norway Luxembourg
1% 28%
1%
Lithuania
Latvia Italy France
3% 2% 4%
8%
Israel Iceland Ireland
1% 0% 1% Hungary Greece Estonia
1% 2% Finland 1%
2%
124
CONTENT AND FORMAT
I.3 Exhibition of stands

Eleven stands were exhibited in the main hall of the conference, where coffees
and lunches were organized. Therefore, break times were good opportunities
for information gathering and networking around the stands. The institutions
holding the stands were the following:
1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
2. European Parliament
3. Committee of the Regions (CoR)
4. European Commission: DG Research
5. European Commission: DG Enterprise and Industry
6. European Commission: DG Regio
7. European Commission: DG Information Society
8. Food Cluster Initiative
9. European Regions for Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN)
10. Andalucía regional Government
11. European Network of National Contact Points for FP7 REGIONs and REGPOT
programmes
125
Contents
Although all stands offered a high added value to the event, it is worthy to
highlight the contribution of the European Network of National Contact
Points for FP7 REGIONs and REGPOT programmes. In this stand, potential
participants to REGPOT and REGIONs programmes could gather first hand
information at that moment, and they could also arrange a personal interview
in their own language with their National Contact Point during the three days
of the conference (18 NCPs participated in the stand).
I.4 Exhibition of posters

The WIRE Organising Committee made a posters call, in order to give several
IRE
stakeholders the opportunity to present related initiatives. The call was run
into two stages: the first stage was a call for abstracts, as a first quality checking.
In a second stage, the accepted abstracts were invited to present a poster.
Every poster was checked before the conference and received customized
feedback on the best way to communicate messages.
After this process, WIRE presented 69 posters coming from 23 countries,
which were distributed into the following categories:
1. Regional innovation policies
2. Connecting Clusters from all over Europe (REGIONS)
3. Connecting Research Centres from all over Europe (REGPOT)
4. Other projects supporting regional RTD+i
126
CONTENT AND FORMAT
Category Posters %
1 - Regional innovation policies 16 23 %
2 - Connecting Clusters from all over Europe (REGIONS) 15 22 %
3 - Connecting Research Centres from all over Europe
31 45 %
(REGPOT)
4 - Other projects supporting regional RTD+i 7 10 %
Total 69 100 %
Category Posters %
Spain 15 21,74%
France 7 10,14%
Serbia 6 8,70%
Greece 5 7,25%
Turkey 5 7,25%
Hungary 4 5,80%
Poland 3 4,35%
Portugal 3 4,35%
Czech Republic 3 4,35%
Finland 2 2,90%
The Netherlands 2 2,90%
Italy 2 2,90%
F.Y.R. of Macedonia 2 2,90%
Germany 1 1,45%
Bulgaria 1 1,45%
Croatia 1 1,45%
Estonia 1 1,45%
Israel 1 1,45%
Latvia 1 1,45%
Montenegro 1 1,45%
Romania 1 1,45%
Sweden 1 1,45%
Tunisia 1 1,45%
Total 69 100 %
Most represented countries were Spain (21.7%) and France (10%), followed
by Serbia (8.7%), Greece (7.2%), Turkey (7.2%) y Hungary (5.8%).
127
Contents
All posters are available on the webpage of the conference (www.micinn.es/

wire2010), where potential applicants of REGIONs and REGPOT programmes
can find examples of successful projects.
IRE
128
A N N E X II
S E L E C T E D C O N T R I B U T I O N S
O F S P E A K E R S
A N N E X I I . S E L E C T E D
C O N T R I B U T I O N S O F
S P E A K E R S 25
Keynote speeches
1. Van Nistelrooij, L. The future of Cohesion Policy
Is cohesion policy still valid? What is the added value? There are possibilities
for a more effective, targeted and better governed policy.
Cohesion policy has been acting as a unique and effective instrument for
the Union to attain the ambitious policy objectives of the Lisbon Strategy
for growth and jobs. It should continue carrying out its ambitious tasks as a
single united community policy, by constituting a key mechanism of EU 2020
Strategy as well. Cohesion policy and its structural funds are key delivering
mechanisms to achieve the priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth in Member States and regions. In the current global context, there
is clearly a need to seek actively new development opportunities at local
and regional level. Cohesion policy long term Programmes for 2007-2013
have a strong focus on what is today seen as priorities in the context of the
crisis and of the EU 2020 Strategy. Local and regional level interventions are
crucial for dynamism and change, for promoting creativity and innovation,
for job creation, for energy efficiency, for bringing different actors together.
This is the added value of cohesion policy and for that reason it will be very
important that the EU´s cohesion policy is closely aligned with the EU 2020
strategy.
Getting synergies in Structural Funds has been a silent revolution. For the
period 1989 -1993, the 4% of SF were dedicated to innovation (2 billion out of
50); from 1994 to1999, the 7% (7,6 billion out of 110); from 2000 to 2006, the
11% (20 billion out of 195); and finally for the current period, 2007-2013, the
25% of SF were dedicated to innovation (86 billion out of 345). More concrete,
member states have devoted a total of EUR 86 billion of our regional funds
to research and innovation in their 246 National or Regional Operational
Programmes. EUR 50 billion of this has already directly been allocated for core
R&D and innovation. Therefore, the budget for cohesion policy can almost be
considered as competitive as the budget of the two main Policies supporting
the R&D&I, FP7 (EUR 50.5 billion) and CIP (EUR 3.6 billion).
Regional actors are strongly recommended to exploit the existing funding
opportunities on R&D&I, but the main question we have to ask is if they can
do it in a effective way. Would not we have better results if we combine the
existing opportunities with an intelligent strategy? There is a need to effectively
coordinate public and private investments in order to create competitive
25 More information regarding the speakers can be found on the full programme of the conference
in Annex I. Moreover, the list of participants of Annex IV can contain their contact details only if they
explicitly agreed on its publication.
131
Contents
and sustainable economies in Europe. The potential of concentration,

cooperation, connection , as coordinates of territorial cohesion, should be
considered and exploited in the efforts to reach a more balanced, sustainable
territorial development within the European Union.
In this sense, an integrated multi-level governance approach to specific
policies in the EU is necessary; the objective is to increase the effect of
structural measures on a territory. The responsibility for the implementation
of Structural Funds lies with national and regional authorities, while CIP and
FP7 are centrally managed by the Commission. Therefore, functional multi-
level governance is essential for the setting and implementing performance
of the funds, especially for the earmarking objectives. Cooperation between
the local and regional authorities as well as partnership between these
authorities and the private sector has proved successful in many instances in
shaping urgent anti-crisis policy plans.
It is necessary to identify and promote the most suitable means at European
level of supporting local and regional investment in innovation, as well as to
take account of the different social and economic circumstances of the three
types of regions (convergence, transition and competitiveness) at the rural
and urban dimension. Ensuring a balanced urban-rural development can
achieve the goal of territorial cohesion.
Following Commissioner Hahn declarations, Cohesion Policy must help
European Regions in decline, to anticipate and promote economic change
by improving their competitiveness. He intends to strengthen the overall
coherence of European intervention by establishing closer coordination with
other EU Policies.
What is the added value of cohesion policy in the financial crisis? There is
definitely an added value of cohesion policy in the current crisis. Cohesion
policy provides answers for specific needs of regions within their territories
that are not sufficiently addressed at the European or national levels. It can
effectively respond to new challenges and this territorial dimension can
therefore add to a balanced Europe.
In many respects this crisis provides countries with the opportunity
IRE
to reconsider their development process and devise new policies and

instruments to accompany the change.
The European Economic Recovery Package, presented at the end of 2008,
gave a greater flexibility to the use of the European Regional Development
Fund and the Structural Fund. As part of the EU s contribution to this
stimulus, the Plan proposed accelerating payments of up to € 6.3 billion
under the structural and social funds. To improve energy interconnections
and broadband infrastructure, the Commission mobilised a further € 5 billion
for the period 2009-10. The European Investment Bank increased its yearly
interventions in the EU by some €15 billion in 2009 with a similar figure in
2010. These measures gave regions a head start and target expenditures
on smart investment while given the possibility to facilitate the structural
transformation through new investment patterns. At the same time cash flow
was increased through increased advance payments to 2007-2013 programs.
132
ANNEX II. SELECTED
CONTRIBUTIONS OF SPEAKERS
The entire advances paid in 2009 rose to €11.25 billion. Furthermore, the
European Commission proposed some changes to existing instruments as
the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the framework of state aid
measures.
Most regions and cities even went beyond EU policy instruments and took a
step further. They extensively made use of existing policy instruments, but at
the same time introduced anti-crisis measures, made anti-crisis action plans
and set up anti-crisis strategies in order to maintain jobs and provide support
for companies and SME´s. With their tailored strategies, regions answer to
specific needs within their territories that are not sufficiently addressed at the
European or national levels.
Different levels of government were forced to coordinate better. This
emergency situation showed us the importance of this. These measures,
action plans and strategies, and the actions taken by the second layer of
government in Member States proved to be effective and to be of great
importance in overcoming the economic crisis.
Up till now, €93 billion, or 27 % of EU funding for the 2007-2013 period, has
been allocated to projects for investment in jobs and growth in Europe over
the last three years.
In the post-crisis period, cohesion policy needs to modernise and renew itself
so as to effectively respond to new demands and challenges, such as ageing,
climate change, rising energy prices or immigration pressure.
What is the added value of cohesion policy and EU2020? Cohesion policy is
indeed an added value to the EU 2020 Strategy. However, there will be no
EU 2020 without a pact with the regions and cities. The EU has to reach its
citizens and become partners in order to reach our goals together.
Cohesion policy is one of the key community policies that help build up the
confidence and trust of European citizens. In this context it is even more
important that EU policies are adapted to future challenges. Therefore, the
policy post-2013 should ensure that the EU cohesion policy is closely aligned
with the EU 2020 strategy. Focusing regional support on a limited number of
priorities in line with the key drivers of growth outlined in the strategy - smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth - cohesion policy can provide the targeted
investment needed to create a competitive, connected and green economy.
The draft EU 2020 strategy emphasises on the interdependence between
policies, the importance of policy integration and the need for better synergies
and stronger partnership in the design and delivery of public policies. To
consolidate knowledge and innovation as motors of future economic growth,
some actions have to be taken, such as improving the quality of education,
build on the results of research and promote innovation and the transfer of
knowledge.
A strong and well-financed EU regional policy which benefits all EU regions is
a precondition for delivering the objectives of the EU 2020 Strategy. Regional
Innovation Strategies should define a few innovation priorities base on the
EU objectives and on their needs.
133
Contents
Territorial cohesion and convergence should actually be preconditions

for ensuring competitiveness, increasing R&D investment and boosting
innovation. In this context, three important concepts must serve as a
platform for specific government measures: concentration, connection and
co-operation. These concepts should be considered and exploited in the
efforts to reach a more balanced, sustainable territorial development within
the European Union.
The economy always develops primarily on a regional level. While innovation
and technological research are central and vital in the economy of today and
the future it is not bound to specific locations. Here lies a task for Europe s
leaders to take radical action on research and innovation and show their
commitment to creating an Innovative Europe. This could be done by the
creation of Centres of Excellence . This proves to function best by means
of the formation of extended clusters in which companies, scientific and
research institutes as well as regional authorities work closely together in
specific fields. If we keep R&D, innovation and employment in Europe, we will
be participating in the world competition.
European regional policy has already passed the subsidiarity test and now, it
needs new energy to take care of its future. Today, this energy can be released
through direct engagement of local and regional levels of governance in the
pursuit of common European objectives. The subsidiarity-base approach
to cohesion policy must be retained and further expanded. To this end, it is
essential to strengthen the role of local and regional authorities at every stage
of the programming, implementation and assessment of cohesion policy. On
this basis, European cohesion policy will play an important and independent
role in the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy.
2. Soete, L. The Role of Research and Innovation for the Knowledge-based

Economy
Most research and innovation policies have sought to promote the supply
of innovations, whereas demand-side policies have remained by and large
underdeveloped. This has led to an imbalance or bias in innovation policies.
The rationale for this bias in policy making in Europe can be easily understood
IRE
from the perspective of the need for institutional reform in Europe at the
supply side. European research policy offered, in the spirit of the Lisbon
agenda, scope for such institutional reform searching for opportunities for
better coordination between Community and Member States (MS) research
policies. One may think in particular of the creation, over the last decade of
new European concepts and institutions such as the ERA26, the ERC and the
EIT. The gradual transformation of Europe s research system at the supply side
has actually been impressive: there is today a clear tendency towards further
integration of MS national research policy in a European framework through
e.g. the concept of the so-called joint programming of research. The
conceptual idea was, and still is, that such supply-side institutional reforms
would feed and be driven by Single Market achievements. Demand didn t
really enter the picture, except for concerns with respect to the possible
26 Which will now also have legal status with the formal implementation of the Lisbon Treaty.
134
ANNEX II. SELECTED
emergence in European high-tech sectors of market dominance and lack

of competition. Innovation policy remained a key policy dimension of DG
Enterprise: the concern of enterprises, apparently the only ones confronted
with demand.
With the integration of innovation under the heading of the Commissioner
for research in the new Barroso Commission, there is now a clear policy shift
in the recognition of the need for an effective supply-demand matching in
research and for the particular role of demand-driven innovation for growth,
welfare and well-being. Whereas such supply-demand matching between
research and innovation was relatively straightforward in manufacturing with
firms focusing in their research and development (R&D) activities increasingly
on the D part, and public research institutions such as universities and public
research organisations on the R side of a more basic or applied nature, the
supply-demand matching is more complex when dealing with service
sectors. In those cases the role of users as demand drivers is often paramount;
at the same time existing regulations, organisational structures, habits,
cultural factors, sometimes constitute formidable barriers to change and to
innovation in particular.
However, it would be a mistake to just consider innovation in services as being
confronted with barriers. There are today so many forward and backward
linkages between industrial, agricultural and service sectors that the shift
towards more demand-driven innovation represents challenges across a much
wider spectrum of sectors than just services. Furthermore, the European 2020
Strategy challenging all MS to embark on a major transition to a sustainable,
green economy will not just depend on fundamental and applied research,
on new scientific insights into alternative energy sources, but crucially also on
demand-driven innovation, on shifts in regulation, in organisation, in habits.
In short, this transition represents a grand policy challenge. How and at
what level to design an appropriate innovation framework? As highlighted
in the recent Expert group report on The role of Community research policy
in the knowledge based economy 27, a demand and user-driven innovation
policy framework is likely to require much more coordination between MS
and Community research and innovation policy. At the same time, and given
the wide diversity within the EU in levels of development, demographic
structure, cultural habits and tastes as well as geographical distance from
urban centres, local and regional policies will also have to play their role in
enhancing the wide diversity in the demand for goods and services.
Round Table 1
1. Perglova, T. Synergies of action: are they possible? View of main actors
During my presentation at WIRE conference I tried to show that synergies are
possible and that a managing authority can encourage creation of synergies
between different financial instruments. On two major projects financed
27 See http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/publication_en.cfm
135
Contents
under the Operational Programme Research and Development for Innovation

I demonstrated the will of beneficiaries to combine different EU tools.
However, the most common ones are the synergies with other operational
programmes ‒ that usually the applicants know very well and FP7.
Synergies between national and different EU instruments are possible but
there are still significant barriers which make the creation of synergies and
complementary use of funds difficult.
I would say that there are three levels of barriers which are very tightly
interlinked:
1. Barriers at the EU level
2. Barriers at the level of regions/managing authorities of operational
programmes
3. Barrier at the users level
1. Barriers at the EU level

Ū Programmes (whether programmes under structural funds or
community programmes) lack the same rules already at the EC level.
Directorate generals in charge of programmes should try to behave
as an example and show that unification of rules is possible together
with simplification already at EC level. Moreover, they should
try to simplify cohesion policy by creating only one fund which
would cover the existing three (Cohesion fund, European Regional
Development Fund and European Social Fund) ‒ it would facilitate
the implementation at the level of member states.
Ū As far as the FP7 is concerned, here simplification of different
instruments would also be needed. New initiatives (JTIs, ERA Nets, EIT
initiatives under Article 185) brought new funding regulations and
made the FP7 rules even more fragmented.
Ū For better efficiency of cohesion policy, focus on bigger strategic
IRE
projects would be of interest not only in the domain of research,

development and innovation. It is much harder to measure the
efficiency of thousands of small projects, which are also by the way
much more demanding to implement regarding resources (human
resources, time, etc.) then on fewer but well targeted ones.
2. Barriers at the level of regions/managing authorities of operational

programmes
Ū At the regional level ‒ development of regional strategy is needed in
order to have a clear vision and be able to implement it via different
funding opportunities. Political will to use different EU instruments
and to encourage regional authorities to participate in different
projects is very important in this respect. However especially research
136
ANNEX II. SELECTED
and development issues (in the sense of targets and directions to be

taken) should not be only upon political will but should be supported
by experts decision, clear vision and possibly also backed by already
existing basis in the region.
Ū As far as the operational programmes are concerned, managing
authorities should be encouraged by EC to create complementarities
with other EU policies and focus on strategic targets and directions.
3. Barrier at the users level

Ū Different EU instruments have different contact organization in
member states. Each operational programme has its own contact point
at national level and some of them even at regional level. The same is
for community programmes. Unfortunately it is very rare to have only
one organization at least at regional level which would gather all those
and present one-stop-shop for all possible funding opportunities. As
a consequence it is very difficult for potential applicants to orient
themselves in funding opportunities and to be able to create more
synergies. Moreover community programmes are much less known
than structural funds, the allocation is per country = no international
competition and therefore most of the entities focus on structural
funds rather than trying to find possible complementarities also with
community programmes.
Ū Final users have difficulties to get oriented in eligible rules and financial
aspects of different programmes as those are not unified and therefore
can really discourage them from applying. Furthermore if they are
involved in many programmes with different rules they usually need
more people to administrate them as it is more time demanding.
Ū Community programmes ‒ especially FP7 ‒ require having partners
in other member or associated states. Users may lack contacts to get
involved in consortia preparing projects. Moreover language can
represent a real barrier here.
Ū One of the biggest difficulties is also the traditional perception of
actors. Usually private companies are reluctant to work with academic
sphere ‒ because they suppose that their aim is not the same. Industry
needs innovation and new products on the market, academics need
new papers. Moreover the state/regional authorities are very often
perceived as only partly helpful and not really being aware of the
reality. This perception is a bit caricaturized cliché but at a lot of places
it still remains very firmly rooted and therefore it is very difficult to
change it.
Conclusion:
Simplification is needed at all levels of EU policy, implementation of
programmes and their administration. Even though important steps have
137
Contents
been already taken to simplify rules and procedures, it still remains one of
the most important barriers of participation. Simplification should be also
understood in the sense of unification of rules across EU policy instruments ‒
cohesion policy and community programmes. As far as the tools of cohesion
policy are concerned ‒ merger of European Regional Development Fund
and European Social Fund would present an important simplification as
the member states would be able to cover in one operational programme
finance for hard and soft expenses which is not possible so far, except for the
cross financing which is in general up to 10% of the priority axis.
Cooperation is the second notion that should be stressed ‒ at all levels.
Cooperation between different DGs when drafting programmes and policies
with the aim of simplifying life of all stakeholders (implementation structures
and final beneficiaries). Cooperation between EC and member states regarding
the aims of all the instruments ‒ complementarities and synergies should be
thought of already during the drafting of those policies. Good example might
be the research infrastructures ‒ preparatory phase is covered by FP7 but
the construction phase can be covered by structural funds ‒ however the
EC should stress this possibility and will already during the preparation of
operational programmes.
Round Table 2
1. Gunter, C. Optimally positioning Creative Industries clusters in the wider
economic and political context
Developing-the-ERA Context
Public programmes for all types of RTDI-infrastructures and -support are key
elements for keeping Europe s regions attractive for private investors and
talent in the global, knowledge-based competition. Therefore, the Barcelona
targetof 3 % GERD has firmly maintained its place in the reorientation
discussions of the Lisbon Strategy. It is one of the five headline EU-level
targets set by the recently published Commission Communication Europe
IRE
2020 28.
Figures show that not much overall progress has been made towards this
target over the last 10 years. Therefore, attention is focusing again on impact,
on how - from an EU perspective - the available budgets at all governance
levels could be invested more effectively and efficiently. As most of
the public RTDI investments are still decided upon at the national and
regional level, an obvious approach in this respect is to mutually optimise
the allocation of EU, national and regional RTDI investments. This was a
focus in the Green Paper on New Perspectives for the ERA29, which also
highlighted that optimised implementation is much easier if preceding
forward-looking activities (foresight etc.) have arrived at common priorities.
28 COM (2010) 2020 (3.3.2010): Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
29 COM (2007) 161: The European Research Area: New Perspectives
138
ANNEX II. SELECTED
Subsequently, an expert group for this subject developed suggestions30 for

Member States and the Commission. In the context of efforts to enhance
the overall ERA governance (the Ljubljana Process), and more specifically
the Five-Initiatives roadmap, high-level approaches with this aim are
being developed, e.g. the Joint Programming initiative. Reality shows,
however, that these are lengthy, complex and still difficult to implement
processes. Therefore, it is of high importance that, in addition, all existing
policy-coordination-type initiatives, such as the Regions-of-Knowledge
programme, are implemented with the overall ERA-context in mind. The
actors involved in such initiatives could, already and concretely, optimise
the use of the budgets they have access to.
Regional Prosperity and RTDI Policy Making in the Context of Globalised

Markets
Making optimum use of a region s infrastructures and its technological, social
and human resources is important for economic efficiency, and different
RTDI support tools were developed to help innovation actors to do things
right . In this respect, cluster support policies have gained importance, and
are now widely being implemented at the EU, national and regional level.
However, if clusters as local nodes in global (sector) networks are to ensure
their long-term prosperity in today s globalised markets, it is vital that they
also take into consideration factors from outside the region, especially future
scientific, technological, societal and political developments. Identifying
future potential early31, and reacting accordingly - doing the right things
right - becomes key for long-term success in the ever stronger worldwide
competition between the regions. Therefore, giving tailored strategic
guidance to clusters is increasingly important to position them optimally in
their (national, EU and global) economic and political contexts.32 A third RTDI
policy dimension is to incentivise and support clusters to use the knowledge
gained from strategic, forward looking activities by applying it in outward-
looking , Open-Innovation type cooperation. In such an environment, new
organisational and institutional arrangements can emerge, at all governance
levels, which are more open and international in nature. Thus, horizontal and
vertical optimisation of policies becomes both more important and feasible.
All this applies specifically to the development of the Culture & Creative
Industries (CI). They do not only have already a considerable contribution to
the total industry turnover in the EU 2733, and grow at 2 time the annual growth
rates of the general economy. CI can increase the quality of life in many ways,
and also offer the potential to stimulate and support the transformation
of the EU economy as a whole. CI clusters can increase the innovative
30 H. Acheson, P. Boekholt: Optimising Research Programmes and Priorities. Report of the ERA Expert
Group. EUR 23324, 2008. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/report-era-eg5.pdf
31 G. Clar, H. Acheson, S. Hafner-Zimmermann, B. Sautter, M. Buczek, J. Allen: Strategic Policy
Intelligence Tools. Enabling better RTDI policy-making in Europe’s Regions. Steinbeis-Edition Stuttgart/
Berlin,ISBN 978-3-938062-64-7. www.regstrat.net/download/final/regstrat_guide-final.pdf
32 “Vision without action is daydreaming, but action without vision is a nightmare.”
33 EUROSTAT, Structural Business Statistics: Culture & Creative Industries in 2007 had a turnover of 626
bn EUR (Automotive 800 bn EUR, Chemical Industry 722 bn EUR, Engineering Industry 682 bn EUR)
139
Contents
performance in practically all other sectors of a region s economy34, wherever

the specific strengths of that region might lie. It comes as no surprise that CI
are supported by regional and national governments throughout the world,
and at EU level by various Commission Services. The European Commission
has published a Green Paper and launched a related public consultation in
April 201035. In addition, in the form of the Amsterdam Declaration36 from
February 2010, further progress has been suggested in the context of the
Europe 2020 agenda deliberations.
The Regions-of-Knowledge project CReATE - Creating a Joint Research

Agenda for promoting ICT-Innovations in Creative Industries (CI) across
Europe
The overall goal of the (FP 7) Regions-of-Knowledge initiative is to develop
better and more sustainable clusters. In their contribution to this, the regions
participating in the CReATE project (Baden-Wuerttemberg, Piemonte, Rhône-
Alpes, West Midlands)37 aim at
Ū identifying fields for research that can ensure and promote Creative
Industries (CI) competitiveness
Ū supporting strategic collaboration of innovative CI cluster in Europe
Ū supporting SMEs in research and technology transfer
Ū setting up EICI, the European Interest Group on Creativity and Innovation,
a pan-European platform to connect the CI with ICT experts and research
institutions
They take as a starting point the fact that CI enterprises give considerably to
the local economies, but also need specific support, because they have to
perform in very diverse markets, a hypercompetitive environment, and have
to make their living from very short product life-cycles. In addition, the CI
sector is characterized by a high percentage of micro-enterprises and non-
conventional employment forms. As agile and creative as these companies
and individuals are in their daily business they often lack the resources and
competences to invest in long-term strategies and guidance, and related
research.
IRE
Therefore, the CReATE partners put their main emphasis on the future-focused
parts of the RTDI-policy-support cycle (Strategic Evaluation/Benchmarking,
Foresight, Technology and Innovation Assessment, Roadmapping) and
developed (trans-regional and regional) research agendas. Market-wise, their
focus included:
Ū Music composition and production
Ū Film, television and video
34 L. de Propis, C. Chapain, S. McNeill (University of Birmingham), Phil Cooke (University of Cardiff)

and Juan Mateos-Garcia (NESTA): Creative Clusters. 2009 - I. Miles, L. Green: Hidden innovation in the
creative industries. NESTA Research Report, July 2008
35 www.ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/doc2577_en.htm
36 www.europe-innova.eu/web/guest/home/-/journal_content/56/10136/178407. February 2010
37 www.lets-create.eu
140
ANNEX II. SELECTED
Ū Animation, computer games and entertainment software

Ū Writing, publishing and print media
Ū Advertising, graphic design and marketing
Ū Architecture, visual arts and design
The aim is that, from the outcoming results, ICT-innovation is promoted in CI
across Europe, and CI enterprises harness, in a better and more sustainable
way, this potential for new products and services.
The CReATE partners came from quite different starting points (different
regional factor conditions, demand conditions, related & supporting industries,
strengths in CI fields) and also have different (EU, national, regional) RTDI-
support trajectories. However, they all managed to link their project activities
to past and ongoing EU initiatives (Structural Funds, Research Framework
Programme, Competitiveness & Innovation Programme) and national and
regional programmes.
Being part of common global sector innovation systems, they worked with
a common methodology (developed in the earlier Regions-of-Knowledge
project REGSTRAT38), and have agreed on common overall priorities. To make
the best use of the project work, they subsequently developed different,
regionally optimized applications.
To make this work, the CReATE approach was to move from regional to
trans-regional activities and back, and to alternatingly address, and mutually
enrich the local and the international aspects of (the involved CI) clusters. This
approach took also advantage of the fact that clusters have a key role to play
not only in their territorial innovation systems, but also in connecting those
with the international sector innovation system they are part of.
Based on their potential for promoting value creation and stimulating the
economy, and on the existing and future capacities of the partners, the
consortium prioritized the following research areas:
Ū Visual and Interactive Experience (new visual dimensions and digital
human-computer interaction)
Ū Tools of Productivity and Intelligent Automation (improved productivity
and semantic software)
Ū Digital Distribution (new distribution channels through the WWW)
Ū Mobility and Interoperability (new level of flexibility in the mobile age)
Ū User-Producer Interaction in Development (new production methods
featuring user-generated content)
At the time being, the consortium finalises a tool-kit and strategy-guide that
can be used beyond the project timeframe and partners, and implements
dissemination and training events in different parts of the EU benefitting
other regions. The CReATE partners have attracted a considerable number of
38 Strategic Policy Intelligence Tools for Better S&T Investment Strategies in Europe’s Regions (www.
regstrat.net)
141
Contents
organisations to the European Interest Group on Creativity and Innovation39,

and are active in discussions regarding the future of CI (e.g. the related EC
public consultation). They take part in initiatives to form new networks for
CI promotion (e.g. the EU CI Alliance), and develop options for larger-scale
and deeper-going cooperation, also with a view at the ongoing past-2013-EU
discussions.
2. Altmann, C. The REGIONs programme, the Clusterplast experience.
1. Difficulties faced by applicants or potential applicants

Ū The awareness of tough competition ‒ extremely large number
of (good) competitive applications, combined with relatively
high amount of work to set-up the consortium and prepare the
application. The failure rate is disappointingly high and leaves traces
of frustration
Ū There are many good ideas in the rejected applications and those
good ideas or approaches should not be lost
Ū Huge project consortiums (15 partners in Clusterplast, 18 partners in
CLOE-FastTrack) -> Coordination is rather difficult and it is needed
a very experienced and strong coordinator to submit a successful
application and later on to provide efficient project management
Ū Problems might occur in communication especially when a lot of
persons are involved in certain tasks. As a result work gets time
consuming ‒ coordination suffers a lot. Moreover it is nearly impossible
to keep everyone at the same level of information
Ū If the application process is guided directly by the commission (as
was the case in CLOE) it is possible to get direct feed-back to change
contents in the application -> huge benefit for the application
Ū Clear identification of the Managing Authority was a challenging
process (CLOE). As it was the first project to involve the Managing
IRE
Authority it was difficult to understand the role of the MA in the

project and which persons play regionally this role. Meanwhile the
role of the MA is better defined and there are also examples for the
orientation of an applicant (It was important to understand that the
Letter of Support in the application of a capitalisation project does
not mean that the MA is a Partner from the administrative side of
the project)
Ū The too-wide definition of a region in the partners statute (ranging
from cities to countries) may create discordances
Ū The calls are very precise in terms of tasks to be included in the
Description of work but there is few visibility of differentiating elements
evaluated by the European Commission
39 www.creativity-innovation.eu
142
ANNEX II. SELECTED
2. Possible solutions and actions to be taken

Ū Know-how exchange and trainings on management of Capitalisation
projects but also information packages for the Managing Authority
to increase the awareness for the subject
Ū Some kind of mentoring programmes (well experienced partners
mentor/help/guide less experienced partners) could help a lot
3. Possible cooperation of REGIONS with other European, national or

regional programmes
Ū An example for cooperation between Clusterplast (RoK) and the
European Cluster Observatory/Collaboration Platform (CIP) -> One
output from the Clusterplast project will be to provide the first large
information set for the collaboration platform as an example and
best practice to be disseminated to a larger cluster community in
the sector. For this reason a tight cooperation between these two
projects is already set up
Ū Clusterplast is funded by the RoK to build up a Joint Action Plan. After
the end of the project for a majority of the common activities defined
within this Joint Action Plan the consortium will need to come back
to regional funds
Ū Through the project, the Know-How of certain funding Programmes
is concentrated, as we need to focus in the Joint Action Plan on
funding possibilities for each activity. It is very useful to have the
possibility to compare Programmes on national levels, as the access
to such information is often very difficult
Ū The main goal of the CLOE project was the know-how transfer between
cluster organisations how to actually manage a cluster initiative (e.g.
the Cluster Management Guide). The network perspective became
the inspiring idea that networked cluster organisations could
nurture enormous benefits for the different participating regions. It
was the initial moment to think about a collaboration and information
platform for cluster organisations which is now being developed and
implemented within the European Cluster Observatory ‒ phase II
project
4. Is there sufficient awareness about what is a Research Driven Cluster?

Ū The awareness of Research Driven Clusters is mainly O.K. Regarding
Clusterplast they made sure at the beginning of the project that
everyone had the same definition of Research Driven Clusters. For
the non existing Clusters they involved partners from each axe
(research, business, public). Even for the existing Clusters one person
is responsible for each axe
143
Contents
What is a research-driven cluster?
Legal entities conducting

research (universities, We will
research organizations and need one
research for-profit bodies) representative
person per
region per
type of entity
Research-
driven cluster
Regional/local authorities
(local and regional
Business entities
government, regional
development agencies)
Ū Within the CLOE project is was not quite sure what is a Research Driven
Cluster. In general the awareness within the Consortium seemed OK
but there is an evident fact that a lot of Research Driven Cluster with
high innovation potential (especially in new fields of technology)
are not recognised or identified because of their lack in presenting
economic results (e.g. Smart Plastics in Upper Austria)
5. Are the REGIONS Programmes demands linked to regional strategy for

Innovation? Should they be linked?
Ū Regarding the regional strategy of the Region Rhones Alpes we can
say that the regional priorities match the European priorities of the RoK
program. For example: Improving links between regional authorities,
IRE
legal entities conducting research and the local business community

not only as partners in the development of specific goals or regional
RTD policies, but also as joint partners in national or European
initiatives is clearly a goal of the region structuring the research,
business and local authorities in a cluster organisation. Supporting
the internationalization of the regional research-driven clusters is a
part of Rhone Alpes clusters Roadmap
Ū Especially the Upper Austrian regional strategy for innovation is closely
linked to the REGIONS Programmedemands as cooperation within the
innovation network (between clusters, universities, public authorities
and government, research and development facilities, companies) and
internationalization are the most important goals within the Strategic
Programme Upper Austria 2010plus
144
ANNEX II. SELECTED
Ū REGIONS Programmes demands that regional strategy for innovation

should be linked, because it is hard to imagine a European policy
dissociated from the regional policy (nevertheless the European push
for improvement on some fields and new initiatives which are not
yet regional priorities (nano-technology, bio-technology, etc.) which
might cause some discordances which fields of technology should be
enlarged within a region
6. Is there enough awareness on the targeted objectives of Programme

REGIONS?
Ū The cooperation Programme with Research projects is quite common
but Idea, People and Capacities are not really well-known by research
and business actors
Ū It is very important to initiate in a first time networking and in a second
step concrete actions
Round Table 3
1 Petrin, T. Clusters: a policy or a tool for a policy?
1.a. Clusters: a policy or a tool for a policy?

Clusters can be considered as an important tool for enhancing or reinforcing
competitiveness at the microeconomic level, as a tool of government
horizontal policies aiming to increase competitiveness. Clusters need to
be seen as part of a broader competitiveness agenda.
Clusters cannot substitute for weaknesses in the general business
environment but can be an important tool to make better use of the
existing capabilities and enhance efficiency of efforts to upgrade the
business environment. Key potential of clusters exist in using clusters as
a delivery mechanism for government efforts to support the upgrading
of company operations and using clusters as a platform to increase trust
between public and private sector as well among companies.
1.b. Can clusters be a tool for policies synergies?

Cluster can be used as an effective element or organizing principle for
aligning policies such as science policy, regional policy and industrial policy
to make the best of European, national and regional funding for R&D and
innovation. On EU level at present, several different cluster Programmes
and initiatives exist, containing Programmes with different degrees of
cluster focus: the CIP (DG Entr), the FP (DG RTD), and the Structural Funds
(DG Regio). This parallel approach reduces the overall impact that each
of these Programmes could have. Referring to clusters in particular, one
possible approach is to integrate existing funding into one centralized
instrument that provides clusters with more leeway for allocating the
145
Contents
funds to the activities they have identified as crucial instead of those that
meet the specific objectives of any particular program.
Clusters can be used as an element or organizing principle also for other
EU-level policy initiatives such as for example KICs (EIT), the technology
platforms (ETP), and JTI. On the one hand these initiatives have the
potential to provide important inputs to the development processes of
existing clusters by creating new technological opportunities, and on the
other hand, they will vastly benefits from effective cluster structure to
translate the knowledge they create into profitable products. The same
holds for lead market initiatives and a number of other EU-level initiatives
(push for renewable energy, the development of e-services and creative
industries) as well as EU policy initiatives for SMEs.
2. What enabling framework conditions are necessary for fostering the

innovation hotspots and new industries of tomorrow?
New industries, which combine knowledge in new and novel ways, are
associated with innovation and entrepreneurial activities. The waves
of innovation and technological change as drivers of economic growth
are largely due to the emergence of new technology and the evolution
of industrial activities. Emerging industries tend to cluster spatially
as advantages accrue to those at the locus of creative activity and
opportunity.
Given characteristics of emerging industries, new industries require an
appropriate fertile environment ‒ enabling framework conditions - for
innovation which includes:
1. Specific knowledge creation framework ‒ social capital development.
2. Effective business services infrastructure - specialist services, availability
of different kinds of capital.
3. Effective education and R&D infrastructure - to strengthen access to
human resources and knowledge.
4. Vibrant entrepreneurship - for spill-over of knowledge from universities
IRE
for commercialization what foster innovation.

5. Demand-side policies (public procurement) and smart regulations.
The scope of the above enabling framework conditions is to achieve
higher level of dynamism, innovation productivity and growth through
robust entrepreneurial activity, i.e. a more entrepreneurial society.
Cluster- specific framework conditions can only be designed if based
on a prior assessment of characteristics, functioning and performance of
various types of clusters in order to take into account the specifity and
needs of the sector/industry in which a cluster operates. Depending on
the identified needs, cluster specific policy mix of instruments enhancing
the level of linkages of personal relationship and mutual trust, demand
side policies, training policies, measures for the promotion of international
146
ANNEX II. SELECTED
linkages could be designed and implemented on the national level,

complemented with EU-level Programmes and initiatives.
ECPG recommendations on the role of clusters in support of emerging
industries:
1. Focus on strong framework conditions.
2. Provide information and ensure channels of dissemination on
emerging needs and demand.
3. Provide incentives for the creation of platforms for collaboration and
cross-fertilization between clusters.
4. Adjust cluster policy tools to needs of emerging industries.
3. How to build up European level strengths and critical mass through

international cluster cooperation?
Globalization has changed the way that knowledge flows. In the
past, knowledge was developed and transferred in a rather limited
geographical space. Now it flows across unlimited space without borders.
Creating stronger linkages between clusters in different locations which
offer complementary strengths is the only way that access to the most
advanced technologies and know-how may often be found.
2. Edlund, S.G. How to build up European level strengths and critical mass trough
international cluster cooperation?
Most agree today that innovation is the foundation for economic growth
in the future knowledge-based economy. Extensive research in the field of
innovation has taught us that density and geographic proximity matter when
building innovation capacity. The development of regional based research
clusters and regional innovation systems have also proven to build innovation
capacity. There is no conflict between a geographically focused cooperation
on innovation and cooperation with the best innovation environments in the
world. Both types of cooperation are needed to become globally leading.
The development of regionally focused research based clusters and research
and innovation milieus have been in focus for innovation policies during
the last 10 years in Sweden as well as in many countries, and documented
good results have been achieved. However to continue to be successful in
the rapidly increasing global competition requires larger critical mass, new
cross sectorial combinations of knowledge and resources of a size that these
regions and innovation milieus, at least in small countries, have difficulties to
provide.
This is one background why the new Macro region concept, formulated by
the Commission last year, is so interesting. In October 2009 the European
Council took the first Macro region decision with the Baltic Sea Region
strategy, where eight neighbour countries will develop strategic cooperation
147
Contents
in a number of areas. One of the Priority Areas for cooperation is Research

and Innovation to support economic growth and prosperity. Most of the BSR
countries are small countries. But all together, the BSR region has a number of
leading companies, Universities, clusters and research and innovation milieus
and it has a home market with more than 100 million people. By developing
strategic cooperation within the BSR Region between clusters, research and
innovation milieus and SME-networks, thus involving leading companies and
research organizations, the intention is to develop a leading commercial and
innovation position in focused areas and to become an attractive partner for
cooperation with other strong innovative regions in Europe and globally.
As a so called flagship project within the BSR Strategy´s Action plan, a new
Programme on business driven strategic cooperation between clusters,
research and innovation milieus and SME networks is now being implemented.
The name of this new Programme is BSR Stars.
The first projects to start up will be within fields of good global market
opportunities and there a competitive innovative capacity within the BSR
Macro region can be expected through transnational business driven
cooperation between research based clusters and innovation milieus. One
example is a project focusing the next generation ICT-technology platform,
including services based on this platform. Leading ICT companies and
research groups within research based clusters will here work together in a
user driven development of new technology and services, ´which will be
tested and hopefully accepted within the BSR home market as a base for
global marketing. The open innovation and user driven innovation approach
used, will stimulate innovation hubs to be fostered and also new businesses
to be started.
Such innovative capacity in focused areas is also intended to make the BSR
region an attractive partner for cooperation with other innovative clusters
and regions in Europe, thus contributing to the European level of strength in
these areas.
The issues of governance and leadership are very important in order to achieve
successful clusters and transnational collaborations. We know this very well
IRE
from our Swedish experiences from the VINNVÄXT program, supporting the
development of research based clusters/regional innovation systems. A Triple
Helix based leadership has here been formed for each cluster. This leadership,
with leading representatives from the business sector, the Academy and the
public sector, has taken decisions on a common vision, goals and a strategy
to achieve these goals. The Triple Helix leadership also is intended to secure
that the investments within each of the three sectors will be prioritized and
synchronized in line with the agreed strategy.
The need for an effective governance structure and leadership is as important
also for the transnational cluster cooperation. The governance structure
for the BSR Stars Programme is now in place and working effectively. For
each transnational cluster cooperation project which now is starting up, the
leadership structure is a prioritized issue. Valuable experience on governance
of such transnational cooperation will be developed during the coming years.
148
ANNEX II. SELECTED
The BSR stars Programme will be highly action oriented, but also supported
by learning activities on issues which will be important for transnational
cluster cooperation. A close cooperation with the new InnoNet called Tactics
is expected.
The BSR Stars Programme is expected to achieve funding from a number
of EU- Programmes (e.g. structural funds, RP and CIP etc) as well as from
national and regional programs. It will be a challenge to synchronize funding
of specific transnational projects from different Programmes with different
goals, rules and conditions. This will be a crucial issue within all ambitions for
transnational cluster cooperation with focus on actions.
Round Table 4
1. Weiers, S. The Research Potential Programme (REGPOT): lessons learned and
possible ways forward
Bullet Points:
1. Difficulties faced by applicants or potential applicants

The situation for applicants in REGPOT has been increasingly competitive
with success rates of only 5 to 6 % for applicants in the last two main calls
of REGPOT (2009 & 2010). Difficulties need to be analysed separately for
following two categories of applicants:
a) the very good applicants who just failed to receive funding due to lack
of financing and typically obtained total scores of 12 or more during the
evaluation
b) applicants that did not manage to pass the minimum threshold of 10
due to more serious weaknesses in the proposal
In group a) there were often excellent entities who actually did not manage
to present their project consistently throughout the three evaluation
criteria (excellence, implementation and impact). A key difficulty related to
the first criterion was often the lack of consistence between the required
SWOT analysis and the action plan proposed for the project. SWOT
analyses were sometimes either omitted or detached from the work plan.
In other cases the measures were not actually balanced or coherent. This
occurred in particular when the actual motivation was the procurement
of a major equipment item at high cost that led to building around an
artificially inflated bunch of activities in order to keep the budget share for
equipment within the required ceiling (30 % or 45 % respectively).
Further, some applicants were not in the position to build the project
on a sound scientific strategy. Neither, the concept of capacity building
was always fully understood with proposals still containing elements of
traditional research projects and/or educational measures. In some cases
149
Contents
the involvement of the partnering organizations was not convincingly

demonstrated. Despite letters of intent in the annex the actual roles of the
partners during the conduct of the project was not clear.
As regards the implementation of the project the most striking difficulty
observed was the presentation of a consistent and sufficiently justified
budget and resource allocation. Major expenditures were often not
sufficiently specified, quantified and justified. The presentation of
person month efforts and personnel costs was not always consistent
and sometimes overestimated. The management structure sometimes
appeared to be taken from a standard template and not really tailor
made to the project as indicated by either too simplistic approaches or
excessively complex structures.
Many applicants also had difficulties to convincingly demonstrate the impact
of the project. Although there are rarely doubts about the immediate impact
on the research capacity at the level of the applicants they sometimes fail to
convincingly address the European and / or regional scale.
In a few cases of top class applicants evaluators raised doubts whether
the proposed measures would lead to any further advance of capacity
and capability at all due to the high status achieved already. In such cases
applicants typically did not properly elaborate their SWOT analysis on the
actual perhaps hidden gaps and shortcomings to be sorted out by the
project.
Group b) proposals were typically submitted by applicants in desperate
need for funding in particular for equipment without a sufficient level of
scientific excellence to build on. Further, some of these applicants did not
demonstrate sufficiently the required critical mass or significant size to
generate a considerable impact with the measures. In some cases these
applicants were emerging entities in the wake of a reorganization of the
parent organization or a kind of virtual institutes with doubts about their
actual eligibility for the call. Moreover, applicants of this group sometimes
were unaware about the activities eligible for funding under a support
action and proposed traditional RTD or demonstration projects instead of
the requested in the work programme.
IRE
Difficulties during the implementation of the project were typical of minor

severity and did not actually jeopardize the conduct of the project so far.
Most frequently difficulties occurred with the recruitment measures due to
last minute withdrawals of excellent candidates and institutional barriers
for paying competitive salaries to these candidates. Some unclarities were
also observed as regards the implementation of the depreciation rules.
2. Possible solutions and actions to be taken

As most of the above described problems are actually related to
misperceptions of the work programme and the requirements published
with the call the essential remedy is an appropriate communication to the
applicants via a diverse set of channels.
150
ANNEX II. SELECTED
At first hand there is a network of national contact points not only in the
member states but also in associated counties such as the Western Balkans
and even in the Mediterranean Partner Countries that benefited from the
call FP7-REGPOT-2009-2. RTD B4 Regions of Knowledge and Research
Potential is co-coordinating a network of NCPs from all member states
and associated countries and provides regular updates and meetings on
open calls, results of evaluation, good practices and funded projects.
Further there is a dedicated web site on CORDIS with all relevant information
about the call including a list FAQ based on enquiries sent from potential
applicants that is regularly updated by the RTD B4 services.
RTD B4 also creates and constantly updates a large set of information
materials such as leaflet and posters that is widely spread out.
In addition staff members from RTD B4 regularly attended info events
in the convergence regions and present the calls to potential applicants
and policy makers. Applicants receive first hand information on how to
prepare proposals and to understand the call. Extensive Q&A sessions
were offered to the audience on all possible details of REGPOT.
Thanks to this communication policy the quality of the proposals has
constantly improved over the years since the first call in 2007 and the
number of ineligible proposal has been diminished significantly. On the
other hand with increasing quality the competition in the top group of
proposals has become fiercer under the constraints of limited budget.
In order to cope with this problem of oversubscription the Commission
intends to double the budget for the next call 2011.
Regarding problems faced during the implementation there is a policy to
solve any problems arising in a cooperative manner between the project
officer and the coordinators that allows for flexible solutions on case
by case basis. As far as necessary the work plans of the projects can be
adapted to new realities.
Key Questions:
1. Are REGPOT demands part of a regional strategy?

By its nature REGPOT is geared towards excellent and promising research
entities in the convergence and outermost regions and strives to unlock
their research capacities in order to better connect them to the European
Research Area. For that reason a REGPOT application is not necessarily
based on a regional strategy. The regional dimension of REGPOT is primarily
given by the condition that the applicant has to be located in a less
favoured region indicated either by the status of a convergence regions (75
% GDP criterion) or an outermost region (geographically disconnected).
Nevertheless, in many cases successful applications took place in close
consultation with the National Ministries of Science and Research and
complementary funding from structural funds were mobilized. The work
programmes so far explicitly encouraged the synergies with SF and a
151
Contents
contribution to the regional economic and social development. Notably,

the work programme for the call 2010 postulates to enable these research
entities to become dynamic innovation engines capable of sustaining
regional or national growth and employment . One of the objectives is
actually to provide a dynamic contribution to the regional or European
sustainable socio-economic development. Further the work programme
encourages the involvement of national and regional authorities.
Applicants are also invited to demonstrate synergies with structural funds
and cohesion policy.
As far as the experience with ongoing projects reveals there are several
good examples of complementary funding obtained from structural
funds. In some cases SF were already allocated prior to the REGPOT
funding typically for equipment of laboratory building whereby the
REGPOT project was more oriented towards human resources capacity
building. In other cases SF cover costs that are not eligible for funding in
REGPOT (e.g. construction).
However, it should be noted that these links are not obligatory for
a successful REGPOT application and excellent research activities in
convergence regions are not necessarily embedded in a regional strategy
as top class researchers operate on a European if not even global scale.
2. If yes, is the evaluation of a proposal taken into account in such strategy?

Up to now there has been no case reported where the evaluation of a
REGPOT proposal has influenced the regional strategy. It should be
noted that the evaluation of the proposal is primarily oriented towards
scientific excellence. Nevertheless vice versa the potential contribution of
a proposal to socio economic needs in the regions is a sub-aspect to be
evaluated under impact in the evaluation of REGPOT proposals.
In some cases the selection of proposal might have some influence on
national research policy consideration. In particular the former REGPOT-2
project providing evaluation facilities by independent international
experts nominate by the Commission were observed with great interest by
IRE
national authorities dealing with research in terms of their methodology

and outcome.
3. Should the REGPOT Programme target thematic sectors, or should

remain open to research excellence only?
Research Potential should remain a bottom up programme that is open to
excellent applications encompassing all FP 7 thematic priorities. Unlike for
Regions of Knowledge that has per se a sectoral orientation due to the
concept of a research driven cluster it is impossible to establish objective
and tangible criteria for the selection of specific thematic domains to be
addressed by a REGPOT call. The work programme and the participation
rules require that REGPOT is open to all convergence and outermost
regions. Any thematic focusing bears the risk of favouring certain
152
ANNEX II. SELECTED
convergence regions whereby discriminating others. E.g. a thematic focus

on information society would favour metropolitan areas with service
industries and computer science departments while discriminating old
industrialized and rural areas as well as the outermost regions.
Instead of narrowing down the thematic scope a future REGPOT should
consider opening the capacity building to internationalization, non
convergence regions and build a bridge to innovation and knowledge
transfer to industry.
A future REGPOT programme should also capitalize on the experience
made with diverse project formats in REGPOT such as the core call
format with mono-applicants and associated partnering organizations,
the consortium approach implemented for the international dimension
of REGPOT (calls FP7-REGPOT-2007-3, FP7-REGPOT-2009-2) and small
projects providing independent experts advice to research entities (calls
FP7-REGPOT-2007-2, FP7-REGPOT-2008-2).
2. Fatorusso, E. The NatPharma Project. Reinforcement of research potential for

the realization of a complete drug development scheme from natural compounds
(REGPOT-2008-1)
The NeaNAT group

The NeaNAT group is a multidisciplinary research group based at the
Dipartimento di Chimica delle Sostanze Naturali, University of Naples Federico
II , has been active for over 40 years in the isolation and identification of
natural products of marine origin. Along the years, the group has expanded
this core activity to the study of the biological and pharmacological activity of
the isolated compounds and of their biosynthesis. In the last decade, experts
in computer aided drug design have joined the group.
NeaNat is a big research group, comprising 3 Full Professors, 5 Associate
Professors, 4 Assistant Professors, 6 Post-doctoral Researchers, 7 Doctoral
Students, and 2 Technical Staff.
The group can access a rich set of instruments, including 700 MHz, 500
MHz and 400 MHz Varian UnityInova NMR spectrometers, a Bruker Autoflex
MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer, an Applera API2000 ESI-triple quadrupole
mass spectrometer, and an Agilent 6850/MSD5975B GC-MS.
In the last years, the group was involved in several national and international
collaborative research projects (NOMATEC 2001-2004, ISBAM ‒ Marie Curie
Training Site 2002-2006, BASM ‒ Marie Curie Development Host 2002-200,
BIOTOXMARIN 2005-2007, ANTIMAL - 2005-2010, MarBioTec 2010-2014) and
industrial projects (partners: NeuroSearch A7S, Bellerup, Denmark and Sigma-
Tau Pharmaceuticals Inc., Pomezia, Italy).
The scientific activity of the group led to 130 Scientific Papers and 10
International Patents in 2005-2009.
153
Contents
The NatPharma Project

Starting Date 1 April 2009, duration 32 months.
The aim of NatPharma was to bring new scientific knowledge to NeaNat,
granting the group all the capacities for the successful realization of a
complete drug development scheme from natural sources to optimized
drugs, including
Ū the identification of the bioactive molecules
Ū the clarification of the mechanism of action
Ū the optimization of bioactive compounds
Ū the biotechnological production of bioactive compounds
Albeit our worldwide scientific excellence in the fields of research we are
involved, we needed new expertise in the fields of:
1. Biotechnology for the identification of genes involved in the biosynthesis
of bioactive compounds
2. Quantum-mechanical calculations (ab-initio methods) for the investigation
of the interactions occurring between organic molecules (drug candidates)
and biological targets
The strategy we are using to pursue these aims is as follows:
1. Gaining new expertise 258 k€

a. Recruiting experienced researchers. Two researchers, expert
respectively in expression of biosynthetic pathways and ab-initio
quantum mechanical calculations, are working in the group with two-
year contracts. We could offer them a salary in line with European
standards (about 40,000 € per year)
b. Staff exchange. We have established a two-way staff-exchange
agreement with the group of Joern Piel (University of Bonn, Germany)
one of the most prominent expert in the study of biosynthetic pathways.
IRE
A researcher of our staff (Dr. Roberta Teta) is presently spending an

eight-month stay in Bonn. Ingoing exchange is also planned, with
some problems
2. Upgrading instrumentation 323 k€

REGPOT is the only CAPACITIES Programme offering funds for durable
equipment. We used them for:
Ū A dramatic improvement of the molecular biology lab (thermocycler,
shakers, centrifuge, electrophoresis, ...)
Ū Purchasing a high resolution LC-MS instruments (only partly covered
by NatPharma)
Ū Purchasing a new multiprocessor (96 processors) computer for
massively parallel computations
154
ANNEX II. SELECTED
All the new instruments are now (10 months from the beginning of the
project) up and running.
We did not encounter any particular problems in the purchasing
procedures.
3. Gaining visibility 160 k€

a. Organization and participation to seminars and workshops. The funds
are allowing the components of the group to participate in many more
meeting that otherwise possible, and to invite prominent scientists
for seminars and as visiting professors. In addition, we are organizing
an international workshop (Napoli, June 2011) on the drug discovery
process from natural compounds finalized to inform biotechnology
and pharmaceutical companies of NeaNat research potentials. The
organization of the meeting is still at a preliminary level, but we do not
foresee problems in this
b. Dissemination to the scientific community and the general public. We
have realized a website specifically dedicated to the NeaNAT group
(http://www.neanat.unina.it). A new logo was created for the group, as
well as standard presentation templates, business cards, letterheads,
and so on
4. Management 19 k€
This strategy follows closely the strategy proposed in the work program,
which we mostly found suitable to our needs. Overall, the project is being
developing reasonably well. The new equipment strongly enhanced our
research capacities in the new filed of biosynthetic pathways expression
and quantum mechanical calculation. The recruited researchers are doing
well and obtained the first scientific results (they had only been working
for 5 months at the time of the WIRE meeting).
Problems and suggestions

Depreciation rules
The acquisition, development or upgrading of research equipment is one
of the required measures of the program. The purchase of new equipment
is therefore not a mere instrument for the development of the program, but
one of the effects the Programme intends to achieve. Therefore, we think that
the whole cost of new equipment should be covered by the program, and
not only its depreciation during the duration of the project.
Overheads
Indirect costs (overheads) are only partially covered in Coordination and
Support Actions (CSA) such as REGPOT. In our case (flat rate) indirect cost are
still evaluated as 20% of direct costs, but only 7% is reimbursed, and this level
is in our opinion too low. In any case, it is hard to explain why CSA indirect
costs are limited to 7% while in collaborative project they can be as high as
60% of direct costs.
155
Contents
Role of twinned institutions

Twinned institutions are not participants of REGPOT projects (i.e. they do not
receive money). While a twinned institution is probably willing to host people
from a participant institution (thus getting work for free), it is surely less
willing to send its paid staff to work at the participant institution, especially if
the exchange is intended to be to the exclusive advantage of the participant
institution. Twinned institutions should receive funds from the program.
These could for example cover at a flat rate the consumables used by the
hosted staff, and (part of) the salary of the seconded staff.
Ingoing secondments
There is an additional reason why twinned institutions should receive
funds from the program. The exchange staff does not receive a salary from
the programme, but only a reimbursement for travel and accommodation
expenses. This is a problem for ingoing secondments, because (at least for
current administration rules in Italy) it is difficult to reimburse the staff of
another institution. It would be easier if the twinned institution, who pays the
salary to the seconded staff, also paid travel and accommodation expenses.
PhD students and staff exchange
PhD students are currently excluded from any staff exchange activity because
they are not properly staff and because the REGPOT Programme is not
about education. In practice, however, PhD students typically spend at least
some months in institutions other than their home institution, bringing back
new knowledge to their research group. Actually, PhD student exchange is
one of the most typical means for an academic research group to gain new
knowledge.
3. Bialek-Wyrzykowska, U. REGPOT Programme Case study: The HEALTH-PROT

Project. Proteins in Health and Disease: HEALTH-PROT, 2009-2012.
International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IIMCB) in Warsaw started
its activities in 1999 and soon became one of the best biological research
IRE
institutions in Poland. We study a broad range of proteins involved in cell

physiology and pathology. The groups working at the Institute have necessary
expertise to study selected proteins at different levels of complexity, and to
employ a wide range of experimental approaches. We have at our disposal
methods to study proteins by: structure prediction in silico, structure
determination by X-ray crystallography, biochemical characterization of
protein properties in vitro, functional analyses in vivo using established cell
lines in culture and animal-derived primary cells. Our aim is to expand the
range of protein analyses. In particular, we expect our laboratories to introduce
novel, state-of-the-art methodologies available in protein research. Moreover,
by constant scientific exchange with the leading European centres, we strive
to keep abreast with any technological developments in the areas already
represented by the Institute. The ultimate goal is to become the main regional
centre of reference in modern technologies for protein studies on a research
156
ANNEX II. SELECTED
scale and in parallel on a small pre-industrial scale, through reinforcing the

S&T potential of our groups. A milestone on our way to reach this goal is the
project HEALTH-PROT (Proteins in Health and Disease) generously supported
by the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union through
the REGPOT programme and by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher
Education.
The HEALTH-PROT project is targeted at continuation and expansion of
activities initiated as the FP5 Centre of Excellence in Molecular Bio-Medicine
(CEMBM). In the past as the Centre of Excellence we developed an advanced
methodology of analysis of complex protein structures with the use of cell
and molecular biology techniques, biochemical methods, crystallographic
analysis and computer modeling. The goal of the HEALTH-PROT project is to
become a top protein studies Centre in the region by unlocking the potential
of all our research groups. This will be achieved mainly by twinning each of the
Institute s groups with European groups leading in the field (first objective),
through joint research activities, organization of workshops and conferences
and participation in consortia within FP7. We plan to create the place for
experienced researchers to conduct research at the highest level (second
objective), and for junior researchers to obtain the best possible mentoring
and a degree based on the top-flight theses. We also intend to reach an
ultimate critical mass by completing the organisation of IIMCB s structure
(third objective). We aspire to be more innovative towards applications in
medicine and biotechnology (fourth objective). In parallel, we will popularize
science and raise social awareness of the benefits of modern biology and
biotechnology (fifth objective). Ultimately, a reinforced S&T potential of our
research groups will allow us to become more visible and attractive as a
collaborating partner in the European Research Area, for both academia and
industry.
The action plan of the HEALTH-PROT project is based on a coherent set of five
measures.
1. Increasing scientific expertise through twinning

Laboratory leaders at IIMCB developed with their European partners common
research projects that are implemented through exchange visits.
Within these research activities in the first year of the project seven scientists
from twinning institutions visited IIMCB and six experienced IIMCB researchers
visited the twinning partners to give lectures, discuss the research projects
and to explore the possibilities of common grant applications. Three
experienced IIMCB researchers visited the twinning partners to perform
research experiments.
2. Expanding research capacity

To increase research capacity at IIMCB nine experienced scientists selected
through an open international competition were employed as well as an
equipment specialist responsible for supporting scientists in the usage of
specialized equipment.
157
Contents
The HEALTH-PROT project allowed IIMCB scientists to carry out research

on the highest level. Twinning activities, new employments, participation
in recognized international events introduced new quality, opened new
horizons to researchers work and fulfilled the first year project s tasks with
success. They carry on to the next year, equally motivated and full of good
spirit. Good luck!
4. Anton, A. The REGPOT Programme.

The Research potential Programme is a very important: it is essentially aiming
at unlocking and reinforcing the scientific capacities and the potential of
good research entities in convergence and outermost regions.
It will support the implementation of an Action Plan, defined by the highest
quality or promising research entities established in the eligible regions,
derived from a SWOT analysis of the applicant s research entity in the thematic
priorities domains of the FP7.
In fact, it is the only Programme developing and ensuring territorial cohesion
based on excellence.
It is therefore the only Community activity, which is an Action Plan, based
on competition, in order to valorise the full R&D potential of the European
research Area (ERA).
The only criteria for a Community intervention have been and must be
the scientific quality of the applicant and of the proposed project as for all
Framework Programme activities.
2007 2008 2009 2010
Budget (M EUR) 23,5 31 30 31*

IRE
Requested budget (M EUR) 228,78 487,59 696,40 548,44
Eligible proposals 239 451 304 252
Funded proposals 23 33 16 14
When looking to the ways to optimize such a programme, we must keep in

our minds the present reality. Even with growing annual budget, the interest
of REGPOT and the importance of the needs to face are such that REGPOT has
been highly competitive with a success rate of about 5% on average.
158
ANNEX II. SELECTED
These figures demonstrate two things:

Ū The needs for such an activity are very high
Ū The allocated resources are certainly not adequate
To answer the question on what could be done in the future? , I suggest two
directions, the optimization route and the financial one.
I believe that for the optimization and for a stronger impact of the Research
Potential Programme, there are essentially three measures to be taken:
Assistance, Rules and Networking.
Ū Assistance for the applicants through specific workshops and other
measures in preparation of SWOT Analysis and Action Plan
Ū Clear rules for the applicant, in terms of size and legal status, in order to
avoid ad-hoc entities created for the sake of the proposal
Ū The research centres, having their capacities increased due to the
Commission intervention, will have higher and better scientific
performances, if they could become a part of a network of high-level
research teams. A greater attention has to be given to the partners and to
the excellence networks the partners are engaged in
Ū Such an approach would allow improving the scientific works of the group,
and if this group includes public or private entities able to valorize the
results, this would allow the transfer of knowledge and the exploitation of
the results by European agents for our economic progress
The second very important condition to optimize the Research Potential
Programme is certainly a significant increase of its budget.
For the moment, this budget represents more or less 0.6% of FP7 allocations.
It is obvious that this is not responding to the important challenge that
represents the building up of well-balanced European scientific communities
which is requested if we want to have 3% of EU GDP allocated to R&D.
Of course, we must be realistic and nobody can imagine that we will be
able to respond to all needs with a very huge REGPOT programme in FP8.
Nevertheless, I would strongly recommend having a significant allocation
of money for REGPOT in FP8, and I believe that a suitable budget would be
between 2 and 3 % of the FP8 provisions.
I am strongly convinced that this programme requires all our support and,
when I say all our support, I mean not only the support of the beneficiaries,
convergence and outermost regions countries (countries we can consider as
donors in FP7, putting more money than the amount they can get through
the competition) but also the support of the leaders of ERA.
We are looking for a coherent Europe and as far as I know REGPOT it is the only
Programme developing something new and innovative, territorial cohesion
based on excellence.
159
Contents
I would like just to illustrate this by reminding you that all research entities,
which received this kind of financial supports in FP6, have then, successfully,
participated in FP projects or in FP networks of excellence.
If we want to benefit from all Research Potentials existing in ERA, and we
need it, we cannot leave aside dispersed research teams which cannot be
100% performing because of lack of equipment, of qualified people and of
links with the rest of the European scientific community.
In all Member States, I am convinced that national authorities are doing their
best to improve the situation. Nevertheless, a strong European commitment
is necessary and the Community using the FP instrument can only take it.
FP is the only one for which the excellence criteria is the first one for the
selection of Community intervention and for S&T this is crucial. Therefore,
whenever it is possible, synergies must be developed between structural
funds and FP instruments, but S&T capacity building must be ensured, first
of all, through FP activities for, in particular, a better implementation of other
FP programmes.
Round Table 5
1. Portugués Carrillo, C. The Outermost Regions’ Conference of Presidents
This round table, in which I have the honour to participate, raises the
following question: A regional Policy for the Outermost Regions (OR) within
the Framework of the initiative Research Potential .
As defined in article 349 of the Treaty, the group of outermost regions is
made up of the traditional following seven regions: Azores, Madeira, Canary
Islands, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion, plus two new
territories: Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin, which have joined the group of
OR following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
Even though these regions do not represent a unique geomorphologic
IRE
entity, they nevertheless, present a number of specific characteristics

according to their specific geo-economic situation, as well as their natural
conditions. From the point of view of their common specific constraints, OR
share a considerable remoteness with respect to the European continent,
an integration in a double space (a geographic area close to the third
countries of the EU and a zone of political and economic membership),
the reduced dimension of the local market and the economic dependence
to a limited number of products, and the specific geographic and climatic
conditions which slow down the endogenous development of the primary
and secondary sectors.
Since 1995, the Outermost Regions Conference of Presidents has
implemented a deep political cooperation among the OR. This Conference
is the political body expressing the common interests of these regions and
defining necessary orientations in order to defend their specific treatment.
160
ANNEX II. SELECTED
In this context, since 1999 the Conference of Presidents defined which are
the principal axes that the EU should take into account to develop a specific
approach for these regions: Equal opportunities, Coherence regarding
policies application, Assets valorisation and Partnership among the different
administrations that take part in the decision-making.
In October 2009, the Conference of Presidents adopted its Memorandum
which is focused on the OR on the horizon 2020. This contribution sent to the
European Commission strongly reaffirms the need of a different approach
in the implementation of community policies in favour of their territories,
according to article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, and taking into account the formulated principles.
1. Exceptional assets and fields of excellence of the Outermost regions

OR possess exceptional assets which are recognised at the highest level
and are consequently commonly admitted: not only their strategic
geographical location with respect to collaborations and partnership with
the Third Countries but also, their biodiversity richness, their exceptional
maritime, climatic and atmospheric resources, an advantageous
environment for the use of renewable energies and an excellent location
in which to base scientific research activities. At the same time, these
regions are exposed with special intensity to the new world challenges in
the field of environmental sustainability and climate change. All this turns
them into real natural and experimentation laboratories for the study of
these sensitive issues and in real active borders of the EU for its world
projection.
Ū Those exceptional assets result in important research processes and hi-
tech industries, already pointed by the chairman, e.g.:
Ū IAC, the Canary Islands Astrophysics Institute
Ū the European Space Agency s centre in French Guiana
Ū CRVOI, the centre for research on emerging diseases, on Réunion
Ū The Biological Resources Centre for tropical plants, crops and animals,
in Guadeloupe
2. The Research and Technological Development in the OR at EU level

Improving competitiveness (including innovation, technological
development and research) is one of the three fields of action identified
by the EU strategy towards the OR in order to take into account their
specific needs and offset their constraints.
In 2002 the European Commission launched a study (Lengrand study)
focused on the research situation in the outermost regions. Even if this
study did not deeply tackle the core of the issue, it pointed that the
research in these regions is structured, that research centres were about
to expand and that networking advances continue their development.
161
Contents
The Communication of September 2007 Strategy for the OR: Achievements

and Future Prospects points out that specific measures should be taken
in order to formulate a genuine regional innovation partnership strategy
to be implemented in the OR and strengthen research, technological
development and telecommunications infrastructures.
In this context, thanks to the 7th Framework Programme for Research
and Technological Development (FP7) OR s research capacities have
been strengthened and have succeeded to move on to the excellence.
Networking is also more visible and easily accessible and the development
of the information and high speed society considerably increases the
exchanges and contributes to break the isolation of OR.
At regional level, the definition of Regional Innovation Strategies is almost
achieved in all OR. Shortly these strategies should be implemented through
the articulation of the available funding instruments such as Structural
Funds, the FP7 and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework
Programme (CIP). The key of the Regional Innovation Strategies success
remains in the adaptation of the local partnership, including the small and
medium-sized enterprises. The operational mode of the interventions
synergy is still to be positioned with a view to optimize field-based
research and innovation actions.
All these elements constitute an important step forward and are quite
positive for the OR. Nevertheless, many constraints still remain e.g.: the
lack of research critical mass (except for the space activity developed at
Kourou s centre, in French Guiana, or the centre for astrophysics in the
Canary Islands), the absolute need to consolidate a « capacity building »
in order to give an answer to the proposals made within the framework of
the FP7, avoiding disproportionate administrative approaches, the lack of
contacts with the network of excellent research centres… It is absolutely
necessary to make possible for the researchers of the OR to fully participate
in this field.
In order to surpass these constraints, it is especially important to consider
the principles formulated by the OR, for example, equal opportunities.
The OR consider that they still do not have the same chances as research
IRE
centres located in the European continent. Therefore, they are willing to

definitely integrate themselves in the European Research Area.
3. The OR in the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological

Development (FP7)
Even if the FP7 has considerably advanced in the field of the European
research policy, according to a special consideration to the OR s situation
(e.g. recital 7 of FP7 regulation which states that the framework programme
should promote the participation of the outermost regions of the EU, as
well as of a large number of enterprises, research centres and universities,
the « Capacities » programme which encourages the release of OR s
potential), it is also true that these regions find important difficulties in
order to participate in the four sub-programme of FP7.
162
ANNEX II. SELECTED
The OR specificities are not fully considered in the structure of the FP and
in the rules for submission of proposals. As a result, the final balance in
terms of projects submitted and approved by OR and the other countries
remains unsatisfactory.
Even nowadays, the research equipments installed in the outermost
regions, with a vast knowledge of their environment, are not informed
or do not take part in relevant projects in which they are concerned, this
projects being carried out by research equipments from the European
continent. Thanks to this example, I clearly refer to the problem of the
spread of research results in our regions.
If community answers do not meet these ambitions in a near future, then
the OR may become marginalised territories with the consequent loss of
all the efforts that have been made until the present time in order to take
advantage of their total membership to the EU.
4. Future perspectives: for a new paradigm

We are in the beginning of a new agenda that is developing a deep
brainstorm about the design of the future Financial Perspectives post-
2013. It is extremely important to make the most of this opportunity.
The OR s Conference of Presidents is convinced of the importance for
these regions to fully participate in the next Framework Programme,
this is to say, to participate in all of its areas: Capacities, People, Ideas
and Cooperation. Therefore, in the next programming period, new rules
should be introduced.
In this context we should not forget that article 349 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the EU states that, considering the structural handicaps that
characterise these regions, the European commission shall propose specific
measures aimed, in particular, at laying down the conditions of application
of the Treaties to those regions. These specific measures concern in
particular the conditions of access to structural funds and to horizontal
Union programmes . Therefore, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties
and having the power of initiative, can theoretically create an absolutely
lawful dynamics aiming to adapt the conditions of the OR to access to the
Framework Programme. These adaptations allow having into account their
geographical location in a particular and unique environment of the EU.
The Conference of Presidents would like to raise the possibility for the
forthcoming period (post-2013), to adapt the standards used to evaluate
the principle of scientific excellence without necessarily changing the
achieved level. The excellence criteria applied to the R&D policy should
not contradict the overall territorial cohesion aim of this policy. Therefore, it
would be appropriate to make a territorial impact assessment of this policy
that would lead to adopt suitable strategies to dynamize the European
territory in a balanced way.
It also turns out indispensable to adopt an initiative to restructure and
coordinate the actions developed by the different actors implied in this
163
Contents
process (at communitarian, national and regional level) to assure the

coherence of the projects. In this context, the coherence between research
activities, regional development programmes, such as ERDF and EDF,
which is used in developing countries of our regional geographic area,
is essential in order to advance in research models leading to satisfactory
results.
It would be desirable a specific call for proposals for the OR in the
Cooperation area of the Framework Programme that will facilitate their
cooperation with third neighbouring countries associating also other
European regions equipped with great research centres on the basis of a
tripartite cooperation.
Finally it would be necessary to look for other innovative approaches to
support research and innovation actions of the Outermost Regions.
Round Table 6
1. Goicolea, J.I. The experience in the Basque Country (Spain)
HOW CAN SYSTEMS WITH DIFFERENT BUT COMPLEMENTARY TARGETS AND

DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF EVALUATION BE COORDINATED?
The Basque Country is an example of how an industrial economy has managed
to become competitive through the development of an R&D an innovation
system. In the 70 s (oil crisis), the Basque Country had an obsolete industry in
mature sectors, who was severely beaten by the crisis by then beat everyone.
At that time, the Basque government first launched a joint anti-crisis measures
to lessen the effects of plant closures and job losses. But at the same time, the
Basque Government was aware of the importance of technology, knowledge
and innovation to define an exit strategy from the crisis. Therefore it sought
ways to expand and modernize technological innovation to their companies.
However, the starting situation of the Basque Country presented several
IRE
problems.
At this time, the Basque science and technology system lacked a strong,
consolidated infrastructure, capable of contributing to the modernization
and extension of technological innovation in enterprises. In this sense, the
university was young, I still did not have strong research teams and also had
no interest in cooperating with business. There were no Public Research
Organizations relevance. But in addition the R&D and innovation performed
inside the company walls enterprises was of low level and volume.
How to face competitive transformation based on technology and innovation?
The Basque Government opted for support the Technology Centres and the
promotion of R&D activity within the companies. The Basque Innovation
System was developed by the consolidation of the Technology Centres as
agents for improving enterprise competitiveness. And for almost 30 years
they have played their role with relative efficiency and effectiveness.
164
ANNEX II. SELECTED
In the early 80 s, the Basque Country was one of the regions with less R&D
expenditure as a percentage of GDP. However, according to the latest figures
from Eustat, in 2008 this figure increased to 1.85% well above average in
Spain and around the European average. But the most marked, according
to the Eustat, this figure is that 81.1% is running on the companies, 14.9% in
University and only 4.0% in the Administration. A very different situation to
that envisaged in the early 80s.
The Basque Country today with 14 technology centres, most clustered under
two corporations, Tecnalia and IK4 which today are a reference at national
level regarding technology development, research and especially in the
transfer of these results to companies.
Thus, unlike university based transfer systems from other European regions, in
the Basque Country the figure of the Technology Centre has been the cause
of technological upgrading of enterprises. In the past 20 years the Centre
has supported, trained, and advised companies in various sectors taking into
account the competitive trends that emerged, as well as innovation and
technology needs that were needed.
After 30 years, the Basque System of Science, Technology and Innovation
is structured around these centres, agents of excellence in developing and
transferring technologies to companies.
But there are other initiatives which complement them as CICs (Cooperative
Research) the BERCs (Research Centres of Excellence), the Science and
Technology Parks (4 in total under a network of parks) and a host of agents
proximity that contribute to link companies with knowledge generators.
CAN OPEN INNOVATION PLATFORMS BE A TOOL TO INTEGRATE THE

REGIONAL INNOVATION TECHNOLOGY
In this context, from the Basque Government is understood that in the XXI century
the need for competitiveness Basque bypasses the definition of new instruments,
but by empowering existing applications (that have been shown to contribute to
improved competitiveness of enterprises) and especially in the articulation and
coordination of all people to create an intervention system that generates in an
ecosystem environment conducive to innovation and competitiveness.
To do this we created a new Programme to support companies in their process
of adaptation to the crisis (RESISTE), and two transformation programmes for
the future. One is COMPITE a programme to accelerate technology transfer
between all these actors and their end users and businesses. COMPITE aims
to identify needs through a formal strategy in the enterprise, and from them,
bringing concrete programmes and actions, and agents of the system to
businesses to find solutions.
The other is LIDERA (to lead), support businesses that tractor to improve their
market position by collaborating with suppliers and ancillary businesses.
Both programmes are a gateway to the competitive transformation of the
Basque Country, which among other actions, will be embodied in a new
165
Contents
Business Competitiveness Plan, where the key will be the interconnection of all
actors, innovative environment business-administration.
The measures of the Plan will fit inside an open innovation approach,
an approach where companies are becoming aware of the multitude
of resources that the environment provides. In the case of the
Basque Country in many companies this approach is rooted in
collaboration with the Technology Centres rather than with universities.
The objective set COMPITE and the new Competitiveness Plan is to extend
this vision of open innovation to every business in any territory, allowing
them to become aware of the many existing resources available.
2. Artelsmair, G. The European Patent Office.
Bullet points
1. Good practices of TT from Universities to business.

The strengthening of the role of National Patent Offices (NPO) in the TT
process can be considered a good practice. The experiences by e.g. the
Portuguese Industrial Property Office (INPI) and the Dutch Patent Office
show that Universities can benefit from the NPO expertise through a wide
range of services, from the proper allocation of research funds to the
identification of appropriate business partners. In particular, the support
provided in the identification and protection of IPRs can lead to the
creation of successful start-ups.
2. The IPR issue in the Academia-Companies collaboration.

It is crucial to set clarity in the IPR issues before any collaboration between
Academia and Company starts. This process creates transparency in the
transactions and therefore trust among the collaborating partners. Clarity
is obtained through the unambiguous splitting of the IP ownership, which
many judge as the most difficult and critical part of the negotiation, and
IRE
through checking the freedom-to-operate.
3. The knowledge-base start-ups.

Start-ups, in their objective to develop further a research result into a final
product, can strengthen their position through a patent application (or a
portfolio of patent applications) when searching for sources of financing
or in negotiating cross-licensing deals. Furthermore, a good use of patent
information can help them in identifying partners interested in the
purchase, as well as, very important, in finding the appropriate markets
where such products are currently sold.
Key Questions
4. How can systems with different but complementary targets, and

different systems of evaluation, be coordinated.
166
ANNEX II. SELECTED
One option is to strengthen the intermediate layer between the university

research environment and the commercially oriented enterprises. The
intermediate layer, no matter if called TT Office, Valorisation Centre, or else,
should first of all be able to communicate with both parties. Furthermore,
the award system of Universities could take into account the IP and
commercialisation aspects.
5. How can public Higher education and research Institutions promote

knowledge-base start-ups?
From an IP point of view, providing the start-up with a strong patent
application (or portfolio of applications) means to prepare the ground
for strong deals. Good patent knowledge by the start-up holder(s) and
support from IP experienced actors e.g. from an NPO, would therefore
seem an effective resource which HEIs can make use of in the promotion
and strengthening of start-ups.
6. Can open innovation platforms be a tool to integrate the Regional

Innovation Ecology ?
From an IP point of view, there is the potential to increase the intelligent use
of patent information ( patent intelligence ) in order to identify at least a
large part of the actors present in the regional innovation eco-system. The
present focus on technological areas of patent information will be moved
to a cross-area focus on solutions. Platforms including innovation actors
identified in this way can foster the integration of Regional innovation
ecology .
3. Mayr, A. IPR-Helpdesk and IPeuropAware

Building on the experience of a pilot action, and two projects funded by the
European Commission under the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programme
(2002-2005 and 2005-2007 respectively), IPR-Helpdesk is today part of the
project IPeuropAware.
The IPeuropAware project brings together two important existing Europe-wide
initiatives: InnovAccess, a Web portal created by the National Patent Offices
to provide information on their services for the end user and IPR-Helpdesk,
Helpline and training mechanism for current and potential contractors in
EC-funded Framework Programme projects. These initiatives, together with
further actions foreseen in the project aim to target and improve usage of
and access to research, exploitation and innovation in Europe.
The participation in this project of 20 National Patent Offices boosts the
Europe-wide perspective of the project. It will provides a voice at the national
level in at least 20 member states that can communicate directly with national
governments, other national and regional actors, their members, individuals,
businesses and the European Commission.
The University of Alicante, coordinator of the whole IPeuropAware project,
also runs IPR-Helpdesk.
167
Contents
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE OF IPR-HELPDESK:

To promote and support the use of IP rights in international research,
development and technology transfer activities, providing an IP rights
support service to actual and potential beneficiaries of CIP and Research
Framework Programme actions, especially high-tech SMEs and Public
Research Organisations.
MODULE 3 ‒ SERVICES FOR EU-FUNDED RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PROJECTS
WP14. IPR-Helpdesk Website Content Generation and Info-Service
To operate an efficient and user-friendly Info-service in IPR issues on trans-

Objective
national research projects and technology transfer
M14.1 Multilingual website Month 1
Milestones M14.2 A wide-scale, cost-efficient and useful diffusion use Month 1

& Timing of IPR in international research and technology transfer
activities, taking into consideration the needs of the target
audience (mainly high-tech SMEs, Universities and Public
Research Organizations)
WP15. Helpline for participants in EU-funded Research and Innovation projects
To operate an efficient free of charge Helpline, assisting potential and

current participants in EU-funded Research and Innovation projects on
Objective
IPR issues, in particular those relating to EU rules for dissemination and use
IRE
of research results.
M15.1 A wide-scale, cost-efficient and useful free of charge Month 1

Milestones
Helpline on IPR issues related to RTD EU-financed projects,
& Timing
taking into consideration the adequate SME approach
168
ANNEX II. SELECTED
Module 3 IPR-Helpdesk
Target Actual and potential participants in CIP and RTD Framework

Programmes (SMEs, Universities and Research Organisations)
Customer of the Network in support of Business and Innovation
Topics IPR within RTD
Geographical EU Member and Associated States

Coverage
Means/ Activities Support services (website, helpdesk, news service)

Training and awareness material
Training and dissemination activities
To deliver IPR awareness and WP11, using WP9 as a base, is centred on this
enforcement actions directly to SMEs, subject, delivering pilot actions to selected
such as information and training SME target groups (as It was deemed likely
impossible to target all SMEs in Europe
within the scope of this project).
To deliver IPR awareness and WP12 takes on board the planning carried
enforcement actions for SME support out in WP9 and puts it into action for Support
services to improve their knowledge and services.
level of competence on IPR matters
To support IPR enforcement agencies WP10 covers this area. Enforcement was
with actions such as exchange of best seen as a very important area by the actors
practices, training and support for involved in the preparation of this proposal.
the development of IPR enforcement
strategies
169
Contents
Module 2 - Sectoral IPR Awareness Action
Objectives of the Module Application in IP-BASE
To prepare handbooks in several languages WP13 of the proposed action is about

for the use of enterprises, particularly SMEs, coordinating the creation of these Sectoral
active in the sectors of textiles and clothing, handbooks, according to the industries and
leather, footwear and furniture. The areas as they are described in the call.
handbook should be developed in a way
which will be adaptable to the needs of In this WP, an analysis exercise is carried out
other sectors facing similar counterfeiting and the handbooks are drafted accordingly.
and piracy problems. It will be integrated
in the common toolbox to be developed
under Module 0 for larger use
To disseminate the handbooks in a series Dissemination of the handbooks is assured

of awareness-raising seminars on the by having in the Consortium all the National
protection of intellectual property rights in Patent Offices of the relevant countries
the countries covered by the handbook for this action, except Lithuania (where
handbook will also de disseminated by
commitment of the local NPO)
Module 3 - IPR Helpdesk for EU-funded research and innovation projects

Module 3 will promote and support use of IPR in international research and
technology transfer activities by providing a support service to actual and
potential beneficiaries of CIP and Research Framework Programme actions,
with special emphasis placed on targeting innovative, high-tech SMEs and
Public Research Organisations. Intellectual property rights are extremely
important in cross-border research projects and in the technology transfer
process. Promoting a clear understanding of IPR rules amongst the innovation
and research community through appropriate awareness and assistance
IRE
actions is essential for successful collaborative exercises and exploitation and

protection of research results. IPR Helpdesk service has now been providing
this support for 8 years, and has been included in the IP-BASE project to
complement the other actions. This project will now aim to group together
and define once and for all a network of helpdesks and support actions, and
will be closely linked with the NPO helpdesks developed in module 1. IPR
Helpdesk will continue to provide this support free of charge to potential
beneficiaries of EU funded research projects. This module will continue and
develop the services provided by the current IPR Helpdesk project.
The specific objectives of Module 3 are:
Ū To raise awareness on the strategic importance of IPR in the targeted
audience by offering training to intermediaries (National Contact Points,
members of the Network in support of Business and Innovation …) on
170
ANNEX II. SELECTED
IPR issues and by preparing and disseminating IPR related information

through appropriate channels
Ū To provide first-line assistance on IPR and exploitation issues to CIP and
Research Framework Programme beneficiaries, targeting mainly high-
tech SMEs, Universities and Public Research Organisations
To provide training and assistance to the members of the Network in support
of Business and Innovation and their customers on IPR issues related to
technology transfer.
WP14: Content Generation and Info-Service: Description of work

T14.1. Operation of the IP Info-service:
Ū Multilingual website:
Ū The 23 official languages of the European Union used for official
documents
Ū English language for complete information in the IPR-Helpdesk
contents
Ū Advanced search utility on IPR-Helpdesk website content, with results
showing a link system allowing instant and organised visualisation of
related material
Ū Detailed list of links and glossary of interest based on already existing
link databases (UAIPIT, IPR-Helpdesk, InnovAccess)
Ū Uploading of daily news service and events of interest for the target
audience (in English), focused on IPR and innovation issues. This daily
news service will be linked also to the InnovAccess website (WP7)
and synergies and complementarity between both websites will be
analysed
Ū Subscription (Daily News Service) to documents at users request
through a digital form available on the website (and also to the
Innovaccess website - WP7)
Ū Web based tools will be developed in cooperation with communication
experts from WP4 (Communication and marketing)
Ū The new website will improve the current version by restructuring the
content, creating interactive materials (e-learning) and facilitate the
navigation
Ū Timing: starting on 01.01.2008 but in 6 languages until 31.12.2007,
when the current contract will finish
Ū Participants: UA. Cooperation activities with INPI for the InnovAccess
website. Cooperation activities with UKIPO (communication experts)
Ū Circulation of electronic Bulletin (4 A-4 sides per issue)
Ū Original target audience: Current and potential participants in EU-
funded programmes, National Patent Offices, Innovation Relay Centres
171
Contents
and other innovation networks, PATLIB Centres, SMEs associations,

inventors associations, Chambers of Commerce, employers
associations, IP attorney associations, IP libraries, academia, etc.
Ū Target audience will be addressed both at European and national
level
Ū Target audience will be analysed in the first Scientific Coordination
Committee meeting, to determine if it should be re-defined in order
to cover the new project scope. Minimum target audience: 12,000
Ū Editing and circulation of a hard copy to selected target groups (approx.
1000: main European and national IP actors and SMEs representative
bodies)
Ū To continue the current collaboration with other actors in the
innovation field (European Patent Office, CIP and other innovation
networks, National Patent Offices, WIPO, OHIM, etc) in the Bulletin
Ū Frequency: 4 per year (one each 3 months)
Ū Timing (starting in 2008): 4 issues (February, May, August and
November)
Ū Participants: UA. Contributions from NPOs expected in, ideally, each
issue
T14.2. Monitoring of IPR issues in EU-funded Research and Innovation
schemes ensuring:
Ū A full auditing of IPR issues in EU-funded Research and Innovation,
maximising the experience of ongoing monitoring services of the partners
of the Consortium such as the CDE (European Documentation Centre /
UA), UAIPIT (Portal on Intellectual Property & Information Society / UA),
Patlibs and NPOs:
Ū Community rules on protection, exploitation and dissemination of
results, with special emphasis on SME activities
Ū IPR issues related to trans-national research and innovation projects at
IRE
international, European and national scale (legislation, news, events,

studies, education and training), paying particular attention to the
SMEs
T14.3 To create brief and user friendly documents accessible for non-legal
experts, taking into account the users needs and requests to develop
material accordingly.
Ū To develop a short format template to apply for contents generated in IPR
and RTD issues (Executive summary)
Ū To produce documents in this format according to the users needs
Ū To continue the development of a specific section focused on SMEs (topics
of particular interest to SMEs, from preliminary issues ‒ such as raising
awareness on IPR, to funding innovation, RTD SME actions, eligible SMEs
(SME definition), exploitation, transfer of research results and enforcement
of IPR, etc.
172
ANNEX II. SELECTED
Ū To carry out quality control of contents before publication and

dissemination
T14.4 To develop:
Ū Targeted awareness raising activities, including the production of materials
(multimedia and audiovisual material, tutorials, guides) taking advantage
of the outputs of Module 0, plus specific developments concerning
IP within RTD. These materials will be distributed in relevant networks
(Network in Support of Business and Innovation, FP7 National Contact
Points) and relevant publications (e.g. CORDIS Focus)
Ū Targeted training activities taking advantage of the contents developed
in Module 0, and also in close synergy with the activities developed in
this field under Module 1. Specifically training to CIP/FP7 beneficiaries
will be provided to intermediaries (such as the NCPs and members of
the Network in Support of Business and Innovation), at least 10 training
sessions per year. The coverage of these activities will be EU Member States,
Associated and Candidate countries. Activities focused in third countries
with scientific cooperation agreements with the European Commission
could be also developed, depending on availability of resources
Ū This will be facilitated by the support provided by communication experts
from WP4 (communication and marketing)
Ū Timing: 10 training sessions foreseen already for 2008 (30 at least at the
end of the contract)
T14.5 To increase the cooperation with other relevant actors in the field of
IPR and promotion of innovation (NPOs, OHIM, EPO, Network in Support of
Business and Innovation, etc) with the support of WP5 (Cooperation with
other actors)
Ū Set up a strategy to increase the cooperation with other relevant actors in
the field of IPR and promotion of innovation (NPOs, OHIM, EPO, Network
in Support of Business and Innovation, etc) with the support of WP5
(Cooperation with other actors)
Ū Monitor the activities and develop remedial actions if necessary
WP15 Helpline: Description of work

These objectives are met through the following distribution of tasks:
T15.1 Operation of a free of charge Helpline by the legal experts of the
Consortium:
Ū Access by telephone, fax and e-mail
Ū Language of the service: English
Ū Format: user friendly first-line assistance
Ū Swift reactions: maximum 3 working days (to be publicly announced as a
formal commitment )
173
Contents
Ū The IPR-Helpdesk will handle all users data with absolute confidentiality.
The policy is according to EU Legislation related to the protection of
personal data
Ū The helpline will be integrated into the network of national helpdesk for
referral services
Ū Timing: the service will start 01/11/2007 with no transitional period
Ū Participants: UA
T15.2 Provide a helpline monitoring service to users, which could include
further advice to the issues already answered via e-mail, telephone or
videoconference. This monitoring service will serve not only to increase
the services offered for frequent users of the helpline, but also to get more
information about the users and their needs. This information will be used to
improve the service.
T15.3 Compile the questions of the current IPR-Helpdesk project in a FAQs
database and feed it with the new questions grouping them by topic.
SUMMARY:
Target groups are SMEs in that we intend to promote their participation in
EU-funded projects. Special emphasis now placed on new CIP programme as
it is where they are most likely to participate, rather than FP.
Services by IPR-HD as seen in the WPs are:
Helpline
Ū 3-day answer time. 1348 questions answered last year
Ū Compilation of FAQs for reference materials
Website
Ū E-learning modules
Ū Documents (Executive Summaries)
IRE
Ū Links and monitoring of interesting items

Ū News and events
Training
Ū IP in RTD
Ū CIP Programme
Ū Some elements of general IP
Info-service
Ū News and events subscription service
174
ANNEX II. SELECTED
4. Saublens, C. Business Development, Intellectual Property Rights and Technology

Transfer University-Industry
BULLET POINTS
1. Best practices of technology transfer from universities to businesses

Let s start with a set of questions.
Are we all convinced that in today s knowledge global economy the skills
of the population become one of the main assets of a region? Therefore,
universities and higher education and their research institutions need
to be engaged in regional development through a whole set of actions.
Those actions range from education and vocational training to spin‐off
venturing. This supposes the commitment of the deans and other senior
representatives in universities as well as organizational and leadership
changes both in the universities, the business community and the public
stakeholders.
This is not a very innovative statement. Indeed, there are hundreds of
papers and conference notes that can be accumulated into the briefing
for policy‐ and rule‐makers. We have the examples, benchmarks, best
practices, principles, success ratios, risk‐mitigation analysis and whatever
is necessary to create an Academic Enterprise Engagement Model but ...
So why then, if Knowledge Economy is and will remain a differentiating
force in our competitiveness well into the 21st century, if every significant
report on innovation encourages such partnerships and collaborations,‒
why then are words and actions still far apart? Is the distance between
statement and goal wider than expectations or are perspectives of the
distance real?
Have we fully understood that first, innovation is not about technology
or scientific tools ‒ it has always been about social and entrepreneurial
processes; Second, that the social process requires openness, accessibility,
transparency, trust, mutual benefit, hospitable locations to conduct work
and relationship building40.
Have we integrated this in our strategies? Through different projects
(Ruisnet, an Interreg IIIC project, or EU Drivers, a lifelong education
project), at EURADA we have or are on the point to identify best practices
of university‐enterprise relationships in three areas:
Ū transformation of the regional economy
Ū one to one collaboration
Ū collective support to a group/cluster of SMEs
Regions need to define which type of transfer from universities to business
they want to foster: is it breakthrough technology, solving problems
faced by local clusters, enhance skills, creativity or increase knowledge
40 NES New Economy Strategies: 21st Century Academic Research Enterprises: Linking Know-What to
National Grand Challenges and Regional Economies.
175
Contents
absorption by local business? Once this is done, how to put in place an

integrated strategy combining financial and non financial instruments
addressing are the key issues, i.e. access to finance, knowledge, networks,
markets and management team.
When I mentioned organisational changes above, I wanted to stress two
options:
1. Ask universities to react to the demand of enterprises by thinking in
terms of needs linked to business function
2. Ask public authorities to support, financially and non financially through
coaching SME managers to buy services from universities (via the use
of voucher schemes for instance) instead of supporting universities
to develop services for the SME community? This helps to implement
demand-driven schemes instead of supporting an approach based on
the offer of services
Moreover, we have to change our perception of the university system:
Ū not to consider the university as a single entity. Of course at high level
there must be a commitment to support start-ups, but then there is
a need to advocate the case at different levels since each university
department has its own competencies and culture
Ū encourage building entrepreneurial teams
Ū bridging the financial gap between the seed and equity stages
Ū provide each university with a pre seed financial tool just to encourage
people to explore the entrepreneurial spirit
Ū use role model by asking successful entrepreneurs to show that can
happen
2. IPR issue
I am not a lawyer neither an expert in IP valuation. So, my suggestion in
this field would be to create patent markets, either at EU or at national
or regional level. For instance, in compensation for grants provided by
IRE
regional authorities to universities and research centres (public or private

ones), public authorities should receive a certain number of patents
(even not strategic ones) to build a portfolio which can then be valorized
locally. Interested local SMEs could access that portfolio (free of charge,
fee, by auction, fairs…) or the portfolio could become a FDI tool to attract
enterprises in the. If this is done in the USA (in the State of Delaware with
enterprises such as Dupont http://dedo.delaware.gov/IPprogram.shtml),
why wouldn t it be possible to do that in Europe? Which regions would
be ready to test such a scheme? Other options would be to work or to
develop schemes regard IP securitisation or IP auctions.
3. Knowledge‐based start‐ups
As already mentioned, first we need to review the commitments of the
key stakeholders and players in this field. But more than the number of
176
ANNEX II. SELECTED
start‐ups created or supported, I believe that the critical issue in Europe is

the growth of the start‐ups. Statistics show that Europe creates as many
start‐ups as the USA, even in the biotech sector, but those start‐ups
don t grow as much as in the USA. Even our incubators show very good
statistics (85‐90% of survival rate after 5 years), but in average 5 or 6 jobs
created by those enterprises. If we could change the no failure European
culture at all levels, Europe would achieve more success stories.
In the future, I would prefer to see a drop in the survival rate in incubators
(to 70%), and to hear that the number of jobs created reaches 100. But
in Europe, no failed entrepreneur is rewarded and no public incubator
manager will be kept in job if he/she produces a report showing a high
failure rate.
Do we realise that the TOP 10 US ICT companies such as Microsoft, Cisco,
Google, Intel, Apple, … have been introduced on the stock market on
average after 5 years as against 9 years for European ones (SAP, Dassault
System, Logitech) and that they have created on average 40,000 jobs as
against 7,200 for the European companies.
Finally, it is urgent to change the triple helix or the research triangle
concepts to include the investors community. Without pre‐ and seed
money, we cannot develop knowledge‐based start-ups.
As an anecdote, each month the Belgian public radio informs the
population of the number of companies having failed, never the number
of companies created. How can a start‐up culture be stimulated with
such message?
KEY QUESTIONS
1. How can systems with different but complementary targets and different
systems of evaluation be coordinated?
Is it the right question? If you create a different system in response to
perceived demand, why should you coordinate it with another system
built to respond to another demand? Even, what would be the scope or a
target for coordination? Either the demand is not different and then you
develop an integrated approach or, if this is not possible for whatever
good or bad reasons, you capitalize and modelize the experience and you
use the results to upgrade or bridge the knowledge of the different target
groups and systems.
The problem today is that the integrated approach is not taken as a serious
option nor is the capitalization done outside the target audience. We still
experience and favour a fragmented approach: to solve a new problem,
we create a new agency.
On paper, you can draw up a nice coordination plan, but in practice it
will not work because of the JIMA syndrome (Just In My Administration).
The question should be How to foster synergies and better capitalize the
177
Contents
results of the different instruments? To achieve this, we need to think in

a value chain. As solutions, the EU should develop an approach which
would be entitled EU Dissemination Labs: From Research to Regions
(see below).
2. How can public higher education and research institutions promote

knowledge‐based start-ups?
A priori I see four ways: (1) universities receive support to develop schemes
aiming at promoting entrepreneurship activities; (2) scan potential ideas
and help the innovators to commercialise their ideas; this is suitable when
the project relies on IPR; (3) assost start‐up entrepreneurs to buy support
services from universities and research centres; (4) manage an excellence
centre which becomes a magnet for start‐ups.
Proposal: why not create a European award of the best university
spin‐off as well as a ranking Top 500 European spin‐off? DG EDUC, EIB,
DG Enterprise, DG Regio a big consultancy company and a media should
team to sponsor the idea.
3. Can open innovation platforms be a tool to integrate the regional

innovation ecology ?
Yes, if we can develop the right type of support services for the SMEs and
higher education institutions to be involved in this new way enterprises
are innovating. In this respect, we need to rethink the role of the different
intermediaries involved in a knowledge-based strategy.
EU DISSEMINATION LABS. From Research to Region
Concept Note
1. OBJECTIVES
1.1 Capitalising upon and promoting cross-fertilisation of support granted
IRE
by the EU to individual sectors under its different policies. This would

help both expedite conversion of EU-cofunded project outcomes into
products/services and identify the weaknesses of Community schemes
and other public sector failures along the sector value chain.
1.2 Disseminating Community programme outcomes throughout the
EU. This would enable regional operators to improve their provision of
regional intelligence and techno-economic watch services. In time,
organisations in so-called cohesion regions can be expected to leverage
dormant innovation generated by organisations located in high GDP
regions.
2. CONTEXT
The Lisbon Strategy recognises the importance of RTDI and entrepreneurship
activities as key components of EU competitiveness. Cohesion policy
178
ANNEX II. SELECTED
programming for 2007-2013 translated this realisation into regional

ambitions by earmarking some €85 billion for activities of this kind.
Through its capacity building strand, the 7th RTD Framework Programme
(RTD-FP7) recognises the vital importance of regional RTD policies,
while the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) identifies
clusters as a pillar of its action, thereby making the concept of place-
based development an important priority for its activities. Finally, more
and more businesses ‒ i.e. the final users of these policies ‒ adopt the
concept of open innovation as the vehicle of their innovation strategy.
This concept encourages cooperation among all key stakeholders and
therefore facilitates RTDI activities that more closely match consumer
needs and expectations. So EU Commission services would, through
imitation, come closer to all end users of Commission policies. A joint
document of the different Commission services was recently published to
emphasise synergies between the different instruments (ERDF, RTD-FP7,
CIP). However, while the current effort is admittedly interesting in terms
of identifying sources of finance, it fails to provide any clear answer to the
issue of EU policies and their articulation both in respect of each other and
within regions themselves.
3. REALISATIONS
The EU Commission s internal organisation is vertical, which makes it
difficult to address cross-cutting issues, apply integrated approaches to
unsolved issues or capitalise upon /cross-fertilise knowledge generated
through Community instruments. This realisation also applies within
and between other Community bodies. This results in three major
disadvantages in terms of governance and legibility:
Ū differentiated implementing arrangements, which therefore lack
coherence for recipients
Ū specific customers for each Directorate General (DG), making the
sector value chain hard to read and understand
Ū JIMA (Just In My Administration) reflexes in terms both of knowledge
and level of interest among individual DGs
4. CONCEPT
The plan is for the EU Commission to individually or jointly coordinate a
number of EU.
dissemination labs in a attempt to bring together under a single banner ,
the initiatives supported by its different DGs in individual sectors and to
set up a club of private and public experts with an overall view of the
European challenges as well as knowledge managed using EU support. In
return, the EU will gain an understanding of the point of view of European
stakeholders. Among them, some priority would be given to regional
policy managers. The partners of the value chain at EU level would be the
different DGs concerned:
179
Contents
Ū Research
Ū Enterprise and Industry
Ū Regional Policy
Ū Employment
Ū Information Society
Ū Education and Culture
as well as the European Investment Bank and the relevant Committees
of the European Parliament and Committee of the Regions. DGs Energy,
Environment and Health & Consumers would be associated on an ad hoc
basis.
Of course, the private sector would be represented by the relevant industries
as well as by concerned regional authorities, universities, research centres
and financiers. Regions would be represented by their administration as
well as intermediary organisations (RDAs, CCIs, etc.). The aim would be to
promote relations between the components of a pentahelix comprising
the public sector, universities and research centres, businesses ‒ including
SMEs ‒, financiers and civil society.
5. DELIVERY
Dream scenario: appointment of a dedicated Commissioner and
establishment of a separated DG called Open Valorisation of EU Policy
Results .
High-profile scenario: appointment of a Commissioner ‒ chosen according
to the selected theme ‒ to coordinate the initiative.
Intermediate-profile scenario: the management of EU dissemination labs
is entrusted to an ad-hoc agency ‒ along the lines of Interreg IV or EACI.
Low-profile scenario: launch of a call for expressions of interest with
a view to appointing a coordinator for the activities of each selected
dissemination lab.
IRE
6. ACTIVITIES
The following activities would be organised for each of the established EU
dissemination labs:
Ū Annual forums
Ū Meet-the-buyer fairs
Ū Investment forums
Ū Peer reviews
Ū Technology transfer days
Ū Transnational and international cooperation accelerators
180
ANNEX II. SELECTED
7. PROTOTYPE OF A EU DISSEMINATION LAB

Below is a tentative map of a dissemination lab with a Business Role ‒
Community support matrix as reference.
Business role DGs and other Specific features Penta Helix

EU institutions
Research DG Research RTD-FP7 Universities
European Parliament Cooperation Research Centres
Regions of Enterprises
Knowledge
Research Potential
SMEs
European
Technology Platform
Innovation DG Enterprise and Clusters initiative Technology transfer

Industry organizations
Pro-Inno
DG Environment Enterprises
EEN
European Investment Regional
Fund Cohesion Fund intermediary bodies
European Institute of ERDF/ESF Investors
Technology Operational
Programmes
DG Regio
Interreg
European Parliament
Knowledge
Committee of the and Innovation
Regions Communities
European Investment EIF Venture Capital
Bank Fund
ETAP (Environment
Technology Action
Plan)
Production European Investment EIB Global Loans Regional

Bank intermediary bodies
ERDF/ESF
DG Regio Operational Enterprises
Programmes
DG Competition
State Aid framework Investors
DG Employment and rules
Social Affairs
181
Contents
Business role DGs and other Specific features Penta Helix

EU institutions
Access to DG Enterprise and Lead market Regional
markets and Industry intermediary bodies
internationalisation ERDF Operational
DG Regio Programmes Enterprises
DG Transport Interreg
DG Markt Marco Polo
Green Procurement
EEN
ETAP
Strategy for the DG Research Technology platform Enterprises
development of
new product and European Institute of Universities
service concepts Technology
Research centres
European Parliament
Civil society
Committee of the
Regions Regions
Regional foresighting
bodies
Round Table 7
1. Goenaga, X. Governance: Coherence at regional, national and European
level
We propose to disentangle the complexity of the governance issue of
cohesion policy support to innovation distinguishing three aspects:
1. The process of priority setting in a multi-governance scenario: EU,
Member States, Regions
2. The need to strengthen coordination between regions and actors in
IRE
their R&D and innovation systems to exploit knowledge spillovers from

leading regions
3. The challenge of building a convincing case for EU funding: how to
evaluate impacts of funding instruments
Governance: A complex issue

We propose to disentangle the complexity of the governance issue of
cohesion policy support to innovation distinguishing three aspects:
1. The process of priority setting in a multi-governance scenario: EU,
Member States, Regions
2. The need to strengthen coordination between regions and actors in
their R&D and innovation systems to exploit knowledge spillovers from
leading regions
182
ANNEX II. SELECTED
3. The challenge of building a convincing case for EU funding: how to

evaluate impacts of funding instruments
1. Priority setting: What role for the different governance levels?

Ū Evidence shows the importance of regional specialisation to improve
R&D productivity and innovation performance. Findings from research
at IPTS indicate that regional agglomeration of innovation capacity is
important for the productivity of technological research
Ū Moreover there is evidence of strong dynamic and positive-feedback
process in the development of regional innovation systems: success
breeds more succes. In this respect, the allocation of funds for
knowledge support activities to regions would very often depend
on their existing mix of infrastructures, productive environment and
capacities to ensure an efficient absorption of funds
Ū At the same time, very few regions identified at NUTS2 level have an
administrative status that allows them to influence priority setting
at national and EU level.This could undermine their accessibility to
research and innovation funding and their ability to contribute to the
development of an European Research Area (ERA)
Ū Policy makers at EU and national levels might therefore be tempted
to redirect R&D resources to the most productive regions ‒ however
short term gains in economies of scale may be long-term losses in
economies of scope
Coordination of EU, national and regional R&D policies
Analysis of regional initiatives on three ERA dimensions:
Ū Researchers mobility
Ū Opening-up of research programmes
Ū Joint initiatives between regions
Regional measures focused on mobility. Very marginal role in programme
opening and joint initiatives.
Main barrier: lack of regional autonomy and competences.
List of regions in the study, according to the level of autonomy and competence in RTD policies.
High autonomy Medium autonomy Low autonomy

AT31 Upper Austria FR71 Rhône-Alpes BG41 Yugozopaden
BE3 Wallonia FI19 Länsi-Suomi CZ01 Praha
DE2 Bayern ITC1 Piedmont HU32 Észak-Alföld
DED Sachsen ITF6 Calabria PL12 Mazowieckie
ES51 Catalonia SE01 Stockholm PT11 Norte
UKM Scotland
183
Contents
Other barriers that limit regional capacity to collaborate and to contribute

to ERA include:
Deficiency of long-term risk capital, shortage of professional managers
Ū Lack of cooperation with Higher Education Institutions
Ū Clusters artificially sustained by subsidies
Ū Low pay-scales for researchers
Ū Regional cooperation limited to neighbouring/similar regions ‒ no
added-value
2. Coordination of regions and actors

Region s prosperity depends not just on their own efforts but also on
spillovers from other regions.
Ū Knowledge spillovers are however difficult to capture, compared to
goods, labour and capital flows between regions
Evidence shows that strongest regions are the best placed to implement
strong R&D policies and hence benefit more from existing supporting
instruments
Ū The case of strategies for research based clusters has been analysed
in the referred ERA Monitoring study on 16 regions: strongest
regions reinforce their advantage via successful cluster policies
built on existing strengths. Need for compensating measures to
avoid greater disparities in Europe. Promotion of cooperation in
the context of ERA could help to reinforce spillovers from strong
to weaker regions
Ū Lagging regions should be supported to build-up on their own
advantages rather than to try to replicate existing success stories
3. Impact evaluation tools of EU funding

IRE
Ū Need for a more integrated evaluation framework to assess the impact

of different EU funding support instruments
Ū This framework should allow for an integrated assessment of economic,
environment and social impacts and also allow to account properly
the opportunity costs of the EU funding decisions
Ū The system of regional models (RHOMOLO) developed by IPTS in
cooperation with DG REGIO to evaluate cohesion policy will allow to
cover some of these effects
It captures the spillovers of cohesion support by:
Ū Taking the regional economy as the basic building block
Ū Dealing explicitly with trade, migration and capital flows between
regions
184
ANNEX II. SELECTED
Ū Incorporating the effects of distance and proximity in the modelling of

transport and knowledge transfer
Ū Allowing for agglomeration and dispersion effects
RHOMOLO should be connected with existing and future thematic
sectoral models (energy, transport, agriculture, land use, climate change).
Conclusions
1. The current policy setting (multi-level + multi-sector) is too
complicated to take EU funding decisions that properly takes into
account EU, MS and regional R&D and innovation common priorities.
2. Simplification of support instruments and improvement of policy
coordination mechanisms (horizontal-between sectors- and vertical-
between government levels) is a necessary pre-condition to the
establishment of any succesful prioritisation system of EU funding.
3. Such a prioritisation system should rely on strong and reliable impact
evaluation tools.
4. Prioritisation criteria should take into account regional strengths
and promote specialisation. Competition for funding and positions
should remain at the core to promote excellence. Cooperation
between strong and weak regions should be promoted to avoid
greater disparities.
2. Johansson, K. Which perspective has a regional government in a highly

innovative country on the ERA?
Region Västra Götaland’s experiences and views on European multi-level

governance in developing ERA to reach the objectives of EU2020 and address
Grand Challenges:
The regional mandate and governance

It is essential for a discussion on governance to have an understanding of the
fundamentals, the regional mandate. In Sweden, the autonomous Regional
Authorities with an elected assembly have the responsibility for the Regional
Development Policy, by recognition of the Swedish Government (similar
to the situation in Spain and Belgium for example). This is a clear regional
mandate for policy decisions on growth and competitiveness for each territory.
Consequently, Region Västra Götaland has constitutional taxation powers
and a considerable own budget (per capita) for the regional development
policy and RTD/innovation strategy (300 million Euros/year).
Regional Priorities, Policy Interaction and Synergies: A Bottom-Up Approach

Given the framework of the regional mandate, the differences of mandates
among European Regions must be taken into account in the definition and
discussion on multi-level governance. In this respect, the acceptance of
the regional mandate by Member States is crucial and has consequences
185
Contents
for true multi-level governance, in the interaction between all policy levels.
Acknowledging existing asymmetry needs be taken into account when
discussing synergies, beyond the scope of solely EU cohesion policy and the
Structural Funds.
Region Västra Götaland subscribes fully to the logic of regarding national
and EU funding instruments as necessary tools to implement the regional
policy on growth and competitiveness. The EU policies for Cohesion, RTD and
Innovation are this way directly interacting with the regional development
policy. This logic is the basis for concrete synergies of actions and smart
funding synergies in this region; our ability to combine regional, national
and European funding instrument in strategic key platforms and initiatives
based on Triple Helix and Public Private Partnerships.
Example Regional – EU Policy Interaction
On the European level Region Västra Götaland is a partner in two FP7 ERA-NET
projects, based on own RTD strategies and budgets (not the Structural Funds).
We regard this as a concrete example where regional priorities, with a national
excellence status, are taken into account and co-developed with EU policies
on excellence. Thus, regions are actively participating in the coordination and
management of RTD programmes and policies on EU level.
Example Regional - National Policy Interaction
The regional dimension is acknowledged in the national research and innovation
policy since end of 2008, as a result of Swedish regions proposals in this direction.
It has now developed in a dialogue process. Region Västra Götaland collaborates
closely and continuously with the Swedish Government, the Ministry of Industry,
the RTD and innovation funding agencies; in crisis management, in joint actions
and co-funding initiatives in key RTD and innovation areas. It illustrates policy
interaction between regional and national level in the sense that it forces the
different national sector policies to not only integrate but to merge into each
other. This is where vertical (sectoral) perspectives meet horizontal perspectives.
The regional policy ambition is to drive the transformation of the national policy
into an increasingly horizontal one.
These examples show that evolution of multi-level governance and policy
IRE
interaction is possible. The policy development and implementation cycles

at regional, national and EU level should be synchronised to optimise
synergies.
Regional Governance integrating Triple Helix/PPP stakeholders in policy

and innovation system development
Region VG strength: a globalised region, highest level of RTD investments in
Europe, 5% of regional GDP
The region VG experience and conviction revolve around the following logical
chain:
Ū Policy development: Triple Helix and PPP are the cornerstones in the
development of the regional policy of Region VG for sustainable growth
of a globally competitive industry.
186
ANNEX II. SELECTED
Ū Policy implementation: If such a regional policy is to be efficient and have

a true impact, the regional governance must integrate of Triple Helix and
PPP perspective.
The integration of stakeholders in policy development and implementation
is absolutely crucial in order to position a globalised region with a strategic
focus. It is a key factor in handling the complexity of a regional innovation
system and an industrial context based on knowledge and RTD intense large
global companies and small businesses. It must be addressed with flexibility,
an efficient decision making process and adaptation ability to constant
societal changes and needs of transformation. It is about creating mutual
trust and gathering commitments among different regional stakeholders.
Region Västra Götaland can be considered a good practice in this respect.
The policy implementation is primarily done through key platforms and
initiatives based on Triple Helix/PPPs, covering the entire RTD value chain.
Within those, stakeholders share visions, objective and responsibilities, in line
with European and national priorities. It entails a shared management and
ownership; an open, inclusive and generous joint leadership approach.
This model and experience could contribute to those existing on the European
level and introduce a way of involving Regions further and stronger in key
public private initiatives structuring ERA ‒ specifically taking the Regions own
RTD resources into account; the RTD PPP:s of the Economic Recovery Plan,
JTIs, ETPs, EIT KICs, and major research infrastructure investments.
Three key Messages on the Way Forward: How do we reach a coherent ERA,
achieving the objectives of EU2020 and the solutions to Grand Challenges?
We need a new creative Dynamic Governance needs We must have a global

integration and interplay policy risk taking perspective
between policy levels: a new
multi-sphere governance
Ū Multi-level governance Ū Expand the policy risk Ū The strategic
must be defines on the capital and reward policy alliances outside
basis of actual regional entrepreneurship! Europe are very
mandate. Multi-level important: they
governance is not Ū We must dare to be need to be
hierarchical; it is spherical! co-developers, be strengthened.
flexible, take and share
Ū It is time for concrete joint responsibility among all
actions and we must act stakeholders and policy
fast. levels.
Ū Member States Ū Never waste a good
acceptance of the crisis , it is the right time
regional mandate in the for re-thinking!
interaction on EU level is
crucial, so that Regions
confidently can interact
with the EC.
187
Contents
I propose that we establish a think tank on multi-level governance to

develop these issues further!
Region VG offers to be one of its hosts.
3. Declerck, G. Challenges for a successful European Research Area.

The EU needs a strong innovative performance in order to equip itself with
all the means needed to address major societal challenges ahead, such as
fighting climate change, overcoming poverty, fostering social cohesion and
improving resource and energy efficiency. Following this path will enable the
EU to grasp global opportunities, while at the same time offering sustainable
employment opportunities with high quality jobs.
In recent years, Member States and the European Union have taken many
initiatives to boost the relevance, impact and the efficiency of public research.
However, the fragmentation of public research programming leads to sub-
optimal returns and is costing Europe a lot, as well as preventing it from
realizing its societal objectives.
The European Research Area and the Framework Programme for Research
and Technological Development are of high importance for collaborative
basic research contributing to the development of the innovation based
economy evolving to a low carbon, knowledge-based economy and society,
and training of researchers and efficient career development leading to a
population of high qualified researchers.
Essential for a successful and competitive European research landscape is the
availability of sufficient funding for R&D and higher education. National and
regional authorities should strengthen their efforts in obtaining the 3% GDP
target for research expenditure and the 2% GDP target for higher education
expenditure.
IMEC as a centre of excellence located in the Flanders region of a small
Member State Belgium, deals with specific challenges and problems due to
recent evolutions within the European research and innovation policy. During
IRE
the next 10 years the European Commission sees a shift in its role within the
science and innovation policy to a role as a coordinator and facilitator where
the real implementation will belong to external organisations. The adoption
of the Lisbon Treaty last year allows the set-up of new legal structures to do
this job. Within the external organisations national/regional programmes will
be lined up and budgets of publicly-funded research programmes will be
pooled. Several concerns related to this new approach exist:
1. In order to compete at a global level, Europe has to facilitate the

cooperation between centres of excellence located in different European
Member States. This cannot be achieved without a fair European Cross
Border funding instrument. Cross-border funding is interpreted here
as funding available for structural collaboration between centres of
excellence (universities, research centres, and industry) located in different
188
ANNEX II. SELECTED
Member States or Associated Member States. Recently cross-border

cooperation has been stimulated by setting up instruments based on co-
funding schemes: schemes where the funding is partially provided by the
national/regional governments and partially by the European Commission
(as a proportion of the national participation), sometimes supplemented
with participation of the industry (in cash or in kind). Examples of such
schemes are the public-private partnerships (article 171 initiatives, alias
JTI) and the public-public partnerships (169 initiatives). IMEC is active in the
article 171 initiatives ENIAC (European Nanoelectronics Initiative Advisory
Council) and ARTEMIS (Advanced Research & Technology for Embedded
Intelligence and Systems) and the 169 initiative AAL (Ambient Assisted
Living) Joint Programme.
Smaller Member States encounter specific problems with these initiatives
based on co-funding schemes since the financial funding capabilities of
the smaller Member States are limited in comparison with large Member
States. E.g. the allocated 2008 budgets for ENIAC respectively ARTEMIS by
Germany are 15 and 8,8 m€, Italy 10 and 8 m€, The Netherlands 8,65 and
5,8 m€, France 8 and 5 m€, Austria 3,9 and 3,7 m€, Belgium 1,6 and 1,5 m€
and Ireland 0,97 and 0,64 m€.
The initiatives within these co-funding schemes have proven that it is
very difficult to convince other Member States taking part of the costs
made by research centres outside their borders although the results from
the collaboration would flow mainly to the industrial participants in their
country. It puts companies and research institutes located in smaller
countries and targeting major activities in a European wide context in
a disfavoured position compared to entities located in larger countries.
This issue leads to more restricted access to European funding for
companies and research institutes in small Member States, especially if
this specific industry is not strongly represented in that region. One of
the consequences is that these Centers of Excellence are forced to seek
cooperation and funding from companies outside the EU. This makes them
true global research actors, but having reduced interaction with European
companies. The observation is that centers of excellence located in a
Member State or region, not having the specific local industry, are not
considered as European Centres of Excellence which means that the full
creativity and innovation potential existing in the EU is not used.
On top of this, within the existing JTI s, large countries with large industrial
players and a large financial capability have an unbalanced weight in
the decision making process since the votes of the Governing Board are
divided according to the financial contribution of the Member States. This
allows the large Member States to put their accents and priorities on the
research content of the multi-annual strategic research plans of these
initiatives.
Moreover, these large industrial players use business models in the
initiatives within these co-funding schemes where an imbalance in
intellectual property rights between the industry on the one side and the
research centres on the other side is introduced. This method does not
189
Contents
encourage collaboration and transfer of knowledge between academia

and industry.
In conclusion it can be stated that for research institutes in small Member
States, the public-private and public-public partnerships are not working
well - and as a consequence - Europe is not making use of the full research
potential that is available. It is therefore important that the European
Commission gives attention to this point when reviewing the impact of
these public-private and public-public partnerships, foreseen in 2H2010.
The EC has an important role to counter this unfair competition for
European funding and to ensure appropriate models and instruments
for collaboration among European Member States between universities,
research centres and industry.
2. Recently Joint Programming is introduced in the European research

policy, linked to the nominated Grand Challenges, following a top-down
approach. Ideally national programmes will be lined up and budgets of
publicly-funded research programmes will be pooled.
It is important to see Joint Programming as a revolutionary process where
countries and regions gradually take coordinated initiatives regarding the
allocation of their budgets for research and innovation, and which allows for
countries, regions and cities variable participation. Joint efforts at national,
regional and European level are required. In addition, Joint Programming
can grow from the Member States, but will only be sustainable if Member
States receive sufficient incentives to work together and create common
funding systems that are open to other Member States. Sufficient budget
from the European Commission in the form of co-financing is essential.
Nevertheless, attention should be given to maintain a healthy balance
between the top-down and the bottom-up approach. The experiences
from the existing public-public and public-private partnerships should be
taken into account when establishing new Joint Programming Initiatives.
IRE
3. It is a priority to exploit economies of scale by pooling of expensive

research infrastructure. The success of the ESFRI (European Strategy
Forum on Research Infrastructures) roadmap is mainly dependent on the
willingness of the Member States to co-fund the infrastructure and the
maintenance of it.
The leverage of available budget in small countries/regions makes it difficult
even for excellent research groups to be involved in the coordination or
set-up of such a European research infrastructure.
Once the implementation of the ESFRI roadmap is on full speed, the
European Commission has to take action to guarantee the access for the
researchers from every Member State to those infrastructures.
190
ANNEX II. SELECTED
Round Table 8
1. Aguinaga, J-F. The Enterprise Europe Network.
Launched early 2008, Enterprise Europe Network is a perfect illustration of a
multi-purpose platform of interest for different EU policies: the Competitiveness
and Innovation Programme (CIP), the Framework Programme for Research
and Development (FP) and the Structural Funds (SF).
The Enterprise Europe Network is made of 469 business and innovation
partner organisations within the EU and over one hundred in third countries.
Among the 18 third countries, Network partners are notably based in China,
Israel, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, USA...
Being international, the Network is also local by nature as it is made of
regionally-based organisations providing services to local SMEs on their
doorstep.
The Network applies a no wrong door policy to its partners: when a request
of information or service from a European SME cannot be provided by a
Network partner, it shall signpost the request to the best qualified Network
partner who shall directly provide the information or service to the interested
European SME.
Whatever the entry point within the Network, the partner contacted by
a European SME has therefore the role of front office and all other Network
partners are playing the back office following the Network Code of Conduct:
the enquiry will circulate, not the SME. In the 18 months of activity, the
Network managed 145 000 enquiries from SMEs.
The Network is mainly providing three categories of services: trans-national
business support services; innovation services; support to SMEs to access
FP7.
On the latter, guidelines are regulating the respective roles of Enterprise
Europe Network partners and National Contact Points (NCPs) of FP7 in order
to avoid duplication of efforts and promote synergies among them. In the
first 18 months, the Network partners helped around 500 SMEs to be part of
consortia submitting applications to FP7.
Network partners are also very familiar and active with transnational activities
of the Structural Funds.
At regional level, the Network partners are invited to build cooperation links
with other local service providers such as clusters and other innovation actors:
this is an open network serving the purposes of open innovation.
It is however important to point out that the function and added-value of
the Network is basically transnational: in this context, there is certainly a limit
between what can be respectively done by Network partners and by their
host organisations which are interested by and directly involved in local
development issues.
191
Contents
In the first 18 months, the Network has reached over 2 million European SMEs,
made around 50 000 first company visits, disseminated 12 000 requests or
offers of partnership and documented 1 500 partnership agreements. This is
a challenging benchmark.
The Network will run until the end of 2014 It will be a key element to bridge
the information gap of the Single Market for European SMEs. In this context,
it is complementary to the Your Europe portal, an online practical guide
supporting the first transnational mobility of European SMEs.
http://www.enterprise-europe-network.ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/business/index_en.htm
Round Table 9
1. Vanrie, P. How to measure the impact of RTD& I to support to regional economic
development.
Synergies between policies, better cooperation between instruments,
collaborative cluster-based programmes, university-industry enhanced
relationships, territorially-embedded RTD platforms, better governance
for better impact, these are a couple of subjects discussed during this
conference.
The emergence of a significant number of regional innovation networks
and the accumulation of lots of instruments (already established or newly
created) increase the need for efficient territorial ecosystems, where all core
competences & stakeholders collaborate smartly along the various value
chains of innovation support & services.
The encouraging rise of efficient regional innovation strategies and systems
is an opportunity to respond to a major weakness of instruments: the core
mission and the core competence are not precise enough, the services are
not well described and delivered, the perception of end-users on who s
IRE
good at what is confusing, there are still too many superficial generalists
and specialists communicate badly on their distinctive assets & identities.
All this has a (negative) consequence on the capacity to set-up reliable impact
assessment and on-going evaluation mechanisms.
One of the way forward is to convince instruments that the merits of
embedding a permanent evaluation culture inside their organizations , is first
of all good for them (and not a public sector controlling constraint).
This is useful for them because it enables proper monitoring to take place,
it give them access to the power of benchmarking, it brings them tools
for management, for reporting, for promotion, for strategic re-direction,
for questioning their business models, for quality development, for
partnerships,…
192
ANNEX II. SELECTED
One of the positive side-effect of this is the improvement of the way instruments
are able to characterize their core missions and core competence, and
ultimately to better market this distinctive advantage on the market, vis-à-
vis potential competitors, and finally with publicly supported programmes.
This is a route we at EBN, the European network of BICs (Business & Innovation
Centres), have taken about ten years ago. We have developed a quality
system which comprises a compliance, a benchmarking and a branding
component.
Dg Regio just published a smart guide to Innovation-based Incubators
in which this system is explained. Powered by a community-based self-
assessment protocol, a routine web application, a combined set of both
process & performance indicators, and a peer-to-peer audit system, this
initiative has enabled the EC-BIC brand & label to be highly respected in
private and public circles.
The EC-BIC label is becoming a standards of reference within and around
the sector of incubating innovation-based entrepreneurs. Open standards,
capable to response to changes, thanks to its non-governmental operational
dimension, although aligned as much as possible to public policies.
As indicated in the future EU 2020 strategy , the EU need to further promote
the incubation and growth of small innovative firms, across smarter economies
& territories, with smart specialization, thanks to smart people and networks,
such EBN.
Without enhancing entrepreneurship, without more and better start-ups &
spin-offs, without seed-funds and early-stages efficient support mechanisms,
this challenge will be more difficult. It s vital to incorporate place-based ,
innovation-driven incubators (BICs) within Research & Innovation systems.
2. Schuch, C. The Future of RTDI Evaluation in Southeast Europe between

emergence and emergency.
The complexity and heterogeneity of innovation systems requires from
cohesion regions, and even more from ERDF and IPA countries, strategic
intelligence to design RTDI measures at different regional levels by considering
aspects of relevance, efficiency, efficacy, impact and sustainability. Inefficient
innovation policies, ad-hoc redesigns of programmes without evidence-base,
in-transparent funding decisions and lack of ex-post impact assessments of
RTDI programmes and infrastructures cause material and immaterial damage
to the performance and creditability of the innovation (funding) system.
Such unnecessary disadvantageous framework conditions can be improved
through structured and strategic implementation of good practices and
standards in RTDI evaluation.
Evaluations are essential for evidence-based decision-making everywhere in
Europe, not at least in Southeast Europe. This region is characterised through
an emergence of new RTDI policies, programmes, and (support) institutions
193
Contents
and a transformation of funding from block granting towards competitive

schemes. Moreover, not only funding through the European Framework
Programmes for RTD, but also structural funding mechanisms of the EU
find their way to Southeast European countries at different level. Some of
them are long established EU Member States, some belong to the group of
New Member States and some are Candidate Countries or about to become
Candidate Countries. Coevally, despite an increasing demand for evaluation
based decision-making regarding a rational, efficient and effective allocation
of funds, a lack of methodological and procedural know-how both on the
side of evaluators and awarding authorities is obvious. Under tight financial
regimes, public spending for innovation has to identify the right rationales
and mechanisms for performance based RTDI funding from the start. Thus,
ex-ante, interim, terminal and ex-post evaluations have to be properly and
meaningfully tendered, and they have to be implemented in a way to secure
evidence-based decision making.
Since the potential of evaluations for strategic intelligence building is not
exploited in Southeast Europe, the Steering Platform on Research for the
WBC recommended to set up a regional RTDI evaluation platform. Evaluation
capacities and standards for programming and evidence-based funding
decisions need to be developed and implemented by
1. mapping evaluation experts and RTDI programmes
2. training evaluators and policy delivery systems
3. strengthening the use of external evaluation through right- and
meaningful public procurement
4. establishing a virtual RTDI evaluation platform
5. developing evaluation standards (not at least as a format for guaranteeing
sound ethical approaches in evaluation practice)
6. practising models of RTDI programme evaluations and benchmarking
exercises
7. linking to international networks and databases
IRE
The key challenges which need to be addressed in order to establish a

functional and flawless evaluation culture and evaluation practice in Southeast
Europe can be summarised as follows:
Ū Beneficiaries of evaluations are dispersed across sectors and different
governance levels, but exchange is limited
Ū There is lack of certified evaluators for project, programme, organisation
and policy evaluations
Ū Know-how for performance based design of innovation policies,
programmes and institutions at the level of policy-delivery systems is not
yet fully developed (incl. agencies and intermediary organisations)
Ū There is lack of knowledge on professional tendering procedures to
capitalise the advantages of external evaluations (incl. public procurement
laws)
194
ANNEX II. SELECTED
Ū Comparable RTDI evaluation information and good practices are difficult

to access and barely prepared in easy to understand formats (i.e. lack of
trainings for different target groups at different professional levels)
Ū International databases with important output data (e.g. patents,
publications) are either costly or difficult to access
Ū Lack of already completed RTDI programme, institutions and policy
evaluations (thus, learning by doing has been rather scarce by now)
Ū Lack of systematic exchange with evaluators in EU and globally
Evaluation attention should be directed firstly towards three main issues to
start with the establishment of an intelligent, reflexive innovation policy in
Southeast Europe:
1. a focus on ex-ante RTDI programme design evaluations, since new RTDI
programmes are being established and new funding sources explored
(e.g. through optimising the application of logic charts; introducing cost-
benefit models and innovative foresight approaches etc.)
2. benchmarking of RTDI organisations to make them more absorptive for
new RTDI requirements with social and economic outreach
3. evaluation of intermediary organisations to improve their processes and
practices in provision of innovation advice, technology transfer and other
services to their respective clientele (e.g. companies, researchers etc.)
Afterwards, other forms of evaluations should be introduced step-by-step (e.g.
process evaluations, impact evaluations, portfolio or system s evaluations etc.).
However, such a regional evaluation platform must not start from scratch, but
should build on various previous approaches, initiatives and experiments. Just
to refer and name a few of them, the evaluation platform should capitalise
Ū the experience of SWOT evaluations implemented under the REGPOT
(research potential) measure under FP7 to assess presumptive Centres of
Excellence in the Western Balkan Countries
Ū the methodological work of the RECORD project, which was funded
under FP5, and which developed a Manual on Benchmarking Innovative
RTDI Organisations in the New EU Member States which emphasised
the trinity of (i) knowledge generation, (ii) knowledge diffusion and (iii)
knowledge dissemination as important characteristics of innovative
research organisations
Ū national RTDI evaluation platform approaches and solutions, such as the
Austrian FTEVAL or the DeGEval ( research, technology and innovation
working team) (see: http://www.fteval.at/ and http://www.degeval.de/
index.php?class=Calimero_Webpage&id=9040)
Ū and ‒ last but not least ‒ the comprehensive comparative work about
evaluation cultures, which was carried out under the INNO-Appraisal
project. This project took stock of and assessed appraisal exercises such
as evaluations, monitoring, benchmarking, and peer review in the area of
innovation policy across Europe, at European, national and regional level
195
Contents
3. Siemaszko, A. How to measure and how to improve the impact of RTD and
innovation support to regional economic development.
Standardised/homogenised evaluation of the impact

Ū Different development stages of R&D space in particular MS
Ū in PL ‒ 0.6% of GDP spent on R&D
Ū in PL ‒ 1st stage of development of foundations of knowledge-based
economy
Ū A need to measure first impact results
Ū Basic investments in R&D infrastructure
Ū Creation of technology clusters
Ū Creation and development of technology parks, incubators, ...
Success story: synergy FP-SF

IRE
196
ANNEX II. SELECTED
Missing evaluation of the critical impact of FPs

Ū Impact on transformation of National R&D Space
Ū Evaluation, strategy, action plans, Operational Programmes
Ū Impact on organisation of the R&D Space
Ū National Research Councils, institutions, legislation
Ū Impact on R&D policy
Ū National Framework Programme, national strategies, compatibility
with EU s strategies
Ū Adaptation of FP s legal and organisational environment
Ū Collaborative projects, networking, legal framework, rules, instruments, ...
Ū Impact on development of foundations of innovative economy
Ū Direct impact on creation of technology clusters, regions of knowledge,
technology parks, incubators, technology platforms, joint technology
initiatives...
Ū Impact on development of foundations of innovative regions
Ū Regional Innovation Strategies (FP5, FP6)
Ū Information Society Strategies (FP5, FP6)
Regional Innovation Strategies in Poland

Ū FP5: Regional Innovation Strategies for Newly Associated Countries (RIS
NAC) (+ FP6 RIS)
Ū 2004-2006 Structural Funds:
IROP Measure 2.6 Regional Innovation Strategies and transfer of
knowledge (based upon RIS-NAC): €2.5 billion
Ū Developing and adapting the Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS)
Ū Transfer of innovation between R&D, enterprises and other
stakeholders
Ū 2007-2013 Structural Funds
16 Regional Operational Programmes (RPO) + (RPW) €19 billion
European Territorial Co-operation (TRANSREG) €0.7 billion
Ū strengthening of the competitiveness of regions
Ū support for R&D infrastructure, Foresight projects
Ū priority for projects implementing RIS
197
Contents
REGPOT- a neglected link in FP-structural funds synergy

Ū Evaluation and mapping of the best R&D Centers in NMS
Ū Better use of the Research Potential for Convergence Regions measure:
Ū evaluation of the best R&D Centers at EU level
Ū providing the European Quality Seal of Evaluation
Ū RESPOT provides a grant for European networking, integration,
twinning, promotion (0.5 - 1 million euro is enough!) (for Accession
Countries support for infrastructure possible from RESPOT)
Ū Member State provides bonus for the infrastructure development,
capacity building from a special measure from structural funds
Ū European Quality Seal gives additional points in a competition for
financial support of projects at national level
Ū REGPOT fully integrated with national systems supporting Centers of
Excellence
Ū Mapping of excellence
Ū special measure in the structural funds
IRE
198
A N N E X III
A S S E S S M E N T O F W I R E
A N N E X I I I .
A S S E S S M E N T O F
W I R E
After three months of the WIRE celebration, a satisfaction questionnaire was
launched. It comprised seven questions and took about three minutes to be
fulfilled. The objective of the questionnaire was to measure the quality of the
event regarding several criteria, and to extract the lessons that can be used
for the organization of WIRE 2 during the Hungarian Presidency.
The questionnaire was launched on 21st of June 2010 and has been open until
20th of August 2010. It was launched three months after the event, in order
to cope with the binomial quality of the responses (looking for a low oblivion
rate) / measurement of the impact (which needs some time to materialize).
A reminder was done on 2nd of August 2010 in order to improve the rate of
response.
The total number of questionnaires received has been 115, being the rate of
response 22,5 % of the total number of attendants. This percentage has been
considered enough to give robust conclusions.
The questionnaire was launched by e-mail using survey-specific software,
which allows us to include a direct link to the survey in order to access and fill
the questionnaire on-line.
The questions included in the survey were the following:
1. Which days of WIRE did you attend? (more than one can be chosen)
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Satellite events
2. Please evaluate WIRE regarding your satisfaction with the following

specific issues.
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor N/A
Conference
programme
Variety of speakers
201
Contents
Topics covered by the

sessions
Networking
opportunities
Location and venue
Food and beverage
Social activities
Poster exhibition
Stand exhibition
Contact with
Technical Secretariat
Others (please specify)
3. What is your opinion of the document of WIRE Outcomes provided

on the webpage?
IRE
Accurate, my view is in line with the contents and the conclusions

of the conference.
Accurate, but I do not support the contents and the conclusions
of the conference.
The summary and outcomes do not express adequately the
content of the conference.
Timely, it can have great potential within the European political
agenda.
Inappropriate, it cannot have great potential within the European
political agenda.
I do not know
202
ANNEX III. ASSESSMENT OF WIRE
Other (please specify)
4. After three months of WIRE, how do you assess its usefulness

regarding the following issues?
Networking
Knowledge
acquisition
Relevance in political
agenda
General usefulness
Other (please specify)
5. We bank upon the consolidation of WIRE as a relevant forum for

debate and source of ideas in relation to Regional policies for RTD
and Innovation. Please describe the topics that you would like to be
addressed in the future.
203
Contents
6. Next conference will be held in Hungary in June 2011. Do you have

suggestions for improvement for WIRE 2011?
7. How would you rate the conference overall?

Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Thank you very much for taking your time completing this questionnaire!
We hope to see you soon in WIRE 2011.
QUESTION 1: ANALYSIS OF ATTENDANCE

Regarding the attendance, 72 % the respondents have stayed the three days
of the conference, while 17 % attended two days and only 11 % attended only
one day of the conference. Assuming a random distribution of responses,
we observe that almost three quarters of attendants stayed for the whole
duration of the conference. Concerning the participation of the satellite
IRE
events, 26% of respondents participated in them.
Which days of WIRE did you attend? (more than one can be chosen)
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Day 1 86,8% 99
Day 2 93,0% 106
Day 3 81,6% 93
Satellite events 26,3% 30
answered question 114
skipped question 1
204
Which days of WIRE did you attend? (more than one can be chosen)
The most crowded day was Tuesday, although the difference is not significant.
Moreover, if we consider the rate of satisfaction of attendants regarding
the different day they have attended (table below), it is not observed any
significant difference in the general assessment of the conference. Therefore,
we can deduce that the three days of the conference were equally attractive
for attendants and similarly considered.
How would you rate the conference overall?

Which days of WIRE did you attend?
(more than one can be chosen)
Response Response
Answer Options Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
Percent Count
Excellent 22 23 20 21,1% 24
Very good 52 56 49 49,1% 56
Good 24 26 24 28,1% 32
Fair 0 0 0 0,0% 0
Poor 1 1 0 1,8% 2
skipped question 0
205
Contents
Analysis seems to show that the more time the respondent stayed in the
conference, the more positive his/her response is. Although it would be
necessary to run more advance statistics to definitively support this argument,
we can easily observe that 100% of respondents who have assessed the
conference as Poor only stayed one day of the conference.
QUESTION 2: THEMATIC EVALUATION

In the next table, it is shown the evaluation of WIRE regarding content and
technical aspects. The green row has been calculated as the final mark for
each category, where the maximum score is 10 points.
Please evaluate WIRE regarding your satisfaction with the following specific issues.
SCORE Response
Answer Options Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor N/A
(max. 10) Count
Conference programme 26 59 27 1 1 0 7,89 114

Variety of speakers 29 56 21 5 1 1 7,84 113
Topics covered by the
18 54 30 7 1 0 7,47 110
sessions
Networking opportunities 25 39 31 13 4 1 7,15 113
Location and venue 50 43 15 5 0 0 8,44 113
Food and beverage 35 38 20 17 3 0 7,50 113
Social activities 36 41 25 7 2 2 7,70 113
Poster exhibition 14 32 41 17 7 1 6,46 112
Stand exhibition 14 37 42 16 2 2 6,69 113
Contact with Technical
25 42 30 9 2 2 7,33 110
Secretariat
IRE
Others (please specify) 8

skipped question 1
The most valuated category is the location and venue of the conference
(8,44/10), followed by the conference programme (7,89) and the variety of
speakers (7,84). At the rear of the assessment, we can find the poster exhibition
(6,46/10) and the stand exhibition (6,69), although it is worth to mention that
these two categories are also well above a pass.
A recurrent concern was the lack of a participants list which, as mentioned in
the qualitative answers (Annex II), could have facilitated networking activities.
This should be considered a lesson learnt from this conference. Nevertheless,
206
the assessment of the networking opportunities has been considered positive

by attendants (7,15/10).
We can see the same values graphically in the following depiction:
Please evaluate WIRE regarding your satisfaction with the following specific issues
QUESTION 3: OUTCOMES OF WIRE

This question covers the quality of the conference s outcomes in terms of two
different criteria:
1. The accuracy of the outcomes and the clear alignment of the conclusions
with the contents of the conference. Moreover, the general opinion
of respondents about the contents was measured, in order to know
if respondents agreed on the ideas and approaches exposed in the
conference (it corresponds to the three first options).
2. Time appropriateness, in order to measure whether the political
agenda is ready to absorb new developments that came up in the WIRE
conference.
The analysis has been done regarding the two criteria separately, as shown in
the following graphs.
207
Contents
Ū CRITERIA 1.
The answers reveal a clear agreement with the outcomes of the event in terms
of accuracy (86,2 % of responses). Only 5,7 % of the respondents consider
that the document of outcomes is in line with the contents of the conference,
but they do not share the same opinion. On the other side, 8 % considers that
the outcomes did not reflect the contents of the conference.
What is your opinion of the document of WIRE Outcomes provided on the webpage?
Ū CRITERIA 2.
In terms of time appropriateness, we can see a predominance of responses
stating that the outcomes of the event are timely and can have impact within
the European political agenda (86 %), although in terms of total responses
the conclusions are not robust (few responses in this part) 41.
What is your opinion of the document of WIRE Outcomes provided on the webpage?
IRE
QUESTION 4: IMPACT OF WIRE

This question covers the impact of WIRE 2010 after three month of its
celebration. We are aware that a time lag of three months may be not enough
41 The second part of this question may content some bias, since the number of responses is particularly
small in comparison with the first part. This fact could be due to the lack of familiarity of respondents with
the European political agenda (and therefore prefer not to give an opinion on this part) or, on the other
side, due to a misunderstanding of the question (where respondent could have interpreted that only one
answer was possible). Analysis of the other questions may point out to the second argument.
208
to capitalise the full impact of the conference, specially in terms of changes

in the political agenda, but we believe it may be adequate to show the first
signals of impact.
Therefore, impact was measured in terms of four different criteria: networking,
knowledge acquisition, relevance in the political agenda and general
usefulness.
After thrre moths of WIRE, how do you assess its usefulness regarding the following issues?
Results are positive and very similar regarding the four categories
identified to measure the impact of the conference. In all cases the
results are positive, as the following table shows:
After three months of WIRE, how do you assess its usefulness regarding the following issues?
Answer Options Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor N/A SCORE (max. 10) Response Count
Networking 18 29 40 16 8 2 6,48 113
Knowledge acquisition 17 44 37 9 4 0 7,10 111
Relevance in political agenda 22 38 31 16 5 2 6,88 114
General usefulness 15 47 33 13 2 0 7,09 110
Other (please specify) 2
skipped question 1
209
Contents
QUESTION 5: OTHER TOPICS AND IDEAS FOR THE FUTURE

It is not possible to extract general conclusions from the qualitative
information resulting from this question. Nevertheless, it has been possible
to observe certain trends in the responses. The most frequently mentioned
topics are related to the importance of more discussion on synergies between
programmes and the coming FP8. This information will be used by the
organisers of WIRE 2011, as far as they consider it convenient.
QUESTION 6: FORTHCOMING WIRE 2011 IN HUNGARY

Again, it is not easy to infere some conclusions from qualitative information.
The real usefulness of these responses will go out when taking them
individually as lessons learnt for WIRE 2011.
The most repeated comments have pointed out to prioritise the practical
presentations and speeches (instead of political sessions), to shorten the
duration of the conference and to broaden the time for discussion in each
session.
QUESTION 7: GENERAL ASSESSMENT - FINAL EVALUATION

In general, the responses have been very positive regarding the organization
and results of WIRE. 70,4 % of the respondents have considered that the
conference was very good or excellent. This percentage increases to 98,3 %
if we consider the three top categories: good, very good and excellent.
How would you rate conference overall?

IRE
210
How would you rate the conference overall?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Excellent 21,7% 25
Very good 48,7% 56
Good 27,8% 32
Fair 0,0% 0
Poor 1,7% 2
skipped question 0
In summary, we can conclude that WIRE conference has been a success, as

perceived by participants.
The lessons learnt and recommendations that can be extracted from the
survey will be taken by the Hungarian Presidency, for the organization of
WIRE2011, and also by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, in
order to continuously maximize the quality and impact of its national and
international events.
211
Contents
IRE
212
A N N E X IV
L I S T O F P A R T I C I P A N T S W H O
A G R E E D T O P U B L I S H T H E I R
P R O F E S S I O N A L D E T A I L S
Contents
ANNEX IV. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS WHO AGREED

TO PUBLISH THEIR PROFESSIONAL DETAILS
A N N E X I V. L I S T O F
P A R T I C I P A N T S W H O
A G R E E D T O P U B L I S H T H E I R
P R O F E S S I O N A L D E T A I L S
Name Surname e-mail Country Institution

Danilo ACETO danilo.aceto@uniroma2.it Italy Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata
Helena ACHESON helena.acheson@forfas.ie Ireland Head of Division, Enterprise & Regional Policy, Forfás
Almudena AGÜERO PRIETO almudena.aguero@micinn.es Spain Directorate General for International Cooperation and Institutional Affaires, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
Miguel Ángel AGUIRRE ECHANOVE miguel.aguirre.cice@juntadeandalucia.es Spain Gobierno de la Junta de Andalucía
Alain Demaegd ademaegd@cerexhe.irisnet.be Belgium Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
Simon ALEXANDRE simon.alexandre@cetic.be Belgium CETIC - Centre of Excellence in Information and Communication Technologies
Teresa ALMEIDA presidencia@ccdr-lvt.pt Portugal President of CCDR
Roberto Carlos ALONSO FERRO roberto.alonso@fundacioncalidade.org Spain Fundación para el Fomento de la Calidad Industrial y Desarrollo Tecnológico de Galicia
Christian ALTMANN christian.altmann@clusterland.at Austria Cluster manager Clusterland (Austria)
Javier ÁLVAREZ BENEDÍ alvbenja@jcyl.es Spain Junta de Castilla y León
Mar ALVAREZ-ALVAREZ malvareza@jccm.es Spain Dirección General de Investigación e Innovación, Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha
Boris ANTIC antic@uns.ac.rs Serbia UNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD
Anton ANTON anton@mail.utcb.ro Romania Universitatea Tehnica de Constructii Bucuresti
Ubelis ARNOLDS arnolds@latnet.lv Latvia LATNET
Gokcen ARSLAN gokcenarslan@uekae.tubitak.gov.tr Turkey National Research Institute of Electronics and Cryptology, Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
Coralie BAJAS-SCHAEFER coralie.bajas-schaefer@region-alsace.eu France Direction de l Innovation, de la Recherche et de l Enseignement Supérieur (DIRES)
Alexandra BAKALAKOU alexandra.bakalakou@publications.europa.eu Luxembourg EUROPA - Publications Office
Luis BALLESTER lballester@brabant.nl Spain Government of the Province of Noord-Brabant (The Netherlands)
Caroline BARNAY cbarnay@rhonealpes.fr France Direction de l Economie, de la Recherche, du Tourisme et des Technologies
Dejan BASKIC dejan.baskic@gmail.com Serbia -
IRE
Jean Jacques BERNARDINI jj.bernardini@ari-alsace.eu France Mission Europe, Agence Régionale de l Innovation Alsace
Urszula BIALEK-WYRZYKOWSKA ulawyrzykowska@iimcb.gov.pl Poland International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology
Yücel BICIL bicil@uekae.tubitak.gov.tr Turkey National Research Institute of Electronics and Cryptology, Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
Sandra BISCHOF VUKUSIC sbischof@ttf.hr Croatia Faculty of Textile Technology, University of Zagreb
Elisa BOELMAN elisa.boelman@cor.europa.eu The Netherlands Committee of the Regions
Georgiev BOYKO bbg@ecolab.bas.bg Bulgaria Central Laboratory of General Ecology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (BAS)
Edoardo BRACCIO edoardoandrea.braccio@mail.regione.piemonte.it Italy Government of Piemonte region
Edel BREGNBæK bregn@fi.dk Denmark Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
Charlotte BROGREN Charlotte.Brogren@VINNOVA.se Sweden VINNOVA
Olivier BRUNET olivier.brunet@ec.europa.eu Belgium European Commission, DG Research, Regions of Knowledge and Research Potential Unit
Martin CACHEIRO MARTÍNEZ martin.cacheiro@usc.es Spain Santiago de Compostela University
Chloe CALVIGNAC chloe.calvignac-gouv.nc@mncparis.fr France Nouvelle-Calédonie region
214 215
W e e k o f I n n o v a t i v e R e g i o n s i n E u r o p e 2 0 1 0 T A K I N G S T O C K A N D M O V I N G F O R W A R D
Contents


Emilio CARMONA BALLESTEROS emilio.carmona@juntadeandalucia.es Spain Gobierno de la Junta de Andalucía
Rocio CASTRILLO rocio.castrillo@micinn.es Spain Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
Patrice CAYRE cayre@ird.fr France Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD)
Sallija CERINA sallija_cerina@inbox.lv Latvia
Günter CLAR clar@steinbeis-europa.de Germany Director for Regional Strategies and Innovation, Steinbeis-Europa-Zentrum, Baden-Württemberg (Germany)
CLAUS Schultze claus.schultze@errin.eu Belgium European Regions Research and Innovation Network
Guy CLAUSSE g.clausse@eib.org Luxembourg European Investment Bank
anabela coelho anabelacoelho@dgs.pt Portugal Direcção-Geral da Saúde, Ministerio da Saúde
Xavier COLLER PORTA xaviercoller@upo.es Spain Pablo Olavide University
Daniel COLLET daniel.collet@spw.wallonie.be Belgium Region of Wallonie, Belgium
Athanassios COUTSOLELOS coutsole@chemistry.uoc.gr Greece Professor of BioInorganic Chemistry, University of Crete
Dana CRISTEA dana.cristea@imt.ro Romania National Institute for R&D in Microtechnologies (IMT-Bucharest)
Stefania CROTTA stefania.crotta@regione.piemonte.it Italy DIREZIONE INNOVAZIONE, RICERCA E UNIVERSITA
Vladica CVETKOVIC cvladica@rgf.bg.ac.rs Serbia University of Belgrade
Alice Chapman alice.chapman@mmr.cz Czech Republic Czech Ministry for Regional Development
Agnieszka CHLAD agnieszka.chlad@ec.europa.eu Belgium European Commission
Yordanka CHOBANOVA yordanka.chobanova@bg-permrep.eu Belgium Attache (Regional Policy), Permanent Representation of the Republic of Bulgaria to the EU
Christer CHRISTENSEN christer.christensen@enterprise.ministry.se Sweden Ministry of Enterprise,Energy and Communications
Anilkumar DAVE a.dave@tvtecnologia.it Italy TrevisoTecnologia - Azienda Speciale per l Innovazione Tecnologica
Sabina DE LUCA sabina.deluca@tesoro.it Italy Direzione Generale per la Politica Regionale Unitaria Comunitaria, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
Gilbert DECLERCK gilbert.declerck@imec.be Belgium IMEC International
Xavier DEHAN xdehan@rib.irisnet.be Belgium Research In Brussels asbl
Ignacio DEL ARCO HERRERA idelarco@i2bc.es Spain I2BC - Instituto de innovación para el bienestar ciudadano
Jaime DEL CASTILLO infyde@infyde.eu Spain Información y Desarrollo S.L. (INFYDE)
Raul DEL COSO LÓPEZ raul.delcoso@softcomputing.es Spain European Centre for Soft Computing
Dufoix Delphine delphine.dufoix@ec.europa.eu Belgium European Commission DG REGIO
Aïda DIAZ SAEZ adiazsaez@agaur.gencat.cat Spain Departament d Innovació, Universitats i Empresa, Generalitat de Catalunya
Radovan DLUHY-SMITH radovan.dluhy@kr-olomoucky.cz Czech Republic Government of The Olomouc Region
IRE
Lucia DOBARRO ldobarro@itccanarias.org Spain Technological Institute of Canarias, Canarias Government

José DOMINGUEZ ABASCAL reyes.navarro@simosa.abengoa.com Spain ABENGOA
Francesca DOMINICI dominici@uniroma2.it Italy Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata
Maria Sole DORAZIO mariasole.dorazio@venetoinnovazione.it Italy European Projects Unit - Veneto Innovazione spa
Robbert DROOP robbert.droop@minvrom.nl The Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spacial Planning and Environment, The Netherlands
Michel-Eric DUFEIL michel-eric.dufeil@ec.europa.eu France European Commission, DG REGIO
Zeljka DUKIC zeljka.dukic@nauka.gov.rs Serbia Serbian Ministry of Science and Technological Development
Natasa DURISIC-MLADENOVIC natasadjm@tf.uns.ac.rs Serbia Faculty of Technology - Novi Sad University
Sven Gunnar EDLUND sven.gunnar.edlund@vinnova.se Sweden VINNOVA
Josep Maria ELORDUY VIDAL jelorduy@dipta.cat Spain Diputació de Tarragona
Erkan ERDIL erdil@metu.edu.tr Turkey MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
ERICH Purkarthofer erich.purkarthofer@ffg.at Austria Division of European and International Programmes - Austrian Research Promotion Agency
216 217
Contents


Daniel ESCACENA daniel.escacena@juntadeandalucia.es Spain Gobierno de la Junta de Andalucía
Michael FARDIS fardis@upatras.gr Greece University of Patras
Ernesto FATORUSSO ernesto.fattorusso@unina.it Italy University of Naples
Jose Ramon Fernandez jfernandez@granada.agenciaidea.es Spain Agencia de Innovación y Desarrollo de Andalucía
María FERNÁNDEZ GARCÍA maria@iat.es Spain IAT (Instituto Andaluz de Tecnología)
Asunción Fernández-Camacho asuncion@icmse.csic.es Spain Instituto de Ciencias Materiales de Sevilla - CSIC
Thorvald FINNBJORNSSON thorvald@rannis.is Iceland RANNIS ‒ The Icelandic Centre for Research
ERIC FOCK eric.fock@gmail.com France
Cristiano FRAGASSA cristiano.fragassa@unibo.it Italy Università di Bologna
Candida FUENTES LOPEZ candi.fuentes@micinn.es Spain Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
Michel GANOOTE michel.ganoote@oseo.fr France OSEO
Regina GARCIA BEATO regina.garcia@uc3m.es Spain Research Service - Industrial Liaison Office, Universidad Carlos III Madrid
Antonio GARCÍA GÓMEZ antonio.garcia-gomez@ec.europa.eu Belgium European Commission DG REGIO
Vilija GECIENE vilija.geciene@tpa.lt Lithuania Agency for Science, innovation and Technology
Kirby GENEVRA genevra.kirby@bis.gsi.gov.uk United Kingdom International Science and Innovation Unit, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills
Maire GEOGHEGAN-QUINN Maire.Geoghegan-Quinn@ec.europa.eu Ireland European Commission DG Research
Dana Violeta GHEORGHE dana.gheorghe@ancs.ro Romania Ministry of Education, Research, Youth and Sport - Romanian Government
Maria Luisa GIMENEZ DIAZ-OYUELOS marial.gimenez@juntadeandalucia.es Spain Consejería de Economía, Innovación y Ciencia, Junta de Andalucía
Bettina GLADYSZ gladysz@catt.at Austria CATT Innovation Management GmbH
Pierre GODIN pierre.godin@ec.europa.eu Belgium European Commission DG REGIO
Pascal GOERGEN pascal.goergen@diplobel.fed.be Belgium Permanent Representation of Belgium to the European Union
Hubert GOFFINET h.goffinet@wbi.be Belgium Wallonie-Bruxelles International
Antonio F. GÓMEZ SKARMETA skarmeta@um.es Spain Murcia University
German GRANDA german.granda@ec.europa.eu Belgium European Commission DG REGIO
Gerd GRATZER gerd.gratzer@stmk.gv.at Austria Government of Styria State
Artis GRINBERGS linda.tilta@raplm.gov.lv Latvia Ministry of Regional Development and Local Government
Krzysztof GULDA krzysztof.gulda@mnisw.gov.pl Poland Department of Strategy - Ministry of Science and Higher Education
Abraham Haek ahaek@bicgranada.agenciaidea.es Spain Agencia de Innovación y Desarrollo de Andalucía IDEA, Junta de Andalucía
IRE
Keith HARRAP keithharrap@gmail.com United Kingdom

Lenka HAVLICKOVA havlickova@tc.cz Czech Republic Technology Centre AS CR
HELDER Rosendo hrosendo@citeve.pt Portugal Centro Tecnológico das Indústrias Têxtil e do Vestuário de Portugal
Maria HINSENKAMP mhinsenkamp@lycos.com Hungary Hinsenkamp&Co International Communication Services DP
Petra Holopírková petra.holopirkova@mmr.cz Czech Republic Czech Ministry for Regional Development
Danuta HUEBNER danuta.huebner@europarl.europa.eu Poland European Parliament
Hugh Mervyn HUGHES hmh@aber.ac.uk United Kingdom Commercialisation and Consultancy Services - Aberystwyth University
aek21 IGNATIDIS ignatiadis@stepc.gr Greece Science and Technology Park of Crete - STEP-C
Katia INSOGNA insogna@apre.it Italy APRE ‒ Agenzia per la Promozione della Ricerca Europea
Fernando ISORNA LLERENA isornaf@inta.es Spain INTA - Spanish Institute for Aerospace Technology
Marie IVARSSON marie.i.ivarsson@vgregion.se Sweden Senior Officer European & International RTD Strategies, Region Västra Götaland
Gunila JACOBSSON Gunilla.Jacobsson@hsv.se Sweden Swedish National Agency for Higher Education
218 219
Contents


Ladislav JANOUSEK janousek@fel.uniza.sk Slovakia Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Žilina
Lucas JANSSEN lucas.janssen@ec.europa.eu The Netherlands European Commission DG Research
Kubiak JAROSLAW jaroslaw.kubiak@scp-slask.pl Poland Śląskie Centrum Przedsiębiorczości
Aleksandrs JEMELJANOVS sigra@lis.lv Latvia LIS - Latvian Intelligent Systems
DUCUING JEROME jducuing@cr-champagne-ardenne.fr France Directeur du Développement Economique, Conseil Régional Champagne-Ardenne
Jerker JOHNSON jerker.johnson@obotnia.fi Finland Regional Council of Ostrobothnia
Björn Marcel Jurgens bjurgens@bicgranada.agenciaidea.es Germany Agencia de Innovación y Desarrollo de Andalucía IDEA, BIC Granada - Parque Tecnológico de Ciencias de la Salud
Violeta JUSKIENE violeta@lgi.lt Lithuania Institute of Animal Science of Lithuanian Veterinary Academy
Peng KAILEY k.peng@inno-group.com Germany Inno Germany AG
Ieva KALNINA ieva.kalnina@interact-eu.net Denmark Training Manager and Advisor at INTERACT
Alper KANAK alperkanak@uekae.tubitak.gov.tr Turkey National Research Institute of Electronics and Cryptology (UEKAE)
Paul KERSTEN paul.kersten@wur.nl The Netherlands The Landscape Centre, Alterra - Wageningen University and Research Centre
Nadia KHELEF nadia.khelef@pasteur.fr France Institut Pasteur
Ennata KIVRINA ennata.kivrina@izm.gov.lv Latvia Ministry of Education and Science Republic of Latvia
Mikko Koivulehto mikko.koivulehto@innopark.fi Finland Technology Centre Innopark Ltd.
Jana Kolar jana.kolar@gov.si Slovenia Directorate for Science, Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology
Mario Kölling mkoelling@redaragon7pm.eu Spain Regional Contact Point FP7, Aragon Regional Governmen
Dimitrina KOSTOVA dkostova2000@yahoo.com Bulgaria Maritsa Vegetable Crops Research Institute
Tiina KOTONEN tiina.kotonen@pkamk.fi Finland North Karelia University of Applied Sciences
Kristin KRAAV kristin.kraav@archimedes.ee Estonia ARCHIMEDES Foundation
remco kranendonk remco.kranendonk@wur.nl The Netherlands Wageningen UR-Alterra
Anna KUCUK anna.kucuk@dolnyslask.pl Poland Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Dolnośląskiego
Helena L NILSSON helena.l.nilsson@vgregion.se Sweden Director, Research and development/Regional Development, Region Västra Götaland
Juan Ramón La Chica Aranda jrlachicaaranda@dipgra.es Spain Diputación de Granada
Mart LAATSIT mart.laatsit@fin.ee Estonia Ministry of Finance of Estonia
Carlos LARRAÑETA GÓMEZ-CAMINERO larraneta@esi.us.es Spain Escuela de Ingenieros - Universidad de Sevilla
LARS Wikman Lars.Wikman@adm.umu.se Sweden Umeå University
Lars-Gunnar LARSSON lars-gunnar.larsson@VINNOVA.se Sweden VINNOVA
IRE
Minnie LAURENCE lminne@rhonealpes.fr France Direction de l Economie, de la Recherche, du Tourisme et des Technologies
Maria Angeles Lence Moreno angeles.lence@micinn.es Spain Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
Consuelo LEÓN LOZANO mcleon@us.es Spain Proyectos Europeos e Internacionales, OTRI - Universidad de Sevilla
Jovanka LEVIC jovanka.levic@fins.uns.ac.rs Serbia Institute for Food Technology in Novi Sad
Lorenzo Lo Cascio l.locascio@meta-group.com Italy META Group
Beatriz LÓPEZ dgci@micinn.es Spain Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
Eduardo LÓPEZ GONZÁLEZ lopezge@inta.es Spain INTA - Spanish Institute for Aerospace Technology
Miguel Julio LORCA GÓMEZ jlorca@i2bc.es Spain I2BC - Instituto de innovación para el bienestar ciudadano
Kari Mette LULLAU kari-mette.lullau@krd.dep.no Norway Ministry of Local Government and Regionail Development
Alfonso MANGONI alfonso.mangoni@unina.it Italy University of Naples
Uri MARCHAIM uri@migal.org.il Israel MIGAL - Galilee Technology Center
Vera MARKOVA verka.markova@tul.cz Czech Republic Technical univerzity of Liberec
220 221
Contents

Snezana MARKOVIC smarkovic@kg.ac.rs Serbia Department for Biology and Ecology CPCTAS - University of Kragujevac
Pierre MARRO pierre.marro@ec.europa.eu Belgium European Commission, DG Information Society and Medias, Strategy for ICT Research and Innovation Unit (DG-INFSO/C2)
Myriam MARTÍN DELGADO mmd@daleph.com Spain D ALEPH - Oficina Madrid
ANTONIO MARTINEZ NIETO f-iea@f-iea.es Spain Fundación IEA
Carlos MARTÍNEZ RIERA carlos.martinez@micinn.es Spain Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
Angel Martinez Sanmartin angel@ctnc.es Spain Centro Tecnológico Nacional de la Conserva y Alimentación
Leonardo Martinez Suarez info@cetiex.es Spain Fundación Centro Tecnológico Industrial de Extremadura
Diogo MARTINS diogorolim@gmail.com Portugal
Celine MCHUGH celine.mchugh@forfas.ie Ireland Enterprise Policy Department, Forfás
Daniel Mediavilla rosa.oliva@micinn.es Spain Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
MANUEL MEGIAS GUIJO megiasg@us.es Spain Unversidad de Sevilla
Pieter MEIJBOOM pmeijboom@destadsregio.nl The Netherlands Arnhem Nijmegen City Region
Inés MÉNDEZ ines.mendez.ext@juntadeandalucia.es Spain Gobierno de la Junta de Andalucía
ARTURO MENÉNDEZ ABELLA amenendez@madrimasd.org Spain Fundación Madrid+d
Marta MERCADO GARRIDO mmergar@admon.upo.es Spain UNIVERSIDAD PABLO DE OLAVIDE
Christine MICHAUT christine.michaut@publications.europa.eu Luxembourg EUROPA - Publications Office
PIERRE MICHEL pierre.michel@recherche.gouv.fr France Délégation régional à la recherche et à la technologie PACA
Ricardo MIGUEIS ricardo.migueis@iscte.pt Portugal ISCTE - Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
Lars MONTELIUS lars.montelius@oresund.lu.se Sweden Investment AB Öresund
Eva MONTENEGRO eva.montenegro@micinn.es Spain European Office - Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
Juan MONZÓN juan.monzon@micinn.es Spain Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
Andreia MOREIRA andreia.moreira@rose.es Portugal Rose Consulting
Moshe MOSHE moshe@technion.ac.il Israel Israel Institute of Technology
Estelle MOUGEOT LEROY e.mougeot-leroy@efficient-innovation.com France Efficient Technology Consultancy
Daniel MOURAD d.s.j.mourad@minocw.nl The Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
Petri MUJE petri.muje@ulapland.fi Finland University of Lapland
Gregorio MUÑOZ ABAD munabagr@jcyl.es Spain Junta de Castilla y León
Macarena MUÑOZ RUIZ macarena@ebd.csic.es Spain CSIC - Estación Biológica de Doñana
IRE
Arántzazu NARVÁEZ GARCÍA anag@tragsa.es Spain TRAGSA

Claire NAUWELAERS Claire.NAUWELAERS@oecd.org Belgium OECD
Viktor NEDOVIC viktor.nedovic@nauka.gov.rs Serbia Ministry of Science and Technological Development
Vladimir NEKVASIL nekvasil@kav.cas.cz Czech Republic The Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Doina-Nicoleta NICOLAE nnicol@inoe.inoe.ro Romania NATIONAL INSTITUTE of RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT for OPTOELECTRONICS
Natalia NIEMETZKY natalia.niemetzky@ird.fr France Institut de la Recherche pour le developpement - IRD
Zlatuse NOVOTNA novotna@jic.cz Czech Republic South Moravian Innovation Centre (JIC)
Gregorio Núñez gnromero@ugr.es Spain Unversida de Granada
JOSE MARIA OCON ALCOCEBA josemaria.ocon@micinn.es Spain Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
Anna OLOFSSON anna.olofsson@enterprise.ministry.se Sweden Deputy Director - General, Division for Regional Growth, Ministry of Enterprise,Energy and Communications
Rosa Onofre rosa.onofre@ccdr-a.gov.pt Portugal Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Alentejo
Andrés ORTUÑO andres.ortuno@murcia.es Spain Gobierno de Murcia
222 223
Contents


Ibrahim Sani OZDEMIR ibrahim.ozdemir@mam.gov.tr Turkey Food Institute - TÜBİTAK Marmara Research Center
Sait Koralp OZKUT koralpozkut@hotmail.com Turkey
Manuela PALACIOS GUERRERO lola.palacios@extremadurainnova.com Spain Sociedad Pública de Gestión de la Innovación de Extremadura S.A.U.
Aurélie PANCERA aurelie.pancera@ec.europa.eu France European Commission, DG Research
Beata PAPAZOVA b.papazova@bcci.bg Bulgaria Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Gancho PASEV gipasev@aol.com Bulgaria Aceptado con otra dirección
Lorenzo PASTRANA CASTRO pastrana@uvigo.es Spain Universidad de Vigo
Jonny PAULSSON jonny.paulsson@skl.se Sweden Swedish Association of Local Autorities and Regions
Lora PAVLOVA l.pavlova@mon.bg Bulgaria Bulgarian Ministry of Education, Youth and Science
Ana PAVLOVIC ana.pavlovic@unibo.it Italy Università di Bologna
Natasa PAVLOVIC pavlovic.n@mfkv.kg.ac.rs; natapet@ptt.rs Serbia UNIVERSITY OF KRAGUJEVAC, FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING KRALJEVO
Julio PEDAUYÉ RUIZ josej.pedauye@carm.es Spain Dirección General de Universidades y Política Científica - Consejería de Universidades, Empresa e Investigación de Murcia
VALENTIN PEDROSA RIVAS vpedrosa@granada.agenciaidea.es Spain Agencia de Innovación y Desarrollo de Andalucía IDEA, Junta de Andalucía
Elisa PEINETTI elisa.peinetti@mail.regione.piemonte.it Italy Government of Piemonte region
Gustavo PÉREZ gustavo.perez@uab.es Spain Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona
Tana PERGLOVÁ Tana.Perglova@msmt.cz Czech Republic Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
Tea PETRIN tpetrin2000@yahoo.com Slovenia University of Ljubljana, Chair of ECPG
Ioana PETRINI ioana.petrini@imt.ro Romania National Institute for Research and Development in Microtechnologies (IMT - Bucharest)
Anna Lucia PINTO pinto@apre.it Italy APRE- Agency for the Promotion of European Research
Vesna POLEKSIC poleksic@agrif.bg.ac.rs Serbia University of Belgrade - Faculty of Agriculture
Carlos PORTUGUES CARILLO cperher@gobiernodecanarias.org Spain Dirección General de Relaciones con Europa - Gobierno de Canarias
Norbert RADERMACHER norbert.radermacher@bmf.bund.de Germany Finanzielle Fragen der EU - Kohäsions -, Forschungs- und Verkehrspolitik
Stephane RAUD stephane.raud@ird.fr France Département Expertise et Valorisation - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)
Christopher REILLY chris.reilly@bis.gsi.gov.uk United Kingdom International Science and Innovation Unit, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills
Katja REPPEL katja.reppel@ec.europa.eu Belgium European Commission DG Enterprise
Juan Manuel REVUELTA PÉREZ jrevuelta@delcomval.be Spain Fundación Comunidad Valenciana Región Europea
Linze RIJSWIJK linze.rijswijk@oostnv.nl The Netherlands Development Agency East Netherlands (Oost NV)
Egle RIMSAITE egle.rimsaite@krda.lt Lithuania Kaunas Regional development Agency
IRE
Johanna RINGHOFER johanna.ringhofer@bmwf.gv.at Austria Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research
Carmen RODRIGUEZ AUGUSTIN cra@inta.es Spain Subdirectora General de Relaciones Institucionales y Política Comercial INTA Ministerio de Defensa
Carolina RODRIGUEZ BOLLAIN carolina.rodriguez.bollain@juntadeandalucia.es Spain Gobierno de la Junta de Andalucía
Rafael RODRÍGUEZ CLEMENTE raro@orgc.csic.es Spain CSIC - Estación Biológica de Doñana
Vicente RODRIGUEZ SAEZ vicente.rodriguez@reper.maec.es Spain Spanish Representative to the EU
ROMAN Noetzel roman.noetzel@dlr.de Germany Internationales Büro des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung
Luis C ROMERO lromero@ibvf.csic.es Spain CSIC - Instituto de Bioquímica Vegetal y Fotosíntesis
Stéphanie RUGUET sruguet@almacg.com France Alma Consulting Group
Juan RUIZ ALZOLA jruiz@itccanarias.org Spain Agency for Research and Innovation, Canary Islands Government
Rossella RUSCA rossella.rusca@tesoro.it Italy Direzione Generale Politica Regionale Unitaria Comunitaria - Dipartimento Politiche di Sviluppo
Maria SAASTAMOINEN maria.saastamoinen@pkamk.fi Finland North Karelia University of Applied Sciences
Artemis SAITAKIS saitakis@stepc.gr Greece Science and Technology Park of Crete - STEP-C
Sena SAKLAR AYYILDIZ sena.saklar@mam.gov.tr Turkey Food Institute - TÜBİTAK Marmara Research Center
Luisa SANCHES luisa.sanches@ec.europa.eu Belgium European Commission DG REGIO
224 225
Contents


M DEL ROSARIO SANCHEZ ALBOR rsalbor@aidateam.eu Spain
Lourdes SANCHEZ BAJO lourdessb@ctap.es Spain CTAP - Centro Tecnológico de la Piedra
Fermín Sánchez de Medina direccionofpi@ugr.es Spain Oficina de Proyectos Internacionales - Universidad de Granada
Roberto SANTOLAMAZZA r.santolamazza@tvtecnologia.it Italy TrevisoTecnologia - Azienda Speciale per l Innovazione Tecnologica
SILVIA SARRIA SÁNCHEZ silvia.sarria@imade.es Spain IMADE - Instituto Madrileño de Desarrollo
Christian SAUBLENS christian.saublens@eurada.org Belgium EURADA - European Association of Development Agencies
Luc SCHMERBER l.schmerber@inno-group.com Germany Inno Germany AG
Sylvia SCHREIBER sylvia.schreiber@region-stuttgart.de Germany Stuttgart region
Klaus SCHUCH schuch@zsi.at Austria ZSI - Social Innovation Centre
Tim SCHUEUERMANN ts@zenit.de Germany ZENIT GmbH - State of North Rhine-Westphalia
Andrzej SIEMASZKO Andrzej.Siemaszko@kpk.gov.pl Poland Polish National Contact Point for Research Programmes of the European Union (KPK)
Piotr SIEWIERSKI piotr.siewierski@mrr.gov.pl Poland Ministry of Regional Development Poland
Christina SKANTZE christina.skantze@tillvaxtverket.se Sweden International Affairs, Tillväxtverket
Biljana SKRBIC biljana@tf.uns.ac.rs Serbia Faculty of Technology - Novi Sad University
Katerina SLAVIKOVA slavikovak@tc.cz Czech Republic Technology Centre AS CR
Sverre SOGGE sso@rcn.no Norway Research Council of Norway
Adrian SOLITANDER adrian.solitander@euhel.be Belgium
Tiina SOOMRE TUISK tiina.soomre@fin.ee Estonia Ministry of Finance of Estonia
Agni SPILIOTI aspi@gsrt.gr Greece Ministry of Education - General Secretariat for Research and Technology
Gaetano SQUADRITO gaetano.squadrito@itae.cnr.it Italy CNR - Istituto di Tecnologie Avanzate per l Energia Nicola Giordano
Viktor STEFOV viktorst@pmf.ukim.mk F.Y.R. of Macedonia Faculty of Science and Mathematics, Ss Cyril and Methodius University
Marina STEFOVA marinaiv@pmf.ukim.mk F.Y.R. of Macedonia Institute of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, University Sts Cyril & Methodius
Martin STOKAR martin.stokar@seco.admin.ch Switzerland State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SECO
Marte-Eline STRYKEN mes@rcn.no Norway Division for innovation - Research Council of Norway
Lennart SVENSSON lennart.r.svensson@skane.se Sweden Government of Region Skåne
Angeliky SYLLAIDI asilaidi@mou.gr Greece Greek Minister of Economy, Competitiveness and Shipping
Jerzy SZWED Urszula.Bronisz@mnisw.gov.pl Poland Ministry of Science and Higher Education
Narcisa Melania TANASE narcisa.tanase@ancs.ro Romania Ministry of Education, Research, Youth and Sport - Romanian Government
IRE
Selçuk TARAL selcuk.taral@mam.gov.tr Turkey Food Institute - TÜBİTAK Marmara Research Center
Dilly TAWAKKUL d.tawakkul@city.ac.uk United Kingdom City University London
Clas TEGERSTRAND clas.tegerstrand@mdh.se Sweden European Research Liaison Office, Grants Office, Mälardalen University
Grosse THOMAS thomas.grosse@diplo.de Germany Permanent Representation of the Federal Republik of Germany to the European Union
Antonsen THOR-MARTIN tma@kd.dep.no Norway Ministry of Education and Research
Marzena TILZEN Marzena.Tilzen@mrr.gov.pl Poland Ministry of Regional Development Poland
Elena Simona TOMA elena.toma@ancs.ro Romania Ministry of Education, Research, Youth and Sport - Romanian Government
Marianne TOMBEUR marianne.tombeur@eurada.org Belgium EURADA - European Association of Development Agencies
Montserrat TORNÉ I ESCASANY dgci@micinn.es Spain Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
Achilleas TRIPOLITSIOTIS atripol@mred.tuc.gr Greece technical univeristy of Crete - Department of Mineral Resources Engineering
Marie-Dominique TROYON marie-dominique.troyon@cea.fr France French Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission
George TSIAMIS gtsiamis1@gmail.com Greece
226 227
Contents


Joaquín TURMO GARUZ jturmo@ub.edu Spain Universitat de Barcelona
Georgia TZENOU tzenou@ekt.gr Greece National Documentation Centre / NHRF
Selda ULUTAS selda.ulutas@tubitak.gov.tr Turkey The Scientific and Technological Research Centre of Turkey
Mickael VAILLANT mickael.vaillant@datar.gouv.fr France Délégation interministérielle à l aménagement du territoire et à l attractivité régionale (DATAR)
Manuel VALIENTE MALMAGRO manuel.valiente@uab.es Spain Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Manon VAN LEEUWEN manon@juntaex.es The Netherlands Oficina Proyectos Europeos - Junta Extremadura
Lambert VAN NISTELROOIJ lambert.vannistelrooij@europarl.europa.eu The Netherlands European Parliament
Frank VAN TONGEREN f.vantongeren@minez.nl The Netherlands Ministry of General Affairs
Philippe VANRIE pva@ebn.be Belgium European BIC Network (EBN)
Claude VAUCHER claude.vaucher@sbf.admin.ch Switzerland State Secretariat for Edcuation and Science (SBF/SER)
Xosé Ramón VÁZQUEZ PÉREZ xrvazquez@anfaco.es Spain ASOCIACIÓN NACIONAL DE FABRICANTES DE CONSERVAS DE PESCADOS Y MARISCOS (ANFACO-CECOPESCA)
Tereza VESELA tereza.vesela@bc.cas.cz Czech Republic Biologické centrum AV ČR
Ilse VICKERS ilse.vickers@ucl.ac.uk United Kingdom London s Global University
Eduardo VIDAL BAAMONDE evidal@cetal.es Spain Fundación Cetal - Centro Tecnológico Agroalimentario de Lugo
Loles VIDAL LLÁCER mvidal@delcomval.be Spain Fundación Comunidad Valenciana Región Europea
FRANCISCO VIGALONDO francisco.vigalondo@aragonexterior.es Spain Oficina del Gobierno de Aragón en la UE
Pierre VILLERS albert.bouchat@spw.wallonie.be Belgium Region of Wallonie, Belgium
Silvia Vincitorio silvia.vincitorio@ec.europa.eu Italy European Commission DG REGIO
Patrick VUILLERMOZ patrick.vuillermoz@plastipolis.fr France PLASTIPOLIS - Pôle de Compétitivité Plasturgie
Katarzyna WALCZYK-MATUSYZK katarzyna.walczyk@kpk.gov.pl Poland Polish National Contact Point for Research Programmes of the European Union (KPK)
Vanessa WECK vanessa.weck@cr-guadeloupe.fr France Regional Council of Guadeloupe, France
Amy WILLIAMS Amy.Williams@bbsrc.ac.uk United Kingdom Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council - BBSRC
Grzegorz WITKOWSKI Grzegorz.Witkowski@mrr.gov.pl Poland Ministry of Regional Development Poland
Peter WOSTNER peter.wostner@gov.si Slovenia Deputy Director, Government Office for Local Self-Government and Regional Policy, Slovenia
Edgars Zalans linda.tilta@raplm.gov.lv Latvia Ministry of Regional Development and Local Government
Veronika ZAZVORKOVA zazvorkova@bc.cas.cz Czech Republic Biologické centrum AV ČR
IRE
Martins Zemitis linda.tilta@raplm.gov.lv Latvia Ministry of Regional Development and Local Government
228 229

Week of Innovative Regions in Europe: Ta K I N G S To C K A N D Mov I N G Fo Rwa R D

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week of Innovative Regions in Europe: Ta K I N G S To C K A N D Mov I N G Fo Rwa R D

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010

Week of Innovative Regions in Europe

AUTHORS (ALPHABETICAL ORDER):

DESIGN, LAYOUT AND PRINTING

5.6 Round Table 9: Evaluation and impact. Conditions to

7.2 Media analysis 89

8. Reﬂections from WIRE. Moving from synergies of policies to synergies of

8.1 A conceptual framework of innovation 93

8.2 Innovation in the regional context 95

8.3 Multidimensional coordination issues 97

8.4 Synergies of action: are they possible? 98

8.5 At a glance: Six points for synergies searching 103

8.6 Ways forward: the future debate 104

List of acronyms 107

Annex I. Organization of WIRE: content and format 109

I.1 WIRE full agenda: speeches and Round Tables 111

I.2 Analysis of participation 124

I.3 Exhibition of stands 125

I.4 Exhibition of posters 126

Annex II. Selected contributions of speakers 129

Keynote speeches 131

Van Nistelrooij, L. The future of Cohesion Policy 131

Soete, L. The Role of Research and Innovation for the

Round Table 1 135

Perglova, T. Synergies of action: are they possible?

Round Table 2 138

Gunter, C. Optimally positioning Creative Industries clusters

Altmann, C. The REGIONs programme, the Clusterplast experience 142

Round Table 3 145

Petrin, T. Clusters: a policy or a tool for a policy? 145

Edlund, S.G. How to build up European level strengths and

Round Table 4 149

Weiers, S. The Research Potential Programme (REGPOT):

Fatorusso, E. The NatPharma Project. Reinforcement of research

Bialek-Wyrzykowska, U. REGPOT Programme Case study:

Anton, A. The REGPOT Programme 158

Round Table 5 160

Portugués Carrillo, C. The Outermost Regions´Conference

Round Table 6 164

Goicolea, J.I. The experience in the Basque Country (Spain) 164

Artelsmair, G. The European Patent Oﬃce. 166

Mayr, A. IPR-Helpdesk and IPeuropAware 167

Saublens, C. Business Development, Intellectual Property

Round Table 7 182

Goenaga, X. Governance: Coherence at regional, national

Johansson, K. Which perspective has a regional government

Declerck, G. Challenges for a successful European Research Area. 188

Round Table 8 191

Aguinaga, J-F. The Enterprise Europe Network 191

Round Table 9 192

Vanrie, P. How to measure the impact of RTD& I to support

Schuch, C. The Future of RTDI Evaluation in Southeast

Siemaszko, A. How to measure and how to improve the

Annex III. Assessment of WIRE 199

Montserrat Torné* - Director General Robert-Jan Smits** - Director General for

The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of

Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation

Moreover, we would like to recognize the contribution of the Andalucía

presentation to be included in this document, which also acts as the

(two top categories out of ﬁve). This percentage increases to 98,3% if we

Science and Innovation of the Andalucía regional Government, Martín Soler.

grouped into three chapters corresponding to the three conferences