1. 23/24 June 2011, Brussels Christian SAUBLENS Interregional networks « From exchange of experience to capitalisation and mutual learning » 1

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

3. WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX? 1. A lack of good projects or capability? Its unbelievable as there are in the EU: 400 + RDAs/RIAs 200 + science parks 500 + incubators 2000 + chambers of commerce 850 + universities Arent they capable of designing good projects? 3

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

5. GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGY Source: EURADA 5

6. A wrong way to innovate or support innovation in the public sector – Looking backwards – Benchmarking – Adopting buzz concepts Instead of thinking forwards (lets hope S 3 will be part of the solution) WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX? 6

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

8. A lack of methodology to define – Where we are/stand – Where we go – How we go there – What are the killing parameters WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX? 8

9. 3. Oversized and inbalanced budget between the policies 4. Cumulative effects of the JIMA and silo syndromes 5. Perverse effect of bureaucracy ? 6. Introspection of regional stakeholders when it comes to import INTERREG results? Is there a « not invented here » syndrome? WHAT COULD BE THE REASONS OF THIS PARADOX? 9

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

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

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

13. … TO JOINT ACTIONS Mutual learningJoint actions 13

14. JOINT ACTIVITIES LETS MOVE FROM CONTAINERS TO CONTENTS Transregional cluster cooperation University/SME cooperation Market replication Pre-commercial procurements Proof of concept and European voucher schemes Technology showcase Soft landing package Financial showcase … 14

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

16. PROPOSAL 1 The conceptTodays notionTomorrows definition Added valueTransnationalityIn search of collective excellence in public policy and implementation tools: scanning and modelising bottom up – down process cfr. smart specialisation ConditionalityPerception of top-downChecking the relevance of the tools and assets needed to reach excellence SubsidiarityI know better than anybody else what is good for my region The right to go your own way, without claiming that you didnt receive EU funding Reshape the notion of EU added value conditionality and subsidiarity applied to INTERREG 16

17. A new INTERREG architecture for post 2013 INTERREG Academy (engine for knowledge transfer) – Repository For best practice scans For Regional Innovation Monitor analysis For Regional Innovation Scoreboard data For project results (RoK, Europe Innova, INTERREG, …) For TAKE IT UP (CIP) reports For studies – Learning Events Publications Market place for tools transfer – Dissemination INTERREG Laboratory (engine for implementation willingness) – Coaching – Joint actions (ERA-Net type, vouchers, proof of concept, …) – EGCT for permanent interregional partnerships PROPOSAL 2 17

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

19. 19

20. INFORMAL PARTICIPATION IN A QUIZ: A POOL OF KNOWLEDGE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NEED TO CREATE AN INTERREG ACADEMY Who knows: 1.The name of the INTERREG IVC project that tests pre-commercial procurement as a way to boost innovation in regions? 2.The name of the Europe Innova project testing the concept of crowdfunding? 3.Two practice transfers between partners of the Minieurope project (INTERREG IVC)? 4.The name of the lead partner of the Cradle to Cradle INTERREG IVC project? 5.The name of the region implementing the Campus project (funding for university spin-off) {mainstream + peer review Pro Inno} 20

21. 6.The name of the sole university that has received funding from the EIF to put in place an IPR commercialisation fund? 7.The name of the region which is member of an agrofood RoK project, managing a living lab in that sector. 8.The SME challenge covered by the « vitrine technologique » project put in place by the Province of Quebec (Canada)? 9.The name of the region, perceived as a S3 champion, supporting the technology assistant scheme? 10.The name of the country in which G.E. has tested the « reverse innovation » concept, their alternative to « open innovation »? 21

22. EURADA Avenue des Arts 12, bte 7 / 1210 Brussels / BELGIUM Tel. +32 2 218 43 13 / Fax +32 2 218 45 83 info@eurada.org 22