Version: Final Date: 11 April 2012

Regional Innovation Monitor

Regional Innovation Report (Sterea Ellada)

To the European Commission Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General Directorate D – Industrial Innovation and Mobility Industries

Alexandros Nioras Logotech SA

Regional Innovation Monitor i PREFACE

The Regional Innovation Monitor (RIM)1 is an initiative of the European Commission's Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry, which has the objective to describe and analyse innovation policy trends across EU regions. RIM analysis is based on methodologies developed in the context of the INNO-Policy Trendchart, which covers innovation policies at national level as part of the PRO INNO Europe initiative. The overarching objective of this project is to enhance the competitiveness of European regions through increasing the effectiveness of their innovation policies and strategies. The specific objective of the RIM is to enhance the scope and quality of policy assessment by providing policy-makers, other innovation stakeholders with the analytical framework and tools for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of regional policies and regional innovation systems. RIM covers EU-20 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. This means that RIM will not concentrate on Member States where the Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics NUTS 1 and 2 levels are identical with the entire country (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Malta which only has NUTS 3 regions, Slovenia which has a national innovation policy or Cyprus and Luxembourg which are countries without NUTS regions. The main aim of 50 regional reports is to provide a description and analysis of contemporary developments of regional innovation policy, taking into account the specific context of the region as well as general trends. All regional innovation reports are produced in a standardised way using a common methodological and conceptual framework, in order to allow for horizontal analysis, with a view to preparing the Annual EU Regional Innovation Monitor reports. European Commission official responsible for the project is Alberto Licciardello ([email protected]). The present report was prepared by insert Alexandros Nioras ([email protected]). The contents and views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Member States or the European Commission. Copyright of the document belongs to the European Commission. Neither the European Commission, nor any person acting on its behalf, may be held responsible for the use to which information contained in this document may be put, or for any errors which, despite careful preparation and checking, may appear.

1 http://www.rim-europa.eu

ii Regional Innovation Monitor

Table of Contents

1. Main Trends and Challenges in the Regional Innovation System 1 1.1 Recent trends in regional economic performance 1 1.2 Recent trends in regional innovation performance 2 1.3 Identified challenges 4 2. Innovation Policy Governance 6 2.1 Degree of institutional autonomy 6 2.2 Institutional-set up, co-ordination and implementation mechanisms 6 2.3 Availability and use of policy intelligence tools 8 2.4 Key challenges and opportunities 9 3. Innovation Policy Instruments and Orientations 10 3.1 The regional innovation policy mix 10 3.2 Appraisal of regional innovation policies 15 3.3 Good practice case 15 3.4 Portfolio of innovation support measures 16 3.5 Towards smart specialisation policies 17 3.6 Possible future orientations and opportunities 19

Appendices

Appendix A Bibliography...... 21 Appendix B Stakeholders consulted...... 22 Appendix C RIM Repository information ...... 23 Appendix D Statistical data ...... 24

Regional Innovation Monitor i

Figures

Figure 1-1 Economic and innovation performance indicators...... 3 Figure 2-1 Management and implementation structure of regional innovation strategy ...... 8

Tables

Table 3-1 Overview of the regional innovation policy mix...... 11 Table 3-2 Existing regional innovation support measures ...... 14

ii Regional Innovation Monitor

Executive Summary 1. Introduction: Main recent trends in the Regional Innovation System The region of Sterea Ellada, the second largest in Greece, is a manufacturing hotspot, and is rich in mineral resources. It also possesses a developed agricultural sector, a relatively developed tourism infrastructure and a growing services sector. However, the region is characterised by geographical and economic heterogeneity, with urban areas being more developed than the rural and mountainous zones. The region was third out of the thirteen Greek regions in terms of export volumes in 2008, while in terms of GDP per capita it was on a par with the national average. The proximity of Sterea Ellada to the region of Attiki, where almost half of the country’s population is located, is also one of the most important drivers for growth, while its satellite role also has negative facets constraining endogenous growth. As a result of the current economic crisis, the region faces increased unemployment that reached 16.9% in the second quarter of 2011, a steep increase from the 11.5% over 2010 and above the national average (16.3%). During 2000-2008, a period of considerable growth, no significant restructuring effects took place in the region, limiting the ability of the regional economy to absorb the present economic shock. Sterea Ellada, despite its strong manufacturing sector, has a marginal share in the country’s GERD, mainly due to the low contribution of the private sector and to the weak regional public research infrastructure. During 2005, GERD accounted for 0.18% of the regional GDP, while BERD as a percentage of regional GDP was very small (0.14%) compared to the EU average (1.14%). The limited private sector R&D expenditure and the low level of patenting activity of firms compared with the EU average highlight the region’s dependence on off the shelf technologies developed outside companies in the region, and also the structuring of the regional economy towards lower technological segments within value chains. The region also lacks the critical mass of public R&D organisations and other intermediary organisations that can support the innovation and research activities of regional firms and stimulate an endogenous growth model. Moreover, organisations that are active in R&D focus only marginally in technological fields that are relevant to the needs of the local economy.

Regional Innovation Monitor i

2. Major innovation challenges and policy responses In summary, the major challenges that the region faces are: Challenge 1: Modernise the agro-food sector and link it with other sectors along the value chain. Agriculture and the food industry are important sectors for the regional economy, accounting for a considerable share of its value added, but the two sectors are only partially linked. Moreover, only a small fraction of regional firms in the field of agro- food are innovative or perform R&D activities, a tendency more apparent in SMEs. These conditions have a negative impact on the competitiveness of the sector, which is gradually being eroded as these firms find it difficult to penetrate new markets, at a time when national demand is declining due to the crisis. The sector faces a number of diverse challenges, from brand awareness, slow take up of biological production, shortages in basic production infrastructures and the slow change in emphasis towards higher quality, biological and environmentally friendly production processes. Moreover, the region lacks a strong public research and technology network that could provide suitable solutions on the basis of a long run strategy. In order to reverse these negative trends, considerable technological and financial public support is required. Challenge 2: Promote Environmental and Energy Saving Technologies As a recent consultation has shown, it is crucial for the region to invest and promote Environmental and Energy Saving Technologies as part of a strategy to establish a new profile based on Green Entrepreneurship for the regional economy and address one of its major challenges, i.e. environmental degradation. Such technologies are expected to have an impact at a wide range of industries, from manufacturing to services and tourism. They also present firms in various positions within existing value chains with the opportunity to proceed with the development of common infrastructures and investments, with mutual benefits. Current discussions are centred on the establishment of a Regional Innovation Pole, which is expected coordinate research activities and provide the necessary funding. Moreover, since the promotion of a ‘Green’ economy is at the heart of the government’s new development model, there exist many opportunities for synergies and complementary funding. Challenge 3: Explore synergies with other regions in terms of RTDI infrastructures and technology transfer. The region possesses a weak public RTDI infrastructure, with no intermediary organisations. In addition, only a limited number of HEIs and public research organisations are active in technological sectors related to the productive profile of the region, and they are thus unable to provide sufficient support to regional firms. However, it is critical that these organisations are supported and strengthened, so as to augment the technological upgrading of the regional economy. Due to the proximity to the region of Attiki and (to a lesser extent) to Thessaly, it is not necessary to duplicate efforts and establish new institutions. Efforts should rather aim at developing and enriching the competences in a small number of existing regional institutions aligned with regional technological needs. Equally important is the development of technology transfer organisations and networks that can link regional actors with institutes and technology performers (HEIs, Research Centres) from other regions, thus promoting long run collaborations. Such structures can be developed within the envisaged Regional Innovation Pole or in the context of similar measures such as the clusters launched by the General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT). Such initiatives will also enable the region to attract, develop and maintain highly skilled personnel that are required for its development.

ii Regional Innovation Monitor

3. Innovation policy governance In general, RTDI policy in the regions is designed and implemented in the context of the Regional Operational Programmes and is co-funded by the Structural Funds. The design of the policy mix is mainly the responsibility of the GSRT, whereas to date the region has only had a consultative role. Moreover, regional authorities are not responsible for policies and reforms regarding governance and horizontal research and innovation. In addition, until the reform of Kallikratis, effective from January 2011, regions in Greece had limited administrative and budgetary autonomy. Policy-making is the responsibility of the Secretary General of the Region and the Regional Council. The design, implementation and the monitoring of measures is the responsibility of the Intermediate Managing Authority (IMA) of the Region of Sterea Ellada. The common practice so far has been that the Regional Authorities ceded part of the regional budget to GSRT, which launched common calls to these regions, under the precondition that an equal amount of money to that ceded by each region would be directed to the same region for funding RTDI actions through GSRT’s programmes. However, the main problem with the region’s innovation policy making was not the lack of authority and financial resources, but the lack of capacity and capability in policy making. Research and innovation was never a priority in the regional policy agenda. More importantly, there is no specific governance system in place for RTDI policies. All decisions, i.e. policy design and implementation, are channelled through the general governance structures of the region. There is also no formal mechanism for assessing the impact of the measures at the regional level. The only types of evaluation available are the official ex-ante, on-going and ex -post evaluations, which are prepared in the context of the Sectoral and Regional Operational Programmes. There is also no consistent use of policy intelligence tools at either the regional or the national level. Although representatives of the business community and academic sector participated in the Steering Committees of the Regional Operational Programmes, their contribution to the establishment of a regional RTDI strategy aligned to regions’ particular needs has been limited. In conclusion, the Greek public sector, including regional authorities, has so far shown limited capability in coordinating and setting priorities for policies, while policies have quite often had contradicting objectives. Moreover, the majority of measures launched in the past directly by regional authorities were merely repetitions of National measures with some slight modifications to take into account specific regional characteristics. The coordination between central and regional authorities has been weak and ad hoc, despite the fact that the Regional Operational Programmes describe the objectives for regional RTDI policies and could have acted as a catalyst for the development of a more ‘strategic’ collaboration.

Regional Innovation Monitor iii

4. Conclusions: future actions and opportunities for innovation policy The major challenge for the regional authorities of Sterea Ellada is the development of competences in designing, managing, monitoring and evaluating RTDI policies. This will be a lengthy process and will require not just the transfer of competences and greater autonomy but also the gradual development of knowhow, training of personnel and perhaps the establishment of an independent unit that could bring together and focus these developments. The region will also need to exploit the latest reforms that increase its autonomy and take advantage of the increased significance of Regional Councils, whose funding role has increased due to the increasing public funding for RTDI (Structural Funds and national contribution) now distributed through the Regional Operational Programmes. In addition, it is necessary to establish a ‘permanent’ framework for consultation between the major actors within the regional innovation system for the formulation of strategies and policies tailored to regional needs. These policies and measures should be monitored closely and be systemically evaluated. Regional authorities will also need to support more risky investments in new technology-based firms. Financial institutions are currently reluctant to fund innovative ventures due to the current economic crisis and there is an absolute lack of venture and risk capital in the region. In this context, regional authorities need also to support the technological and research efforts of existing firms active in traditional sectors to help them move up the value chain. Finally, there is a need to strengthen the public research and technology transfer infrastructure of the region, since currently this cannot adequately support the technological needs of firms. This approach, however, should be strategic and the focus should be on a small number key areas / technologies that are relevant to the current and future needs of the regional economy.

iv Regional Innovation Monitor

1. Main Trends and Challenges in the Regional Innovation System

1.1 Recent trends in regional economic performance The Region of Sterea Ellada is the second largest in Greece, and has 5.1% of the country’s population (The Prefectures of Greece, 2009). The region is a manufacturing hotspot2 and accounts for 5.4% of the country’s GDP. During 2009 it accounted for 11% of the agricultural, 16% of manufacturing and 3% of the services output of Greece3. GDP per capita in Sterea Ellada was 25100 (PPP) in 2008, third among the 13 Greek regions and on a par with the EU27 average. The region also has a developed agricultural sector and important resources4 and relatively developed tourism infrastructures5. It is also rich in mineral resources, which have boosted the development of a large number of companies in the manufacture of basic metals and fabricated metal products. Also, particularly in the prefecture of Boeotia, there are some of the largest production units in the county in manufacturing sectors such as electrical machinery, basic metals, non-metallic mineral products, rubber and plastic and products of wood and cork. However, the headquarters, and the design and R&D facilities of a large proportion of these companies, are located in the neighbouring region of Attiki. Within the service sector, the most dynamic segments are real estate, renting and business activities, public services, transport services and trade. Tourism and financial services are also among the fastest growing service activities in the region. The transport sector is also important for the region’s development, owing to its position and its relatively large exports to neighbouring regions and abroad. A recent positive development is increased investment in renewable energy sources (mainly wind but also solar energy), a sector with significant future potential. The region is the third most important exporting region of Greece (see Appendix D), after the regions of Attiki and Kentriki Makedonia. However, despite the 26.6% increase in exports over the period 2000-2008, the coverage ratio (exports to imports) deteriorated over the same period. The largest share of exporting companies are active in low (agriculture, mining and traditional industries) and medium (chemicals, plastics and food) value added segments and sectors of the economy.

2 The dominant position of the manufacturing sector in the region is the result of the high concentration of industries mainly in Boeotia due to the proximity to the capital city of Athens and its position in the main development axes of Greece. 3 See Appendix D for detailed information regarding the composition of regional GDP. 4 Including cultural and archaeological sites, mountain villages, ski resorts, coastal areas, mineral springs, thermal baths and NATURA areas. 5 A number of significant planned large investments in the tourism sector have stagnated due to bureaucracy and lack of a clear and simple investment framework (e.g. land use and planning).

Regional Innovation Monitor 1

The region is characterized by geographical and economic heterogeneity, with the most developed areas located along the major road networks and the least developed areas in the mountainous zones. These characteristics of Sterea Ellada have a negative impact in employment6. During the second quarter of 2011, the unemployment rate reached 16.9%, a steep increase from the 11.5% in 2010 and above the national average (16.3%)7 over the same period. 4.9% of the country’s workforce is employed in the region, of which 49.4% are in the service sector, 28.6% in industry and 19.2% in agriculture. During the 2000-2008 period, despite relatively strong growth based mainly on domestic demand (see Appendix D), no significant restructuring effects were observed in the region and the sectoral contribution to regional GDP remained stable. Although the region attracted significant investments, particularly in manufacturing and construction, most of these were not directed towards higher value added activities. As a result, the employment share of high technology and knowledge intensive sectors stagnated around 1.5% over the period 2000-2008. In addition, the current economic crisis is expected to have a significant negative impact on the regional economy, and particularly the services sector, due to the reduction of demand and investment. Moreover, within the last three years, the unprecedented crisis that Greece faces has already eroded the gains in employment and GDP achieved over the 2000-2008 period. Finally, the large migration waves of the past decades from Balkan, African and Asian countries have helped to keep the overall population of the region constant and, because of low wages, have contributed significantly in the increase of the regional GDP. However, in order for the regional firms to move up the value chain and increase their competitiveness, it is necessary to attract, develop and maintain highly skilled personnel.

1.2 Recent trends in regional innovation performance The Region of Sterea Ellada, despite its strong manufacturing sector, has a marginal share in the country’s GERD due to the low contribution of the private sector and the weak regional public research infrastructure. Over the 2000 -2008 period, the region accounted for 1.1% of the national GERD. More importantly, the regional GERD during 2005 accounted for 0.18% of the regional GDP, a share that is considerable below the national average (0.6%) and the EU-27 average. Similarly, the share of BERD as a percentage of regional GDP is only a small fraction (0.14% in 2005) of regional GDP, compared to the EU average of 1.14%. (See Appendix D). A more positive picture is provided by the shares of product and process innovators, the marketing and organisational innovators and the non R&D innovation expenditure of regional firms, which are on par with the EU average (Figure 1-1). These figures are in contrast to the limited private sector R&D expenditure, and highlight on the one hand dependence on off the shelf technologies developed outside the firm and on the other hand the structuring of the regional economy towards low - technological segments within value chains.

6 The social groups affected most seriously are 15-24 age cohorts, and particularly women. Moreover the composition of employment in the region is characterised by high rates of employment in the manufacturing and primary sectors of the economy with corresponding low shares of employment in services, compared to the national and EU averages. 7 These trends can be also explained by the low educational level of the workforce, ranked 12th out of the 13 regions in Greece, with 19% of the workforce holding a higher education degree compared with 21.5% in Greece overall and 30% in the EU. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of a large number of Higher Education Institutes in the region and the inability of the regional economy to retain scientists in particular, who tend to migrate to other regions of Greece (mainly Attiki) or abroad.

2 Regional Innovation Monitor

Only 3% of the Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST) in Greece are located in the region, while personnel with tertiary education account for 19% of the region’s workforce, a share well below the overall EU27 figure of 30%. Also, in 2005, researchers in the region accounted for only 1.1% of all Greek researchers and 3.7% of Greek private sector researchers. In addition, just 1.2 patents were granted by the European Patent Office per million inhabitants during 20058, a figure that highlights the limited endogenous technological development of the regional industry. This significant disparity with the EU27 and national average is partly the outcome of the limited demand from the industry for R&D, reflecting the low-to-medium technology structure and low level of internationalisation of the Greek economy, but can also be attributed to the limited number of public research institutes and higher education institutes in the region. A further indication is provided by the marginal participation of organisations of the region of Sterea Ellada in projects and participants in FP6 (See Appendix D). This fact highlights both the lack of orientation of local actors towards the development of international collaborations and the weak regional public research base, which is unable to act as a link between the regional innovation system and corresponding systems abroad. However, due to the region’s proximity to the capital city of Athens, the absence of public R&D infrastructure cannot be considered as the only determinant of the limited research activities of enterprises in the region, since the collaborations developed in the context of national RTDI projects between organisations from the Region of Sterea Ellada with corresponding organisations from Attiki account for almost two thirds of the total collaborations of regional actors. Moreover, for a large number of production units in the region, R&D activities are conducted in the region of Attiki. Finally, the future prospects of the Regional Innovation System appear bleak, since restricted access to capital (especially for new firms), the reluctance of the financial institutions to finance innovation and risky investments, and the new government austerity and reform programme under which cuts in the Public Investment Programme were introduced, are expected to hinder the mobilisation of resources for innovative ventures which are necessary for the restructuring of the regional economy. Figure 1-1 Economic and innovation performance indicators

Source: Eurostat and Community Innovation Survey.

8 The comparable figure for the EU27 during 2006 was 115.1 patents per million inhabitants.

Regional Innovation Monitor 3

1.3 Identified challenges As seen from the analysis above, it is evident that the region lacks the critical mass of public R&D organisations and other intermediary organisations to support the innovation and research activities of regional firms and stimulate an endogenous growth model. At the same time R&D investments by the private sector in the region are lagging, compared with both national averages and particularly with the EU27 average. This is particularly evident in the case of SMEs, the majority of which are either unable to undertake such investments or do not comprehend the advantages of new technologies and their applications. The current economic crisis accentuates the need for regional firms to adapt to the new conditions technologically and organisationally. The regional economy, however, is concentrated in medium to low technology segments of its economic sectors and considerable efforts must be made in order to upgrade the technological focus of these companies and maintain, if not increase, their exports and participation in international value chains. The lack of highly qualified personnel and of the conditions for attracting such personnel in the region makes this task more difficult. However, a significant number of young and educated people, partly as a result of the current economic crisis, are moving back to the region and setting up new agricultural enterprises, and thus providing the necessary material for the modernisation of the sector. The structure of the regional economy has a negative impact on energy demand and consumption, creating significant environmental problems. These environmental problems are related mainly to the management of wastes and by-products of the manufacturing sector, and to a lesser extent to the primary sector. To sum up, the major challenges that the region faces are: Challenge 1: Modernise the agro-food sector and link it with other sectors along the value chain. Agriculture is an important sector for the regional economy, accounting for a considerable share of its value added (8.3% during 2007), but is only partially linked to the food industry, which is also important for the region. Moreover, only a small fraction of regional firms in the field of agro-food are innovative or perform R&D activities, a tendency more apparent in SMEs. These conditions have a negative impact on the competitiveness of the sector, which is gradually being eroded as these firms find it difficult to penetrate new markets, at a time when national demand is declining due to the crisis. Some of the challenges and problems that the sector faces are related to brand awareness, the low number of Protected Designation of Origin (PDA) products, the slow take up of biological production, the dearth of basic production infrastructures and the change in emphasis towards better quality, Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and biological products and environmentally friendly production processes. Moreover, the region lacks strong public research and technology networks that could provide solutions (in areas of biotechnology, process technologies etc) to regional firms on the basis of a long run strategy. Public-private collaborations are ad hoc, on the basis of public measures. The recent outward migration trends of many mainly young and well educated people towards rural areas and their setting up of novel agricultural enterprises, presents an opportunity for the modernisation of agriculture and food production in the region. However, if this trend is to act as a catalyst for modernisation it will require considerable public support technologically and financially. Finally, these interventions should also ensure a better balance between the less developed mountain areas and the more developed areas around the major cities and industrial areas.

4 Regional Innovation Monitor

Challenge 2: Promote Environmental and Energy Saving Technologies One of the greatest challenges the region of Sterea Ellada faces is the environmental degradation caused mainly by the manufacturing sector, and also by primary production. As a recent consultation (Section 3.5) has shown, it is crucial for the region to invest and promote environmental and energy saving technologies as part of a strategy to establish a new profile based on green entrepreneurship for the regional economy. These applications are expected to have an impact in a wide range of industries, from manufacturing to services and tourism. At the same time, the adaptation and take up of energy saving technologies presents firms with the opportunity to reduce their production and operating costs. It also presents firms in various positions within existing value chains with the opportunity to proceed in the development of a common infrastructure and investments, with mutual benefits. Current discussions centre on the establishment of a Regional Innovation Pole, which is expected to act as a shell for coordinating innovation activities and provide the necessary funding. Moreover, since the promotion of a ‘green’ economy is at the heart of the new development model adopted by successive governments, there exist many opportunities for synergies and complementary funding. Challenge 3: Explore synergies with other regions in terms of RTDI infrastructures and technology transfer. As seen in the previous sections, there is a weak public RTDI infrastructure in the region, with no intermediary organisations. In addition, only a limited number of HEIs and public research organisations are active in technological sectors necessary for the development of the region, such as ICT, environmental and energy technologies, materials and industrial applications. As a result, they cannot provide sufficient support to regional firms. It is also doubtful whether even these organisations will continue to function under the new austerity programme, with associated reforms and the probable merging of organisations. However, it is critical that these organisations are supported and strengthened so as to augment the technological upgrading of the regional economy. Due to the proximity to the region of Attiki and (to a lesser extent) to Thessaly, where a large number of highly acknowledged Higher Education Institutes and Research Centres are concentrated, it is not necessary to duplicate efforts and establish new institutions. Efforts should rather aim at developing and enriching the competences in a small number of existing regional institutions aligned with regional technological needs. Equally important is the development of technology transfer organisations and networks that can link regional actors with institutes and technology performers (HEIs, Research Centres) from other regions, thus promoting long run collaborations. This implies change in the strategies followed in the past be national and regional policy makers that promoted mainly ad–hoc collaborations prompted by the introduction of a specific RTDI measure, for which such collaborations were either obligatory or encouraged. Such structures can be developed within the envisaged Regional Innovation Pole or in the context of similar measures such as the clusters launched by the General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT).

Regional Innovation Monitor 5

2. Innovation Policy Governance

2.1 Degree of institutional autonomy In general, RTDI policy in the regions is designed and implemented in the context of the Regional Operational Programmes and is co-funded by the Structural Funds. The design of the policy mix is mainly the responsibility of the General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT), whereas to date the region has only had a consultative role. Moreover, regional authorities are not responsible for policies and reforms regarding governance and horizontal research and innovation. Moreover, until the reform of Kallikratis (see section 3.2) effective since January 2011, regions in Greece had limited administrative and budgetary autonomy. The latest reforms increase the autonomy of the region by transferring responsibilities from the central government to the elected authorities. Transfer of the responsibilities has not yet been fully implemented but it is almost certain that these will extend towards the overall development strategy of the Regions and potentially to the RTDI sector. However, the role of the Regional Councils as funders has increased, due to the fact that an increasing amount of public funding (Structural Funds and the national contribution) is now distributed through the Regional Operational Programmes. Until now, the common practice was that the Regional Authorities ceded part of the regional budget to GSRT, which launched common calls to all regions, under the precondition that an equal amount of money to that ceded would be directed to each region for funding RTDI activities through GSRT’s programmes. However the main problem with the involvement of the region’s innovation policy making was not the lack of authority and of financial resources but the lack of capacity and capability in policy making. At the same time, research and innovation was never a priority in the regional policy agenda as attention was focused on policy areas and initiatives that could produce visible and swift results (for example road infrastructure, protection of the environment, reducing unemployment). Efforts made by the central government to decentralise planning and decision-making in the past failed due to the regional administration’s lack of human resources, skills and expertise. Thus regional involvement in the planning process has been restricted to consultation while the policy planning and implementation of RTDI policies remained the responsibility of the GSRT (Avranas.A.2011). Thus in practice the design of RTDI measures is actually done by the General and Special Secretariats of the corresponding Ministries, while the monitoring of the measures of the Regional Operational Programmes (2007-2013) for the 13 Regions is the responsibility of the Intermediate Managing Authority (IMA) of the corresponding Region (Nioras. A. 2011).

2.2 Institutional-set up, co-ordination and implementation mechanisms Regions, until recently, had limited autonomy in terms of policy formulation and design. As mentioned in the previous section, under the Kallikratis reform, this situation is currently changing, since a number of responsibilities are being transferred gradually to the regional authorities that will also acquire greater budgetary autonomy. However the development of competences in designing, managing, monitoring and evaluating RTDI policies will be a lengthy process and will require not just the transfer of responsibilities and greater autonomy but also the gradual development of human capacity and skills and perhaps organisational changes in the governance structure.

6 Regional Innovation Monitor

The driving factors for change were, on the one hand, national decisions to strengthen the role and autonomy of regions and the reduction of duplication, and on the other hand the increased RTDI funds allocated within the Regional Operational Programmes as a result of wider EU involvement. A later driver of the reforms has been the recognition by the central government of the need to increase the involvement of regional stakeholders to the formulation of regional development strategies and avoid top – down policies that lead to ‘one size fits all’ measures, which have proved inefficient in transforming regional economies. The reform led to the restructuring of the decentralized administration, the reduction of the number of municipalities (from 1,034 to 325) and to their strengthening by conferring on the local level new responsibilities. In addition, a new level of Devolved Authorities has been set up between the Central Government and the Regional Government. The new administrative system comprises 7 General Directorates (De- Centralized Authorities), 13 Regional Self-Governments (2nd Level Self-Government) with Sub-Regional Departments and 325 Local Government (1st Level Self- Government). Since the beginning of 2011, the new elected regional authorities in Sterea Ellada have the power to affect regional policy formulation in several sectors such as agriculture, industry, energy, natural resources treatment, and spatial planning. However, responsibilities are being transferred gradually, in 3 stages. Some were applied from January 1st 2011, others have been in force since July 1st 2011 and the rest will be in place from January 1st 2012. Hence, in the near future, regional authorities are expected to have a more active role in the implementation of research and innovation policy. In practice, the overall design of RTDI, Industrial and Educational policies are formulated at the Central Government level after consultations with the Regions. Regarding RTDI policy, there is no specific governance system in place. All decisions, i.e. policy design and implementation, go through the general governance structures of the region. These structures are similar for all the 13 regions of Greece. Policy-making is the responsibility of the Secretary General of the Region and the Regional Council. The design, implementation and monitoring of measures is the responsibility of the Intermediate Managing Authority (IMA) of the Region of Sterea Ellada. The IMA of Sterea Ellada can assign the implementation of specific RTDI measures to other competent organizations, as is the case in the measures presented in the following section. Over the current programming period, the IMA of Sterea Ellada has ceded part of the Region’s budget to the GSRT, under the precondition that an equal amount of money will be directed to Sterea Ellada for funding RTDI actions through GSRT programmes. This process is usually carried out on an ad hoc basis. Funding and financial control of the Sterea Ellada Operational Programme, including measures related to RTDI, is the responsibility of the Regional Development Fund of Sterea Ellada. In conclusion, the Greek public sector, including regional authorities, has so far shown limited capability in coordinating and setting priorities for policies, while policies have quite often had contradictory objectives. Moreover, the majority of measures launched in the past directly by regional authorities were merely repetitions of National measures with some slight modifications to take into account specific regional characteristics. The coordination between central and regional authorities has been weak and ad hoc, despite the fact that the Regional Operational Programmes describe the objectives for regional RTDI policies and could have acted as a catalyst for the development of a more ‘strategic’ collaboration. Finally, the role, scope and number of innovation support organizations in the region, but also in the whole country, are rather limited. Thus the RTDI governance structure remains heavily centralized, with almost no intermediary tiers.

Regional Innovation Monitor 7

Figure 2-1 Management and implementation structure of regional innovation strategy

Source: Own assessment.

2.3 Availability and use of policy intelligence tools The management of the ROP’s, namely the selection of actions and measures that are eligible for funding based on the ROP criteria and the monitoring, control and evaluation of projects and actions funded in the context of Operational Programmes, are the responsibility of the Intermediary Management Authorities of the Regions. There is no formal mechanism for assessing the impact of measures at the regional level. The only types of evaluation available are the official ex-ante, ongoing and ex- post evaluations, which are prepared in the context of the Sectoral and Regional Operational Programmes. The current Mid-Term Evaluation of the Regional Operational Programme of Sterea Ellada and the evaluation of the Sectoral Operational Programme ‘Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship’ have been launched during 2011. The selection procedure of contractors however has delayed due to lodging of appeals. These tools assess progress mainly on the basis of expenditures and short-term outcomes. Moreover, these evaluations are rarely discussed with interested stakeholders and their recommendations only marginally affect the revision of Operational Programmes. There is also no consistent use of policy intelligence tools at either the regional or the national level. A number of initiatives have been implemented on an ad hoc basis, but without regional authorities integrating their recommendations into the regional RTDI policy mix, despite pressures from regional stakeholders.

8 Regional Innovation Monitor

2.4 Key challenges and opportunities The key challenges with regard to the governance of the regional innovation system are related to the establishment of a robust strategy and the mechanisms for its implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This requires significant activity in the following areas: • Establishment of a formal framework for consultation between the major actors within the regional innovation system for the formulation of strategies and policies tailored to meet regional needs. Policies and measures implemented should be monitored closely and be systemically evaluated. This also requires the gradual building up of competences by the regional authorities in terms of designing, implementing and monitoring policies. • Establishment of a dedicated unit within the framework of regional administration with responsibility for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of regional policies. • Strengthening of the public research and technology transfer infrastructure (establishment of intermediary organizations / agencies) of the Region, since this cannot currently adequately support the technological needs of firms. This can be achieved through collaboration with institutions of neighbouring regions. This approach however should be of a strategic nature, and the focus should be on a small number key areas / technologies that are relevant to the current and future needs of the regional economy. The selection of these areas should result from a wider consultation with regional stakeholders and be part of a wider long – run strategy for the region. Finally, this in turn implies the provision of incentives for attracting or developing the necessary human capital.

Regional Innovation Monitor 9

3. Innovation Policy Instruments and Orientations

3.1 The regional innovation policy mix In general, RTDI policy in the regions is designed and implemented in the context of the Regional Operational Programmes and is co-funded by the Structural Funds. The overall RTDI policy objectives for the region over the current programming period are thus defined within the “Regional Operational Programme of Thessaly, Central Greece and Epirus”. In practise, however, the design of the policy mix is mainly the responsibility of the GSRT, whereas to date the region had only a consultative role. GSRT has already designed and launched a number of measurers for Sterea Ellada in parallel with all other regions in Greece, with funds ceded to it by the IMA of Sterea Ellada. Until now, the majority of measures launched was in the Research and Technologies and the Promote and sustain the creation and growth of innovative enterprises support categories. Within the Sterea Ellada ROP, all RTDI policies and measures fall under Priority axis 8 – “Digital Convergence and Entrepreneurship in Sterea Ellada”. Public funding planned for RTDI measures over the current programming period totals about €43.1m, which corresponds to approximately 8.7% of total public ROP funds for the region. This share constitutes a significant increase compared with the previous programming period, but whether these funds will be allocated and spent remains doubtful. The thematic priorities of the planned RTDI expenditures are as follows: • RTDI activities in research centres (€2.6m); • RTDI infrastructures (€0.4m); • Technology transfer and collaboration networks between science and industry (€2.8m); • RTD in SMEs (€9.8m); • Investment in companies directly related to RTD and innovation (€13.5m); • Other measures for the promotion of RTD (€13.9m). Within the above thematic areas, funds not allocated to direct support to RTDI activities of firms and to public research centres are expected to be directed towards general-purpose support measures for innovative investments and technological upgrading of firms. Thus the above allocations do not signal a significant shift compared to the previous programming period, either in terms of objectives or in terms of instruments applied. The first attempts to develop a regional innovation strategy with the involvement of stakeholders were initiated during 1997 under the RIS and RIS+ initiatives and the Regional Innovation in Sterea Ellada Programme (RI-SE), with the overall objectives of raising awareness among local entrepreneurs regarding innovation and technology management, to encourage support organisations to take a pro-active approach to work with ‘’traditional’’ non-innovative SMEs, and to investigate the possibilities of intra- and inter-regional co-operation between local organisations and firms.

10 Regional Innovation Monitor

The Regional Authorities accepted a number of the proposed interventions, such as the establishment of a University of Sterea Ellada focusing on innovation management, technology transfer and SMEs, and incorporated some of these objectives within the context of Third Community Support Framework 2000-2006 (Regional Operational Programme)9. More importantly, these programmes gave regional authorities the opportunity to develop, implement and monitor for the first time innovative actions in collaboration with regional stakeholders and other national and international organisations. Despite the efforts described above, over the previous programming period the focus was mainly on general-purpose measures for supporting the technological upgrading of firms without a specific sectoral or technological focus and to direct subsidies for R&D. Moreover, measures launched in the past at the regional level mirrored or were identical with national ones. The major changes introduced in the current (2007-2013) programming period are increased funding and a number of new proposed initiatives such as the establishment of a Regional Innovation Pole and the promotion of collaborative knowledge intensive clusters. In addition, regional authorities have investigated the possibility of the creation of an incubator in the region, but all the scenarios examined were evaluated as non-viable, at least in the short run. Table 3-1 Overview of the regional innovation policy mix

Governance & Research and Human Creation and Markets and horizontal Technologies Resources growth of innovation research and innovative culture innovation enterprises policies Innovation ‘-‘ 2.2.2. Knowledge ‘-‘ ‘-‘ ‘-‘ vouchers for Transfer SMEs Development and ‘-‘ ‘-‘ ‘-‘ 4.3.1. Support to ‘-‘ support of new innovative start highly knowledge ups incl intensive Gazelles innovative enterprises (Spin –offs and Spin outs) Collaboration ‘-‘ 2.2.3. R&D ‘-‘ ‘-‘ ‘-‘ cooperation Support newly ‘-‘ 2.2.3. R&D ‘-‘ 4.3.1. Support to ‘-‘ established firms cooperation innovative start in their research ups incl and development Gazelles activities Support groups of ‘-‘ 2.2.3. R&D ‘-‘ ‘-‘ ‘-‘ SMEs in their cooperation research and 2.3.1. Direct development support of activities business R&D (grants and loans) Source: Own assessment.

9 The University of Central Greece was established during 2003.

Regional Innovation Monitor 11

All the measures described below are in line with the major policy directions of the ROP, which are focused mainly on supporting the research and technological activities of firms, and particularly SMEs, either through technology transfer or through research collaborations with public research institutes and HEIs. ‘Development and support of new highly knowledge intensive innovative enterprises (Spin–offs and Spin outs)’, is targeting the restructuring of the regional economy towards higher value added and knowledge intensive sectors, through the financing of the establishment or development of innovative SMEs. In Sterea Ellada up to four projects are expected to be fund. The direct beneficiaries of this measure are innovative SMEs, spin-offs and spin-outs, newly established or up to six years old. Activities eligible for funding are the development or expansion of infrastructures, operational costs including acquisition of technologies and know-how and research and development activities. The available budget is €3m. The measure ‘Support newly established firms in their research and development activities’, aims to encourage new firms or firms without previous R&D activity to undertake such activity, either directly, in collaboration or through outsourcing to public research organisations. The rationale behind the measure is the need to increase the contribution of private sector R&D expenditure, to familiarise firms with research activities and to upgrade their technological and knowledge capabilities. The direct beneficiaries of this measure are (a) firms, irrespective of size, established up to six years prior to the launching of the measure and (b) firms, irrespective of size and year of establishment, that have never before received national or community funding for R&D activities. Public research organisations, as potential subcontractors of the funded firms for R&D activities, are also beneficiaries of the measure. Applied and experimental development projects in several fields are eligible for funding. The available budget is €1.3m. The measure ‘Collaboration’ is aimed at improving the competitiveness of firms in Sterea Ellada by encouraging R&D collaborative projects in selected fields deemed important for the national economy and in line with European and international market needs. The priority fields are Health, Biotechnology, Energy - Environment - Climate, Nanotechnology, Transportation, Social Sciences and Culture, ICT and Manufacturing. The overall budget of the measure for the region is €5.1m. The form of funding provided is grants and will be implemented through two alternative actions: • Short term research collaborations with the participation of at least three organisations, one of which must be a private enterprise, with a duration of 24 – 36 months and a total budget of €0.3-€1m. • Long term research collaborations with the participation of at least five organizations, two of which must be private enterprises, with a duration of between 36 and 60 months and a total budget of €1m-€3m. The direct beneficiaries of this measure are firms (independent of size) and higher education institutes, research centres and institutes. Basic, applied and experimental development activities, technical feasibility studies, IPR acquisition, promotional, networking and diffusion activities are eligible for funding.

12 Regional Innovation Monitor

The measure ‘Innovation Vouchers’ was launched in order to increase technology transfer from public research organisations to SMEs, which have limited RTDI activities and rarely collaborate in innovative activity with public or other organisations. This measure is also intended to increase the awareness of SMEs of the existing opportunities and benefits - the organisational structure is simple and procedures are automated, with the intention that red tape will not inhibit participation. The measure also aims at increasing the linkages of the public research system, i.e. of universities and public research centres, with the private sector. In Sterea Ellada, 131 SMEs are expected to benefit from the measure. €0.9m of public funds has been allocated to the region. Finally, the measure ‘Support Group of SMEs in their research and development activities’ is intended to support groups of established SMEs to undertake R&D activities in collaboration with R&D performers, irrespective of sector of economic activity, which can be in traditional or high technology fields, and irrespective of their ability to perform in-house research. The rationale behind this is the isolation and weak linkages of Greek firms’ development projects in ICT, food - biotechnology, advanced materials - nanotechnology - microelectronics, energy, transport, environment, health, space & security technologies and cultural inheritance. Costs covered by the measure include personnel costs of researchers and technicians, expenditure on instruments and equipment, subcontracting of research activities, technology and knowhow acquisition and operational costs. The overall budget available for the measure is €3.7m.

Regional Innovation Monitor 13

Table 3-2 Existing regional innovation support measures

Title Duration Policy priorities Budget Organisation responsible More information Collaboration. 2009-2013 2.2.3. R&D cooperation €5,100,000 General Secretariat for Research and http://www.gsrt.gr Technology (GSRT)

Development and support of 2009-2013 4.3.1. Support to innovative start ups €3,000,000 General Secretariat for Research and http://www.gsrt.gr new highly knowledge incl Gazelles Technology (GSRT) intensive innovative enterprises (Spin –offs and spin outs).

Innovation Vouchers for 2009-2013 2.2.2. Knowledge Transfer €917,000 General Secretariat for Research and http://www.gsrt.gr SMEs. Technology (GSRT) Support newly established 2009-2013 2.2.3. R&D cooperation €1,300,000 General Secretariat for Research and http://www.gsrt.gr firms in their research and Technology (GSRT) development activities. Support groups of SMEs in 2009-2013 2.2.3. R&D cooperation €3,700,000 General Secretariat for Research and http://www.gsrt.gr their research and 2.3.1. Direct support of business R&D Technology (GSRT) development activities (grants and loans) Source: Own assessment.

14 Regional Innovation Monitor

Among the above, the most important regional innovation policy measures are the following: 1. Collaboration 2. Support groups of SME’s in their research and development activities 3. Development and support of new highly knowledge intensive innovative enterprises (Spin –offs and spin outs). The rationale behind this ranking is that these measures address two key challenges of the regional innovation system, namely the importance and need for the regional economy to support traditional and established SMEs in moving up the value chain, and the enrichment of the regional production base with new innovative and dynamic firms.

3.2 Appraisal of regional innovation policies Although no evaluations or reviews are currently available for assessing the impact of the regional policy mix, and despite the fact that only a small number of measures have been launched, some key conclusions can be drawn. To date, it appears that despite the availability of funding through the Investment Law and the Regional and Sectoral Operational Programmes, regional firms are technologically and organisationally relatively weak within the EU, and persistently exhibit low innovation performance. Additionally, up to now public policies have dealt with the problem of competitiveness and technological lag horizontally, mainly by providing subsidies for technology acquisition, without a specific focus. This argument is further supported by the fact that over the last decade no significant restructuring of the regional economy has taken place, apart from a gradual decline in the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and a small increase in the regional value added share of services. Specifically, the limited impact of RTDI policies over the previous programming period (2000-2006) is reflected in the RTDI indicators, particularly those reflecting the performance of the private sector (Section 1.2). Moreover, apart from the limited competences and experience of regional authorities in designing, managing and evaluating innovation policies tailored to regional needs, there is an absence of a strong public research network and of intermediary organisations within the region that could support the design and implementation of measures. Synergies with national RTDI measures are strong, since the measures launched in the region are designed centrally and are identical with national ones; however, they do not always correspond to specific regional characteristics both sectorally and technologically, and are not tailored to a long-run regional strategy. The RTDI policy response to the current economic crisis has been sluggish. Measures have not been re-designed to deal with the new environment of reduced revenues and cash flows of firms and the low level of liquidity provided by financial institutions, leading in many cases to the postponement or abandoning of even mature private investments.

3.3 Good practice case All the RTDI measures that have been launched within the current programming period have been centrally designed and run simultaneously with all other regions of Greece. Furthermore, there is no significant variation in terms of participations, absorption rates etc to contrast activity in Sterea Ellada with that in other regions. Consequently there is no region specific measure that can be characterised as a best practice in the region.

Regional Innovation Monitor 15

3.4 Portfolio of innovation support measures At the national level, until very recently, the focus of RTDI support has been directed towards the creation and growth of innovative enterprises. Since the onset of the current economic crisis, this support has become even more important since most alternative funding sources for innovative ventures have been considerably reduced. Most of the measures are of a horizontal nature, with the only exception being the provision of funding for R&D towards sectors and technologies deemed as national priorities. Until recently, the policy agenda gravitated around the formulation of a new development strategy based on the expansion of the production base, the exploitation of the country’s competitive advantages and the orientation of Greek firms towards exports of products and services of higher value added, with emphasis on innovation, research and knowledge. At the heart of this new development strategy is the promotion of ‘green’ entrepreneurship and development, (Nioras. A. 2011) with a series of measures launched over the past couple of years in fields such as environmental protection, energy saving and renewable energy resources. The establishment, during 2009, of the new Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change is a further indication of the increasing importance of this policy area in Greece. A more recent development was the review of the National Policy for Research and Technology Policy Framework, which involved a long consultation with all public and private stakeholders, the Parliamentary Committee for Research and Technology with the Council for Research and Technology (ESET) and the examination of international good practices. The main rationale that led to the review was the recognition of the lack of a clear focus shown by previous frameworks, priorities of which were diffuse. The new National Strategy for Research and Technology is based on four strategic pillars (categories), which will apply to all future public programmes, regardless of the source of funding. These programmes are expected to be launch frequently so as to ensure continuity and to allow sufficient time for interested participants to prepare their participation. The pillars are: (1) Supporting Research and Technology in two directions: Scientific Human Capital and Research Infrastructures. (2) The Creation of linkages with the private sector for the promotion of innovation. (3) The outward orientation of the National System through the utilisation of European, International and Bilateral programmes. (4) Creation of linkages between science and society. Within this framework, the sectoral and technological priorities are a) materials and chemicals, b) agrobiotechnology and food production, c) ICT and knowledge intensive services, d) health and biomedicine, and e) energy and the environment. Considerable simplifications have been introduced with regard to the submission and evaluation of proposals, which are expected to increase the transparency and meritocracy of the process. The available budget for the implementation of the above framework until the end of 2013 is €595m. Other recent developments include a significant shift in the form of funding away from grants and towards subsidised loans, guarantees and tax incentives, introduced by the new Investment Law (3908/2011) in 2011. Another initiative in the same policy area is the establishment of the new 'Entrepreneurship Fund’ (ETEAN SA) during 2011, for the provision of flexible funding (venture capital, start up and seed capital, business angels) for new ventures, which is expected to contribute €1.2 billion. Complementary to the above is the Jeremie initiative, with an overall budget of €120m that provides

16 Regional Innovation Monitor

increased access to finance for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in order to facilitate their investments and expand their activities. Among the first measures launched after 2009 with implementation of the National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013 were the Joint ventures for research and technological development in sectors of national priority (in two cycles) with a total budget of €76m, funding 121 proposals. Moreover, through the spin-off - spin-out measure, 32 research and technology intensive firms were funded with €13.6m during the first four cycles of the measure. A further priority area for GSRT is the promotion of clusters in areas such as agrobiofood and biotechnology, with the first call launched at the end of September 2011. At the same time the Special Secretariat for Digital Planning is promoting measures aiming at smart management of buildings, development of green data centres and green logistics and value chains. In comparison, the portfolio of innovation support measures available in Sterea Ellada is rather limited (see Section 3.1) and consists mainly of the provision of subsidies for the RTDI activities of firms, with or without collaboration with other actors. Regional authorities have no legislative autonomy to design or influence supply side measures and policies stimulating innovation. Tax policies, educational policy and investment policies (i.e. National Investment Programme, Investment Laws, etc.) are the responsibility of central government. In addition, all the demand side measures launched in the region are actually designed centrally by GSRT, by funds ceded by the Intermediate Management Authority of Sterea Ellada. Structural Funds constitute the most important funding source for the Greek National Innovation System. With regard to regional RTDI funding, the majority of funds come from the Structural Funds (including national contribution). Over the current programming period 2007-2013, the total amount allocated directly to the regions amounts to €613.4m, representing 6% of the total budget of the regional Operational Programmes. This constitutes a significant shift compared to the 2000-2006 programming period, where a total of €33.5m was spent by the Regional Operational Programmes on innovation and research measures. It is doubtful however whether these funds will be fully spent.

3.5 Towards smart specialisation policies Like the Greek economy as a whole, the region of Sterea Ellada is characterised by a lack of competitiveness, mainly due to structural inefficiencies and rigidities in the wider economic environment, where regional companies operate. The development strategy of the Region over the previous decades has not reversed a number of negative trends. Specifically, regional and national policies have not dealt sufficiently with the decline of the agricultural sector, the environmental degradation due to uncontrolled industrial pollution,10 weak waste management policies, or the upgrading of the existing production base towards higher value added activities and niches. At the same time, limited progress has been made with regard to the exploitation of the tourist potential of the region and its natural and renewable energy resources, which are present in abundance. There has also been a reduction in the region’s dependence on the neighbouring region of Attiki, resulting from a strengthening of the regional innovation system.

10 The structure of the Regional economy, which has a negative impact in terms of energy demand and consumption, also creates significant environmental problems. These environmental problems are related mainly to the management of wastes and by-products of the manufacturing sector and secondarily to the primary sector.

Regional Innovation Monitor 17

The effects of the structural inefficiencies mentioned above have been exacerbated by reduced availability of liquidity and high uncertainty associated with the current economic crisis. These problems are already having an impact on the regional economy, structured as it is around medium to low-tech sectors. These factors have prompted regional authorities to focus on specific sectors and technological areas deemed as important for the future development of the region. In this context, among other regional initiatives, the Intermediate Management Authority of the Region of Sterea Ellada commissioned a study for the development of an Innovation Pole that would focus on a small number of sectors / technologies where the strengths and future prospects of regional actors could be concentrated, with potential spillover effects to other sectors of the regional economy. This approach was influenced by similar initiatives that took place in other regions of Greece over the previous programming period. Another reason for investigating the potential for the establishment of an innovation pole in the region was the fact that such initiatives can mobilise a large number of regional actors and develop a common vision and strategy for the region’s development. This need was reinforced by the current reforms (Kallikratis Law – see section above) that provide greater autonomy to regional authorities to design RTDI policies, at a time that regional authorities have also to absorb increased funds for RTDI, through the Regional Operational Programme. The selection of the thematic / sectoral areas on which the planned Regional Innovation Pole could focus was based on a number of criteria. This approach aimed at taking into account the current economic structure of the Region and its internal development potential, the current and future trends and priorities of national and EU RTDI policies and the future technological trends and trajectories of the sectors deemed important for regional development. The criteria on which the choice of areas was made were thus based on consideration of: • Competencies of the scientific and technological organisations within the region. The investigation of the competences had a dual perspective: (a) Existing strengths and the way these are linked to the existing production base and (b) Research and technological areas necessary for the current or future economic specialisation of the region that are not fully developed and thus require either investments to develop them within the region or the establishment of technology transfer tools and organisations to acquire them from outside. • Technological needs and competences of regional firms and industries. • National and EU RTDI policies and priorities, so as to exploit synergies in terms of funding and instruments available. • The future techno-economic trends in the sectors that is most important for the region in terms of added value and employment. From the analysis, the three sectors or fields that were initially selected were (1) Information and Communication Technologies, (2) New Materials and (3) Environmental Technologies and Energy Saving Applications. This selection was screened by regional stakeholders (chambers of commerce, large firms and SMEs, Technological Organisations etc.) and the final selection was the Environmental and Energy Saving Technologies, a sector deemed crucial for the regional economy. The selection of only one sector was also necessitated by budgetary constraints and for aligning regional plans with those foreseen by GSRT that promotes the funding of monothematic Innovation Poles.

18 Regional Innovation Monitor

The main arguments expressed during the consultation among stakeholders was that this choice is quite wide, so as to encompass and support as many regional companies as possible, as well as offering the opportunity for the region to face some of its environmental problems. At the same time the adaptation and take up of energy saving technologies presents firms in several sectors (from manufacturing to commerce and tourism) with the opportunity to reduce their production and operational costs. It also presents firms in various positions within existing value chains to proceed in the development of common infrastructures and investments, with mutual benefits. Furthermore, this selection is in line with the wider discussion in the region that firms need to reduce their environmental footprint and minimise the impact on the environment caused by their production processes. Firms need to comply with the stricter environmental regulations promoted at the EU level and thereby ensure their future competitiveness and development. ’Green’ issues are also at the heart of a new strategy by central government. The environmental area is seen on the one hand as a sector that can attract foreign investments and mobilise national resources, and also as an area that can push the technological frontier and spur innovation in a plethora of economic sectors. This priority was emphasised through the establishment in 2009 of the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, which has already launched a number of measures with regard to environment protection, energy saving, renewable energy resources etc., and is also promoting demand-side innovation policies where environmental technologies have a pivotal role. At the same time, within the current programming period, regional authorities launched a number of measures directly or indirectly linked with the above developments and trends. The stakeholders consulted in the context of these policies have highlighted the potential linkages of a number of traditional sectors - including tourism, the construction industry and manufacturing sectors (such as metal – aluminium products) - with renewable energy and energy savings technologies, in areas such as ‘green smart’ houses. Finally, with regard to the design of the RTDI policies for the next programming period, emphasis in given to the National level and there is no specialization, adaptation or formal consultation for the formulation of a regional strategy yet.

3.6 Possible future orientations and opportunities The support for innovation measures in the Region of Sterea Ellada, as in most regions in Greece, has not been a priority, and wherever it has been pursued the focus has mainly been on an area for public funding rather than on impact. Regional authorities usually focused on policy areas and initiatives that could produce visible and swift results. Moreover until recently (with the Kallikratis reform, where the regions were given greater autonomy in designing and implementing RTDI policies), RTDI policies were designed centrally while in some cases only implemented regionally. This reform creates new opportunities for developing a regional strategy complementary to the national one, with the support of regional stakeholders, and putting innovation policy at the top of the regional agenda. The regional authorities however will have to strengthen their capacity for designing, implementing and monitoring such policies in order to tap into this opportunity. As in all other regions of Greece, the economy of Sterea Ellada, despite the presence of considerable number of large manufacturing firms in the region, is dependent to a large extent on SMEs, which have limited innovation and research intensity. Moreover, the regional economy is focused on medium to low technology intensive sectors or segments that are increasingly facing difficulties from low cost competitors.

Regional Innovation Monitor 19

Additionally, regional authorities will have to cater for the lack of intermediary organisations within the region and the limited number of public research institutes and organisations active in R&D, by promoting well targeted initiatives relevant to regional needs, such as networking with other regions. At the same time, the current economic crisis, accompanied by less favourable conditions characterised by reduced liquidity and local demand, is putting extra pressure for the restructuring of the production system. Thus the only long run viable alternative strategy appears to be increasing the export effort and alignment of regional firms with international value chains. With the above as prerequisites, other challenges regional authorities have to face include: • The formulation of a long – run strategy, complementary and in line with the national priorities and without duplication of measures. • The regional authorities should pay attention in providing support for firms in a way that will enable their later participation in the national and regional programmes described above, through technical feasibility studies, formulation of business and action plans, etc. This could also lead to improved quality of proposals. • This strategy should be focused on a small number of sectors and technologies with the widest possible impact in the regional economy. • Particular attention should be paid to supporting traditional SMEs in their participation in these programmes, since in a period of reduced liquidity and uncertainty their strategy will be broadly defensive, focusing on cost reduction rather than innovation and the penetration of new markets. • The focus should be on priority areas and challenges (as presented above) and on a structured policy mix including, for example, cluster policies and long– run partnerships, rather than being based on ad hoc measures. • Funding of RTDI measures should be increased through competitive procedures, using relevance to the needs of the region and industry as the basic criteria. • Opportunities provided by national policy to promote a ‘Green’ development agenda should be exploited, not only to minimize the environmental impact of production within the region, but also as a part of a regional competitiveness strategy towards a more energy efficient, clean production system.

20 Regional Innovation Monitor

Appendix A Bibliography

Avranas A., Nioras A. (2011), Regional Innovation Monitor Report – Kentriki Makedonia, LOGOTECH SA. Deniozos. D (edt) 2010, Greek Innovation Map 2010, Microsoft Innovation Center. ELSTAT 2011. Regional Accounts 2009. Provisional Data. ELSTAT2 2011. Human Resources Survey. 2nd Quarter 2011. ERAWATCH, 2010. Research Inventory Report: GREECE, N.Maroulis, 2010 European Commision, 2011, Innovation Union Competitiveness report 2011 - Country profile - Greece Hollanders, H., Tarantola, S., Loschky, A. “Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS) 2009”, December 2009. Monitoring the evolution of issues regarding the skills of R&D personnel and the field of S&T in Greece. General Secretariat for Research and Technology. Logotech SA. 2009. Maroulis.N 2010. ERAWATCH Research Inventory Report: GREECE, , Regional Operational Programme of Thessaly, Mainland Greece and Epirus 2007- 2013. OECD (2010), "Greece", in OECD, Regional Development Policies in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing. The Perfectures of Greece, 2009. The economic and social profile of prefectures and regions of Greece. Nioras.A. 2011. Mini Country Report Greece - Specific Contract for the Integration of INNO Policy TrendChart with ERAWATCH (2011-2012), August 2011.

Regional Innovation Monitor 21

Appendix B Stakeholders consulted

1. Anastasios Geralis, Head of Conventional Ceramics-Refractories Services, CERECO SA (23/11/2011). 2. Giannis Koutsikos, Head of Unit A - Programming and Evaluation Unit, Intermediate Management Authority of Sterea Ellada (06/12/2011)

22 Regional Innovation Monitor

Appendix C RIM Repository information

Regional Innovation Monitor 23 Baseline regional profile

ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA Region Region of Sterea Ellada NUTS Code GR24

Regional Profile

Introduction

The region located at the heart of Greece is dominated by the manufacturing sector, particularly in its southern prefectures, developed mainly due to its proximity to the capital city of Athens. The region is also an important agricultural centre, while tourism and services are underdeveloped. Due to its proximity to Attiki, the layer of public research infrastructures has remained thin over the past decades.

Repository

Support measures Development and support of new highly knowledge intensive innovative enterprises (Spin –offs and Spin outs) Support newly established firms in their research and development activities Collaboration Innovation Vouchers for SMEs Support Group of SME’s in their research and development activities Policy documents Regional Operational Programme of Thessaly, Central Greece and Epirus 2007-2013 Organisations Regional Development Fund of the Region of Sterea Ellada Intermediate Managing Authority (IMA) of Mainland Greece Region of Sterea Ellada

Economy

The region of Sterea Ellada, where 5.1% of the country's population is The region of Sterea Ellada, where 5.1% of the country's population is concentrated, is a manufacturing hotspot, developed mainly due to its proximity to the region of Attiki and accounts for approximately 4.8% of the country's GDP. In terms of GDP per capita, during 2007 Sterea Ellada was positioned 3rd among the 13 Greek regions and slightly below the EU27 average (92.5%). The industry and construction sectors dominate the regional economy and account for 49% of the regional GDP, while the services sector share was 42.7% during 2007. The growth in the region can be attributed mainly to its satellite role in the economy of Attiki and to the fact that numerous manufacturing firms have established their production plants in the region. Within the services sector the most dynamic segments are the real estate, renting and business activities, public services, transport services and trade. The tourism sector and the financial services are also among the fastest growing services activities in the region. Within the industry sector, particularly around the area of Boeotia, are located some of the largest production units in the county such as the manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus, manufacture of basic metals, manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products, manufacture of rubber and plastic products and manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork. The main development goal for the current programming period in the region is the improvement of its competitiveness though the promotion of the extroversion of regional firms, the improvement of the skills of the human capital and the strengthening of interregional linkages in parallel with the reduction of its dependence on the neighboring region of Attiki. Moreover, 4.9% of the country's workforce is employed in the Region, 49.4% in the services and 28.6% in the industry sector and 19.2% in the agricultural sector. Employment in high tech industries and knowledge-intensive services over the 2000-2008 period accounted for 1.5% of total employment in the region. During that period the unemployment rate was estimated at 11.1% and 18.9% for the age group of 15-24.

Research, Development & Innovation

The Region of Sterea Ellada, despite the fact that is the basis of a strong manufacturing sector, has a marginal share in the country's GERD and this is mainly due to the low contribution of the private sector. This significant gap to the EU27 and national average is partly the outcome of the limited demand from the industry, reflecting the low-to-medium technology structure and low level of extroversion of the Greek economy, but also to the fact that a very limited number of public research institutes and higher education institutes are present in the region. However, due to the region's proximity to the capital city of Athens, the absence of public R&D infrastructure cannot be considered as the main determinant for the limited research activities of the enterprises in the region. Over the 2000 -2008 period, the region accounted for 1.1% of the national GERD. More importantly the regional GERD accounted for 0.1% of the regional GDP, a share which considerable below the National average (0.6%). Slightly better trends can be observed by examining BERD as a percentage of GDP and of GERD where the shares for the region are 0.1% and 79.6% respectively. Thus, the R&D expenditure in the region is significantly lower compared to the EU average (1.82%) despite the higher contribution of the private sector (64% for the EU27). Moreover, 3% of the Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST) in Greece are located in the region, with HRSTC accounts for 9.4% of the regions workforce (active population), a share well over the 14.6% which is the EU27 and national average. Analogous is the concentration in terms of researchers in the region, accounting for 1.1% of the total researchers in the country and 3.7% of the private sector researchers during 2005. Finally in terms of EPO filings on average 1.8 were filed during the 2000-2008 period, a figure that highlights the limited technological orientation of the regional industry.

Governance

Regions have limited autonomy in terms of policy formulation and design and no legislative autonomy. Thus, they act as the arm of the central government in the Regions. In theory they can design and implement measures related to industrial and RTDI policies in the framework of the Regional Operational Programmes, in close consultation with the Central Government. In practice however, the overall design of RTDI, Industrial and educational policies are formulated at the Central Government level after consultations with the Regions. Regarding RTDI policy there is no specific governance system in place. All decisions, i.e. policy design and implementation, pass through the general governance structures of the region. These structures are similar for all 13 regions of Greece. Policy making is the responsibility of the Secretary General of the Region and the Regional Council. The design, implementation and the monitoring of measures is the responsibility of the Special Managing Authority (SMA) of the Region of Sterea Ellada for the Thessaly, Sterea Ellada and Epirus Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013. The SMA of the Region of Sterea Ellada can assign the implementation of specific RTDI measures to other competent organizations. However this process is usually adopted on an ad hoc basis. Moreover, over the current programming period, the SMA of the Region of Sterea Ellada has ceded part of the Regions budget to GSRT, under the precondition that an equal amount of money will be directed to the Region of Sterea Ellada for funding RTDI actions through GSRT programmes. Funding and financial control of Sterea Ellada Operational Programme, including measures related to RTDI, is responsibility of the Regional Development Fund of Sterea Ellada Policy

RTDI policy in the Regions is designed and implemented only through the Regional Operational Programmes that is through the co-funding of the structural funds. Under the current programming period more funds are expected to be directed to RTDI measures in the region. On the one hand the aim is to improve public research infrastructures through the establishment of a Regional Innovation Pole focusing on thematic priorities deemed important for indigenous growth and the establishment of incubators. On the other hand the bulk of RTDI funding is expected to be directed on supporting the creation of start-ups and spin-offs in technology and knowledge intensive economic sectors in order to differentiate the productive tissue of the region. Other important priorities include the promotion of technology transfer and collaboration networks between science and industry, support of the participation of regional firms in bilateral or multilateral R&D projects and of the establishment of collaborative knowledge intensive clusters in monothematic or cross-disciplinary areas. It has also been recognised by the regional authorities that in order the above measures to be successful they should also be complemented by the improvement of the human capital. Thus another policy area that has moved up at the agenda of regional authorities for the current programming period is promotion of measures aiming at attracting researchers and highly specialised personnel in the region.

Support measure

ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA Region Sterea Ellada NUTS Code GR24

Support Measure

Title of measure Development and support of new highly knowledge intensive innovative enterprises (Spin –offs and Spin outs)

Full title

- , (Spin –off and Spin out) (Spin –off and Spin out)

Duration

From: 2009 To: 2013 Policy objectives 4.3.1. Support to innovative start ups incl Gazelles

Presentation of the measure

The basic rationale of the measure is the restructuring of the regional economy towards higher value added and knowledge intensive sectors, through the financing of the establishment or development of innovative SMEs. In the region of Sterea Ellada up to four projects are expected to be funded. The direct beneficiaries of this measure are new innovative SMEs, Spin-offs and Spin-outs under establishment or established six years at most prior to the launching of the measure. Moreover, the participation of public research organisations as shareholders with up to 49% share in these SMEs is encouraged and considered an asset for the evaluation of proposals. Eligible for funding are the development or expansion of infrastructures, operational costs including acquisition of technologies, know-how and research and development activities

Keywords

Start-ups/spin-offs Entrepreneurship New technology-based firms Budget, source and type of funding Currency: EUR

Source of funding 2010 2011 2012 2013 National public funds 187,500187,500187,500187,500 Regional public funds EU Structural funds 562,500562,500562,500562,500 Private funds Other Form of funding provided Grants Policy learning

Extent to which the measure can be considered as a success and worthy of policy learning

It is too early to judge the success of the measure (e.g results of first call for proposals still not known).

Evidence of outcomes based on evaluation and other evidence

After the evaluation of proposals submitted for the first call, the only proposal submitted within the region did not receive any funding.

Do's and Don'ts

Stakeholders interested in launching measures in support of innovation should avoid creating significant delays in evaluating the proposals and ensure that regional authorities are closely involved during the design stage. Programmes designed at the national level can not necessarily be implemented and copied at the Regional level successfully. Therefore a better needs analysis is required so that programmes are tailored made to regional needs and capabilities.

This measure is recommended as an example of regional good practice to policy-makers from other regions:

No Organisation(s) responsible General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT)

Support measure

ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA Region Sterea Ellada NUTS Code GR24

Support Measure

Title of measure Support newly established firms in their research and development activities Full title

&

Duration

From: 2009 To: 2013 Policy objectives 2.2.3. R&D cooperation

Presentation of the measure

This measure aims to encourage new firms or firms without previous R&D activities to undertake directly, in collaboration or through outsourcing to public research orgnanisations, R&D activities. The rationale behind the measure is the need to increase the contribution of the private sector in R&D expenditure, to familiarise firms with research activities and to upgrade their technological and knowledge capabilities. The direct beneficiaries of this measure are (a) firms irrespective of size established up to six years prior to the launching of the measure and (b) firms irrespective of size and year of establishment that have never before received national or community funding for R&D activities. Public research organisations are also beneficiaries of measure as potential subcontractors for R&D activities of the funded firms. Eligible for funding are applied and experimental development projects in the field of ICT, Agriculture - food - biotechnology, Traditional industries, Materials - Nanotechnology - Microelectronics, Energy, transportation, Environment, Health, Space and Security technologies and Cultural inheritance.

Keywords

Science-industry cooperation Applied business research Public-private partnership Budget, source and type of funding Currency: EUR

Source of funding 2010 2011 2012 2013 National public funds 81,250 81,250 81,250 81,250 Regional public funds EU Structural funds 243,750243,750243,750243,750 Private funds Other Form of funding provided Grants Policy learning

Extent to which the measure can be considered as a success and worthy of policy learning

It is too early to judge the success of the measure (e.g results of first call for proposals still not known).

Evidence of outcomes based on evaluation and other evidence n/a

Do's and Don'ts

Stakeholders interested in launching measures in support of innovation should avoid creating significant delays in evaluating the proposals and ensure that regional authorities are closely involved during the design stage.

This measure is recommended as an example of regional good practice to policy-makers from other regions:

No Organisation(s) responsible General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT)

Support measure

ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA Region Sterea Ellada NUTS Code GR24

Support Measure

Title of measure Collaboration

Full title

Duration

From: 2009 To: 2013 Policy objectives 2.2.3. R&D cooperation

Presentation of the measure

The basic objective of the measure is the improvement of competitiveness of Greek firms through R&D collaborative projects in selected fields deemed important for the national economy. This measure was inspired by similar measures in other EU countries. It was adopted nationally in order to address the tendency of Greek firms to take up RTDI activities in relative isolation, which usually are of limited impact and not aligned to international market needs. The priority fields are Health, Biotechnology, Energy - Environment - Climate, Nanotechnology, Transportation, Social Sciences and Culture, ICT and Manufacturing. The measure will be implemented through two alternative actions. 1. Short term research collaborations with the participation of at least three organisations one of which must be a private enterprise, with duration between 24 -36 months and total budget range of €0.3m to €1m. 2. Long term research collaborations with the participation of at least five organizations two of which must be private enterprises, with duration between 36 -60 months and total budget range of €1m to €3 m. The direct beneficiaries of this measure are firms independent of size and higher education institutes, research centers and institutes. Eligible for funding are basic, applied and experimental development activities, technical feasibility studies, IPR acquisition, promotional, networking and diffusion activities.

Keywords

Science-industry cooperation Applied business research Public-private partnership Budget, source and type of funding Currency: EUR Source of funding 2010 2011 2012 2013 National public funds 318,750318,750318,750318,750 Regional public funds EU Structural funds 956,250956,250956,250956,250 Private funds Other Form of funding provided Grants Policy learning

Extent to which the measure can be considered as a success and worthy of policy learning

It is too early to judge the success of the measure (e.g results of first call for proposals still not known).

Evidence of outcomes based on evaluation and other evidence n/a

Do's and Don'ts

Stakeholders interested in launching measures in support of innovation should avoid creating significant delays in evaluating the proposals and ensure that regional authorities are closely involved during the design stage.

This measure is recommended as an example of regional good practice to policy-makers from other regions:

No Organisation(s) responsible General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT)

Support measure

ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA Region Sterea Ellada NUTS Code GR24

Support Measure

Title of measure Innovation Vouchers for SMEs

Full title

Duration

From: 2009 To: 2013 Policy objectives 2.2.2. Knowledge Transfer

Presentation of the measure

This measure was launched in order to increase technology transfer from public research organisations to SMEs, with limited RTDI activities that rarely collaborate with public or other organisations in order to develop innovations. Moreover this measure aims at increasing awareness on the existing opportunities and benefits to SMEs, since the organisation structure is simple and procedures are automated, so that no red tape will inhibit their participation. At the same time the measure aims at increasing the linkages of the public research system, i.e of universities and public research centers with the private sector. For the region of Sterea Ellada 131 SMEs are expected to benefit from the measure. The public funds allocated to the region amount to €917,000. The scheme aims at supporting (a) SMEs of the manufacturing sector, software industry and research and development firms, in buying innovative consulting services and knowhow from innovation agents and (b) the public laboratories of universities, technological colleges, research centres and institutes and "sectoral" companies as suppliers of services of high added value and knowledge intensity.

Keywords

Small and medium-sized enterprises Innovation vouchers Budget, source and type of funding Currency: EUR

Source of funding 2010 2011 2012 2013 National public funds 57,313 57,313 57,313 57,313 Regional public funds EU Structural funds 171,938171,938171,938171,938 Private funds Other Form of funding provided Grants Policy learning

Extent to which the measure can be considered as a success and worthy of policy learning

It is too early to judge the success of the measure (e.g results of first call for proposals still not known).

Evidence of outcomes based on evaluation and other evidence n/a

Do's and Don'ts

Stakeholders interested in launching measures in support of innovation should avoid creating significant delays in evaluating the proposals and ensure that regional authorities are closely involved during the design stage.

This measure is recommended as an example of regional good practice to policy-makers from other regions:

No Organisation(s) responsible General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT)

Support measure

ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA Region Sterea Ellada NUTS Code GR24

Support Measure

Title of measure Support Group of SME’s in their research and development activities

Full title

&

Duration

From: 2009 To: 2013 Policy objectives 2.2.3. R&D cooperation 2.3.1. Direct support of business R&D (grants and loans)

Presentation of the measure

The basic objective of this measure is to support groups of established SMEs to undertake R&D activities in collaboration with R&D performers irrespectively of their sector of economic activity, which can be in traditional or high technology fields, or of their ability to perform in-house part of their research. The rationale behind this approach is the identified isolation and weak linkages of Greek firms with other actors of the National Innovation System. Since SMEs are the backbone of the economy, supporting networking and collaboration in RTDI projects is expected to boost their competitiveness. In the context of the measure, as R&D performers are regarded public research centres, higher education institutes and sectoral or specialised R&D firms. Moreover, in cases where SMEs belong to the same sector, the participation of representative bodies of the specific industry is encouraged so that results can be diffused to a wider number of firms. Eligible for funding are industrial research and experimental development projects in ICT, food - biotechnology, advanced materials - nanotechnology - microelectronics, energy, transport, environment, health, space & security technologies and cultural inheritance. Costs covered by the measure include personnel costs of researchers and technicians, expenditure on instruments and equipment, subcontracting of research activities, technology and knowhow acquisition and operational costs. Keywords

Science-industry cooperation Applied business research Public-private partnership Budget, source and type of funding Currency: EUR

Source of funding 2010 2011 2012 2013 National public funds 231,250231,250231,250231,250 Regional public funds EU Structural funds 693,750693,750693,750693,750 Private funds Other Form of funding provided Grants Policy learning

Extent to which the measure can be considered as a success and worthy of policy learning

It is too early to judge the success of the measure (e.g results of first call for proposals still not known).

Evidence of outcomes based on evaluation and other evidence n/a

Do's and Don'ts

Stakeholders interested in launching measures in support of innovation should avoid creating significant delays in evaluating the proposals and ensure that regional authorities are closely involved during the design stage.

This measure is recommended as an example of regional good practice to policy-makers from other regions:

No Organisation(s) responsible General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT)

Policy document

ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA Region Sterea Ellada NUTS Code GR24

Policy Document

Regional Operational Programme of Thessaly, Central Greece and Epirus 2007-2013

2007-2013

Organisation responsible

Region of Sterea Ellada Content

Regional Operational Programmes (ROPs) are the major tools available to regional authorities in order to implement not only their RTDI strategy, but also their overall development strategies. Consequently the Thessaly, Central Greece and Epirus ROP 2007-2013 ROP 2007-2013 provides a thorough picture of the RTDI policy framework for the Region. One of the pillars of regional RTDI policy of Sterea Ellada is the establishment of a Regional Innovation Pole and of a "one stop shop" information service for RTDI issues. In addition, the regional authorities aim at upgrading and restructuring the regional productive base by shifting it to higher value added segments. This policy objective will be supported through measures promoting the creation of startups and spin-offs in technology and knowledge intensive economic sectors and the establishment of collaborative knowledge intensive clusters in monothematic or cross-disciplinary areas. Moreover, regional firms will be supported in order to participate in bilateral or multilateral R&D projects. Particular attention will be also give in attracting researchers in the region and to the creation of incubators. Year of publication

2007

Link to website

Link: http://www.espa.gr/elibrary/Summary_of_OP_Thessaly_Mainland% ...

Organisation

ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA Region Sterea Ellada NUTS Code GR24

Organisation

Regional Development Fund of the Region of Sterea Ellada

Tsirimokou 1 Lamia, 35100 Mission The Regional Development Fund of Sterea Ellada (RDF-SE) is supervised by the Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and Decentralisation. Its main mission is the the management of financing pertaining to the Public Investment Programme (P.I.P.); the management of government financing and the administration of appropriations regarding European Committee Programmes. Moreover, the RDF is responsible for the provision of Technical Assistance to the Region, which implies the elaboration of studies and surveys as well as the implementation of programmes. Its role also extends to the imposition, assessment and collection of charges, fees, dues, levies and contributions on behalf of the Fund upon the Regional Council's approval. Activities The RDF is administered by a Management Board (MB) and its President. The MB's tenure of office is four years. The RDF is structured around four departments, namely the (a) Department of Financial Management of Investment Programmes, the (b) Department of Scientific-technical assistance and Implementation of Programmes, the (c) Department of Financial Services and the (d) Department of Administration Services. The main activity of the Regional Development Fund is the Preparation of the Annual Regional Public Investment Program (ARPIP) and of the budgets of other development programmes implemented in the Region. Moreover the RDF has the responsibility of monitoring the financial progress of the ARPIP's, the performance of contracts and programmes, for which it compiles regular financial progress reports. At the same time the RDF cooperates with the competent authorities for the transfer of the necessary credits/appropriations to the Fund, for the financing of the ARPIP. Apart from managing the financial flows for the development programmes implemented in the region, the RDF also provides of scientific and technical assistance to the Region, and particularly for the elaboration of studies-surveys and programmes for the most expedient utilisation of resources. In addition, the RDF operates also as node for documentation and statistics of the surveys concerning the region. The revenues of the RDF of Sterea Ellada come from, the apportionment of the financings managed by the Fund, the imposition of fees and contributions, the revenue (remuneration) from the participation in European Committee Programmes, the revenue (remuneration) from the rendering of services, the performance of contracts and the elaboration of studies and programmes and from subsidies, donations and legacies.

Organisation

ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA Region Sterea Ellada NUTS Code GR24

Organisation

Intermediate Managing Authority (IMA) of Mainland Greece () Link: http://www.thessalia-stereaellada-hpeiros.gr/en/Pages/EDAStereas_Elladas.aspx 12 Ypsilantou str Lamia, 351 00 Mission The Intermediate Managing Authority (IMA) of the region of Mainland Greece is monitored directly by the General Secretary of the Region. It was originally established as a unit within the administrative structure of the Region, in order to amend the inefficiencies of the regional administration related to the management of the Structural Funds. During the third Programming period these units became operationally independent. It role is to manage and monitor all measures carried out within the administrative boundaries of Mainland Greece over the Programming Period 2007-2013 and funded by the Structural Funds. Namely it is responsible for the management of the Regional Operational Programme of Thessaly - Mainland Greece - Epirus 2007-2013. Moreover it is responsible for the management of specific actions implemented in the region in the context of Sectoral Operation Programmes of the National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013, ceded to the IMA. Activities The 13 IMA's of the regions of Greece have the same organisational structure and are consisted of four Units. 1. Programming and Evaluation Unit 2. Monitoring and Management of measures Unit 3. Unit of field audit 4. Organisation - Support Unit The key activities of these units are related to the management of the ROP, namely the selection of actions and measures that are eligible for funding based on the ROP criteria and the monitoring, control and evaluation of projects and actions funded in the context of Operational Programmes. Moreover, they are responsible for ensuring the compliance of the co-funded actions and measures by the Structural Funds with the National and Community regulations. They have also an overall responsibility to monitor the ROP axes relevant to the region and collaborate with the National Coordination Authority for drafting annual progress reports, for the evaluation of the ROP and for taking the necessary steps for applying the evaluation outcomes and suggestions, through the revision of the ROP. Currently, the IMA of the region of Mainland Greece is preparing a series of technical studies that will lead to measures regarding the protection of the environment, the promotion of green innovation and also the establishment of a Regional Innovation Pole in order to boost competitiveness of the region.

Organisation

ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA Region Sterea Ellada NUTS Code GR24

Organisation

Region of Sterea Ellada

Link: http://www.stereaellada-region.com/en_default.asp Ipsilandi 14 Lamia, 35100 Mission The Region of Sterea Ellada (RSE) is a self contained administrative unit of the public administration with jurisdictions and competences regarding the design, programming, coordination and implementation of policies for the economic, social and cultural development of the region. Consequently the RSE can be considered the executive body of the regional administration as well as the representative of the central government in the region. Within this context, it is responsible for the elaboration, programming and management of development strategies for the Region, including those co funded by the structural funds as articulated within the Regional Operational Programmes. Activities The key activities and competences of the region include mainly the regional economic and social development and the vertical coordination of central government's economic policies. More specifically the responsibilities of the Region of Sterea Ellada are the programming and implementation of policies regarding the economic, social and cultural development of the region, including RTDI actions co-funded by the Structural Funds. In addition, the Region is responsible for the management and implementation of projects and initiatives with exclusively regional dimension such as transportation and ICT infrastructures, urban planning and environment, commerce, tourism and employment, natural resources, energy and industry. Moreover, during the 2000-2006 programming period regional councils were encouraged to draw up, within the national policy framework, measures to support innovation and R&D in their Regional Operational Programmes. Due to the low capacity of Regions to design their own RDTI policies, over the current programming period (2007-2013), RTDI policy design was once again centralised. However, the newly elected government is planning once again to cede RTDI policy design to the regions.

Appendix D Statistical data

Sterea Ellada Sterea Ellada Sterea Ellada (GR24) (GR24) (GR24) EU27 2000 or Indicator around Previous year Most recent Most recent GDP per capita (PPP) 19200 24300 25100 25100 2000 2007 2008 2008 Change in GDP per capita 0.19 4.36 3.96 3.73 2000-03 2006-07 2005-08 2005-08 Unemployment rate 9.05 7.525 8.3 6.98 2000-03 2006-09 2007-10 2007-10 Change in unemployment rate -1.95 0.00 -0.78 -0.30 2000-03 2006-09 2007-10 2007-10 Tertiary education 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.30 2000 2009 2010 2010 Government R&D expenditure 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.24 2001 2005 2005 2008 Non-R&D innovation exp. ------0.41 ------2006 Patents per mln population 4.2 1.2 1.2 115.1 2001 2005 2005 2006 Business R&D expenditure 0.16 0.13 0.13 1.21 1999 2005 2005 2008 Higher education R&D expenditure -- 0.01 0.01 0.44 -- 2005 2005 2008 Source: Eurostat and Community Innovation Survey

24 Regional Innovation Monitor

Technopolis Belgium Avenue de Tervuren 12 B‐1040 Brussels Belgium T +32 2 737 74 40 F +32 2 727 74 49 E info.be@technopolis‐group.com www.technopolis‐group.com