4.1.7.3 and transfer

The primary goal of these investments is to exploit public activities in order to support firms with their innovation process. The budget allocation for ITT (Innovation and Technology Transfer) activities are quite substantial (estimated 367 MECU=14%). This does not include investments in CSF- funded TTI-infrastructure (Technology Transfer Centres, Technology Parks) to host and support new technology based firms (NTBF).

Creation of co-operation and partnerships between the public and private sector through joint public-private research is a main mechanism for stimulation of innovation and technology transfer. A second type of ITT- measures is the provision of competent (public and private) support services to industry in the field of innovation and product and process development. Some good examples can be seen in the Netherlands and the New German Länder.

In some of the countries support for innovation and technology transfer is well organised and seems to contribute to regional . This regards specifically Finland, Ireland, UK and Sweden. In other countries the support is still developing (Spain), has gaps (Austria), is fragmented (Italy) or receives insufficient attention (Greece).

In Austria, a technology centre (TCE) was funded, housing a number of small new technology based firms and providing support to them (incubator centre). In Belgium, several (5) measures are directed at innovation and technology transfer. The most successful measure to support innovation is a grant scheme (Rdplus). Two measures were directed at creating intermediate organisations to create joint public /private R&D projects. These projects seem to be successful, they resulted in more than 600 projects. Furthermore, a scientific adventure park is being established that might in the long run have an indirect effect on innovation.

In Finland, innovation and technology transfer is an element of many of the measures. Specific initiatives in this area are the development of the design park project, directly aimed at co-operation between public research and industry, and the joint projects, carried out by the 6 polytechnical schools in the region. These measures are considered to be successful.

In France, innovation and technology transfer are generally supported through support of existing organisations such as CRITT (research centres network). Technology transfer and innovation are supported through co-operation of these institutes with industry.

In Greece, most regions don’t have significant innovation and technology transfer activities. This specifically pertains to Southern Aegean, Northern Aegean, Ionian Islands, Eastern Macedonia and Western Greece. In some of these regions however, technology transfer activities are taking place due to participation in the EPET programme. In Epirus and Crete, activities in the area of innovation and technology transfer are slowly emerging, with varying success. Particularly in Crete, activities seem to be rather ineffective. Attica,

96 due to the proximity of Athens, is well served by the support structures for innovation and technology transfer of Athens

In Ireland, there are comprehensive schemes supporting innovation initiatives and they compare well with international best practice in respect of RTDI support. The Funds were particularly used to reinforce the technology centres and PAT’s. Furthermore, a pilot scheme was launched to encourage networking between SME’s. Support for product and process development and for provision of industry support services are strong. Collaborative research and company training schemes are in operation.

In Italy, support for innovation and technology transfer under the multiregional programme is particularly given by the measure that funds RTDI projects of the technology parks. However, most of the technology parks are not yet operational and the measure is not yet bearing fruit. Some regional programmes also dedicate measures to innovation and technology transfer but their impact is not high, sometimes because the measures have not yet been implemented, sometimes because they particularly relate to large companies and not to SME’s, sometimes because the measure itself is not successful. In Abruzzo, laboratories for support of industries are built and an unsuccessful demonstration programme to demonstrate innovative projects was launched. In Calabria little support for innovation and technology transfer is given yet, however the regional administration understands the importance. In Campania, the regional programme supports joint public-private RTDI- projects. In Puglia specific measures are directed at innovation (7.4.1) and technology transfer (7.4.2, 7.4.3). However, these measures have not started. In Sardegna, technology transfer is increasingly strong between and a small group of high tech companies. The support to SME’s in the area of innovation and technology transfer is still at a low level. In 1997 a meeting was organised where SME’s and organisations of the supply side could meet. In Sicily, technology transfer is particularly developed between and a limited number of large companies. Under the regional programme, several measures are directed at innovation and technology transfer, however, the measures have not been implemented sofar.

In Portugal, innovation and technology are stimulated under the PEDIP and the PRAXIS programme. No support is given on a regional level. Approximately 74% of the funds of the RTD-oriented measures of PEDIP programme are destined for innovation and technology transfer. The relevant PEDIP measures fund demonstration projects (successful), joint public-private research projects, mobilising projects (consortium research projects between public research and industries) and a measure to support the creation of a market for public research institutes. The latter measure was a failure.

In Spain, in general support for innovation and technology transfer is not very well developed. In most of the regions the OTRI’s (agencies for technology transfer, located near universities) are being strengthened and a programme of CICYT for promotion of RTDI enjoys a good participation and is a major driver of technology transfer. Nevertheless, generally university research is performed without a clear view of industry’s needs. In Andalusia, two technology parks with European innovation centres projects, stimulate technology transfer. Asturias Asturias, Canary Islands, Cantabria and Castilla

97 la Mancha regional activities on innovation support and technology transfer are very limited. In Extremadura, support for innovation and technology transfer is recognised as important and technology centres are investing in such services. In Galicia a technology transfer organisation at the University of Santiago de Compostella was created, and two centres of innovation and services (CIS) were established (one for wood, one for design and technology). These offer a range of services to industry. In Murcia, support for innovation and technology transfer is strengthened through the Institute for Regional Promotion (IFR) through an innovation relay centre and a series of technology centres. In Valencia, support for innovation and technology transfer is limited. OTRI’s in Valencia don’t seem to work very well. Recently a spin off programme was launched, universities have programmes to stimulate graduates to start their own ,

In Sweden, innovation and technology transfer receive ample attention. Each of the RTDI-related projects needs a plan on how to transfer the results. Innovation and technology transfer are predominantly stimulated through public-private partnerships, mostly in the area of woodprocessing. There is only one innovation centre, with limited activities. There are no programmes for spin offs or start ups.

In the UK, support services for innovation and technology transfer are well developed. In Northern Ireland, a wide range of instruments exists, supporting innovation and technology transfer. Particularly TCS (Teaching Companies Scheme, graduate placement in industry) is acknowledged to be a successful scheme, participation is not very high (less than 100). The programme ‘Manufacturing Technology Partnership’ is aimed at micro-enterprises but is a small programme. SME’s in Northern Ireland have stated that they find access to the support structures difficult. In Merseyside, most of the measures have an innovation support function or a technology transfer component. Specific initiatives: the university of Liverpool provides various services to industry such as Internet training and PIDC (Product Information and Design Centre, that offers integrated programmes of technology transfer and training in product design and development). Furthermore, a laser engineering project offers advice and facilities to help local SME’s to set up and / or develop laser processes.

4.1.7.4 Management and implementation processes

For the relevant regions (with RTDI in their regional programme) management processes were assessed on five aspects: • is management in general considered satisfactory? • is the legal framework satisfactory? Is the legal mandate for the institutions and the programmes involved properly specified in laws and regulations? • Is the institutional framework satisfactory? Specific attention is given to whether there is an appropriate organisation, with sufficient expertise and adequately staffed, that is able to implement the measures in a competent way.

98 • Is the efficiency satisfactory? Main questions are: are there competitive selection processes, is there openness and transparency, are there appropriate evaluation procedures, are response times acceptable? • Is there a separation between policy and policy delivery? Attention is given to whether policy delivery organisations are able to implement the measures in a continuous and stable way.

The management and implementation processes in Austria’s Burgenland are satisfactory. The management is in the hands of a dedicated organisation (WIBAG), an effective organisation, owned by regional and run on a professional basis.

In Belgium, management and implementation processes are satisfactory. There is a separate unit within the regional administration of Wallonie dealing with the Objective 1 programme. A shortcoming is that management doesn’t take place at the regional level (Hainaut) but is done by Wallonie (comprising more regions than just Hainaut).

In Finland, management of the measures is spread between various organisations. On the level of individual measures, the implementation of the programme seems to work quite well. The programme as a whole however seems to lack coherence, a need is felt for a more concerted approach of RTDI with strong co-ordination.

In Germany’s Mecklenburg the institutional framework did not change after the reunification, with serious effects on quality of policy delivery system. The range of programmes offered is antiquated, compared to other East German states. In Thuringia, management is provided by the Thuringian Aufbaubank, in Saxony of Saxonian aufbaubank, both professional organisations. In Thuringia, regional administration has improved administrative processes after some initial problems.

In Greece, RTDI programmes under the Funds are to be found in 5 regions and in the national programme. The other regions do not have specific RTDI- related programmes. Except for Attica, in all regions management processes could be improved.

• A proper legal framework only exists at national level and in Epirus. In other regions, the inadequate legal framework leads to disputes between competencies of national and regional levels. • The institutional framework particularly encounters problems in Crete and Thessaly. The implementation unit of Crete is understaffed and lacks skills. • Efficiency of implementation is especially low in Thessaly. Too many organisations are involved, with partly antagonistic visions. • the desirable separation between policy and implementation is only present in Attica and in Central Macedonia

In Ireland, a new structure was set up. Compared to 1989/93 period, the project approval process was streamlined. A change from cueing to tendering has been implemented. This provided greater transparency. In the new

99 management, project selection is more rigorous. Formal programme evaluations have a visible impact and influence administration and direction of measures. As a result, the quality of funded proposals has risen visibly and demand for funding from industry R&D particularly by first time performers, has increased. The management and implementation processes are generally satisfactory, although delays in implementation have occurred and criticism was made regarding the absence of ex ante project appraisal.

In Italy, the management and implementation processes generally are a bottleneck. Many regional lack know-how, experience or are understaffed and in many regions the political problems have severely delayed the programmes. The problems are indicated by low absorption rates. At national level the programme for industrial R&D (2.2) has a big delay (no payments have been made so far), the programme on technology parks has stagnated. At national level, two aspects seem to be important in this respect. Firstly, Italy lacks an organisation dedicated to policy delivery. The grant schemes are basically operated by the Ministry, with the aid of commercial banks and public research experts for assessment. Secondly, in Italy, the legal system was not suited for proper fund management. The grant schemes were tendered on the basis of laws that were not appropriate. The improvement of this legal basis still needs to be finalised. On the regional level, many of the Italian regions seem to lack expertise and resources for proper fund management. Finally, in Italy there is a lack of co-ordination between national and regional programmes.

• In Abruzzo doubts exist regarding transparency. There are delays in payments of grants, caused by numerous procedures, but under RIS programmes, an analysis is being made of administrative procedures • In Basilicata and Calabria the implementation of the RTDI measure is spread over various offices. Generally it is acknowledged that the regional administration lacks experience and specific knowledge of RTDI matters. The regional administration of Calabria hired external agencies for technical assistance. Furthermore, due to the inadequate separation of policy and implementation, in both regions the implementation of the regional programme was blocked due to political problems. • In Campania, the administrative processes have been improved strongly. Still existing problems are the understaffing of the office and the limited of the implementation office. • In Molise, political problems delayed the implementation strongly. Also the lack of knowledge of how to use RTDI for regional economic development seems to be a bottleneck. • In Puglia, most of the measures have not been implemented so far, due to antagonistic views of actors in the RTDI-scene. • In Sardegna, the policy delivery system is quite effective, implementation of the measures is satisfactory. A regional programming centre ensures co-ordination. Regional officials are competent. • In Sicily, there is no clear management and co-ordination of the various measures, the impression is that there is not an adequate management.

100 Due to political changes, large delays occurred regarding the implementation of several measures.

In Flevoland, the Netherlands, the implementation is generally satisfactory, however in the past improvements were blocked by a lack of expertise and a lack of decisiveness at management level. Also separation between policy and policy delivery seems to have been absent in some cases. Measures have been taken to improve this situation.

In Portugal, management and implementation processes all take place on a national level. PEDIP is a well regarded programme and is efficiently managed, though delays are a source of complaint. On the other hand, there are major problems with the organisation and management of PRAXIS. Further, the connections and between both programmes needs to be developed further.

In Spain, at national level as well as at regional level there is a lack of co- ordination between departments supporting public research and departments supporting industry. In Cantabria, implementation of RTDI measures is relatively young. Specific bottlenecks in Cantabria and Castilla la Mancha occur regarding regional co-operation between actors. In Castilla y Leon, management structures are being improved, giving attention to separation between policy making (Junta) and implementation (Ade). In Galicia and Murcia, co-ordination and co-operation between management bodies could be improved. In Murcia, although the implementation in general is satisfactory, delays have occurred in the approval of projects. In Valencia, implementation of the programmes was significantly delayed, resulting in financial difficulties of beneficiaries.

In Sweden management and implementation processes in general are without problems.

In the UK in Northern Ireland, Merseyside and the Highlands in general the RTDI schemes seem well managed, without particular problems. In many regions the following problems are common: • absence of organisations dedicated to implement the measures (Italy at national level) • insufficient independence of the policy delivery system: political instabilities prevent programmes and measures to be implemented (Sicily, Puglia). Political changes cause programmatic shifts and a comprehensive re- focusing on funding priorities, accompanied by delaying approval mechanisms and time-consuming de-blocking procedures. • insufficient expertise of regional management organisations (e.g. many Italian regions) • insufficient resources for fund management • inadequate instruments for fund management, specifically the legal framework and procedures needed for the implementation • Lack of co-ordination between national and regional actors.

101 4.1.7.5 Learning and interaction

RTDI measures under the Funds should promote interaction between actors of the regional RTDI system (particularly industry, Higher research, research institutes, policy makers in the area of RTDI and industry). Such interaction could have the shape of initiatives to set up regional development plans, regional Innovation strategies etc (e.g. under the RIS, RITTS programmes).

In many countries the gap between public research and industry is still large. Schemes for joint public/private research create the desired interaction. Examples of successful schemes are the Spanish Fomento, the Finnish scheme for public/private research at the polytechnical schools

Many regions (Spain, Netherlands, Finland, Ireland) have developed or are in the process of developing regional RTDI strategies. Many of the Spanish regions are in the process of developing regional innovation strategies. For many regions, this is a valued learning process.

In Ireland university-industry interaction is strong, supported by the Programmes in Advanced Technology and the regional technology centres.

4.1.7.6 Policy development and coherence

In Burgenland’s Austria there is a long term plan for RTDI and the region has clear ideas regarding the future. In Belgium policy for Hainaut is part of the policy for Wallonie. The region has a regional technology plan. In Finland regional policy is based on a long tradition and hence is well developed. The current objective 6 programme for RTDI is a continuation of previous policies. A need is felt for improvement of the present programme, especially regarding coherence. In France in the three regions regional planning forms an entity and RTDI is well embedded in it. In Germany, is particularly well developed in East Berlin. In many other lander, existing regional RTDI policies seem to need renovation. General comments are the emphasis on precompetitive projects and the insufficient support for SME’s. In Italy most regions do not avail of a regional technology plan. The RTDI policy in most regions is heavily focused on the supply side (universities and research institutes). In the Netherlands a regional technology plan was developed. This plan has provided some orientation but is not yet used as the cornerstone for technology policy. In Spain almost all regions have a technology plan or flanking programmes (e.g. science plan). For example, Asturias has developed a regional research plan, in the Canary Islands strategic innovation plan is being developed as basis for regional research plan, Castilla y Leon just developed a technology policy. Most of the policies need to shift attention towards industry and technology transfer, since they are too much focused on public research and capacity building. In Portugal, none of the regions has a regional technology plan. On the national level, innovation and technology development appear to have lost focus and priority. In Sweden, the objective 6 programme has enabled the region to develop a regional RTDI policy. In the UK, technology policy is fairly well developed and mature.

102 4.1.7.7 Impacts on Framework Programme participation

While a small number of very high technology regions dominate the technological landscape of the EU, some 8 Objective 1 regions are among the top Framework Programme participants, for example, Ireland, Crete, Central Macedonia, Athens, and Lisbon and Tagus Valley, and have maintained strong levels of participation in both the Framework 3 and Framework 4. Overall, the data shows that Objective 1 regions have marginally improved their levels of participation between Framework 3 and 4, both as regards the number of participations (now 12%), their overall budget share (now 9%) and the budget share of the enterprise sector (now 7%) in these regions. The latter is and encouraging development. See also Tables 4.2.2 and 4.2.7 in Chapter 4 Section 4.2.

The overall picture for Objective 1 participation is dominated by public sector agencies - universities and research centres - (74%) of the total for the 4th Framework Programme in Objective 1 regions, while the share of the enterprise sector declined from 37% in the 3rd Programme to 31% in the 4th. Table 4.1.3

Table 4.1.3 Composition of Framework Programme Participation Objective 1 Regions Participant Type Framework 3 Framework 4 Small enterprise 23% 19% Large enterprise 14% 12% Education sector 36% 41% Research centres 25% 23% Other 2% 5% Source: Second European Report on R&D Indicators 1997 Also, the average size of contract going to Objective 1 regions between the two Framework Programmes has declined. The Objective 1 regions get smaller contracts than other regions and that this situation has become more severe between Framework 3 and Framework 4.

All the four cohesion countries are participating at a level well above what might be anticipated, given their internal scientific strengths, especially Greece and Spain. The evidence also shows that Objective 1 regions collaborate with non-objective 1 regions. On the other hand Objective 1 regions do not tend to collaborate intensively with each other. This is positive and means that the Objective 1 centres of research are linking with the strong centres outside of these regions. Because of its transnational approach, the Framework Programme and its related processes are helping to improve the quality and management of R&D in Objective 1 and 6 regions.

103