governance in transnational metropolitan areas ... · the solution of this dilemma can be thought...

Governance in Transnational Metropolitan Areas

Documentation of the centrope Policy Seminar

Brussels, 13 November 2012

A Programme Policy Seminar Governance in Transnational Metropolitan Areas – The case of centrope

Brussels, 13 November 2012, 10.00 – 16.00

Wien-Haus ● EU Liaison Office of the City of Vienna ● Avenue de Tervueren 58, Brussels

Reflecting the first ten years of transnational cooperation in the centrope region at the

interface of Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and the Slovakia, the centrope policy

seminar dealt with different aspects of multi-level governance: Models of institutional

governance, the EU structural framework for transnational cooperation and the development

of transnational regions in public-private partnership were discussed with representatives from

the centrope region, other transnational regions and the European Commission.

Welcome and Introduction

Karl-Heinz Lambertz, President of Association of European Border Regions

Part 1 Transnational cooperation in polycentric metropolitan areas.

Lessons from the centrope region – achievements, best practices, flaws

Kurt Puchinger, representative of centrope capacity Lead Partner Vienna

František Kubeš, City of Brno, Office for City Strategy

Johannes Lutter, centrope capacity Project Coordinator

Reflections by peer exchange initiatives partners from

Euregio Meuse-Rhine: Björn Koopmans, Stichting Euregio Maas-Rhein

Grande Region: Jean Claude Sinner, Ministry for Regional Development and

Infrastructure, Luxemburg

Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai: Stef Vande Meulebroucke, Agence de

l'Eurométropole

Documentation Policy Seminar.docx 1

Part 2 EU structural framework for transnational cooperation

EGTC in practice – a suitable model for transnational governance?

Stef Vande Meulebroucke, Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai

Jean Claude Sinner, Grande Region

Responses by the European Commission

Michael Ralph, Adviser to the Deputy Director-General DG REGIO

Making the most of ERDF funding – experiences of the Euregio Meuse-Rhine,

INTERREG – EMR

Björn Koopmans, Euregio Meuse-Rhine

Towards integrated territorial development in complex transnational regions – a

centrope perspective on the 2014-2020

programme period

Alexander Wolffhardt, centrope Coordination Office

Responses by the European Commission

Michael Ralph, Adviser to the Deputy Director-General DG REGIO

Part 3 Developing transnational metropolitan regions in public-private partnership

Public and private stakeholders in interaction.

Developing effective strategies and translating them into activities

Richard Schmitz, Vice-President Chamber of Industry and Commerce

Karlsruhe and former Director of Brenner's Park-Hotel & Spa, Baden-Baden

and Jürgen Oser, Regional Council Freiburg, cross-border cooperation and

European Affairs

Ann-Sofie Andersson, Medicon Valley Alliance, Öresund Region

Ralf Meyer, Regional development agency for the Technology Region Aachen

(ELAt Eindhoven Leuven Aachen-triangle)


B Key issues raised in the debate

Multi-stakeholder involvement is essential for success: Next to the initiating public

authorities (regions, cities) the national level, civil society and the market place must

equally become engaged in the development of cross-border regions.

No ideal model exists for the development of cooperation structures and each region must

find its own way; however, comprehensive stakeholder involvement at the earliest possible

stage seems indispensable.

Trans-boundary cooperation is best conceived as supporting a process of metropolisation

in polycentric regions, including a new approach to urban planning for metropolisation.

Political commitment needs to be maintained beyond the initiating stage throughout the

whole process. Primary goal of lobbying efforts must be the partner regions themselves, in

order to keep them on board.

The implementation of development strategies, future visions and the like is the actual

testing ground for sustainability, regardless of the energy that may have flown into the

process of formulating such strategies.

Also in multilateral (three-country, four-country) cross-border regions most problems to be

solved are essentially bilateral and a matter for only some of the partners – multilateral

frameworks must allow for such “cooperation within the cooperation”.


C Appendix: Presentations

Transnational cooperation in polycentric metropolitan areas. Lessons from the

centrope region – achievements, best practices, flaws

Kurt Puchinger, Transnational Cooperation in polycentric metropolitan areas. Lessons from

the centrope Region I

Johannes Lutter & František Kubeš, Transnational Cooperation in polycentric metropolitan

areas. Lessons from the centrope Region II

EU structural framework for transnational cooperation

Stef Vande Meulebroucke, Eurometropolis Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai & its strategic program

2014-2020: A metropolitan and territorial crossborder strategy

Jean Claude Sinner, EGTC Secretariat of the Summit of the Greater Region

Björn Koopmans, Making the most of ERDF funding: experiences of the EMR

Alexander Wolffhardt, Integrated territorial development: A centrope perspective

on the 2014-2020 programme period

Michael Ralph, Cohesion Policy 2014-2020: Territorial Cooperation and Territorial

Development

Developing transnational metropolitan regions in public-private partnership

Richard Schmitz & Jürgen Oser Public and private stakeholders in interaction:

The Tri-National Metropolitan Region of the Upper-Rhine

Ann-Sofie Andersson, Medicon Valley Alliance: Creating Opportunities

Ralf Meyer, Towards a Technological Top Region: A cross-border "smart specialisation

strategy" for Southern Netherlands – Eastern Belgium – Western North-Rhine-Westphalia


Transnational Cooperation in polycentric metropolitan areas. Lessons from the Centrope Region

Brüssel Wien-Haus 13.11.2012-10-30 Konz./Pu

1. Within the framework of the overall theme of our conference, I want to talk about two issues:

2. Governance and Sustainability without subsidies

But before going more into detail, let me remind you of some factors in the history of CENTROPE.

It was politically initiated in 2003 as a statement for cooperation between regions of Member States and non Member States. Since 2004, after the extension of the EU, it was a cooperation project between regions of an old MS and regions of new MS, living with a high dynamic of changes in administrative structures and the related persons in the new MS and a Schengen Border in between. Since 1st May 2011, when the labour market regulations in Austria finally ended, we can say we had at the first time working conditions on eye-level since then, for one and a half year. So, I think we have to relate our “lessons learned” to these changing situations.

Talking about governance first of all needs a “reality check” about the nature of CENTROPE and the abilities of the stakeholders involved. CENTROPE started, as already mentioned, with a political “big bang” to initiate a cooperation process, using EU subsidies for a process-supporting multilateral INTERREG project.

The main question seems to be, what can regional authorities of different states directly contribute to the development of such a process, which aims at the general promotion of prosperity and quality of life?

We know that at least two things are possible:

- actions with a positive, harmonising impact at the framework-conditions for projects of the civil society and the business world, as far as there is formal competence available, and

- offering services, which can support and motivate national stakeholders, the business sector and the civil society to cooperate in reaching public goals, trying to facilitate a series of win-win situations.

Principally there is an unlimited potential for actions in the second field, and a very limited potential in the first one, because of different constitutional situations in the countries. The City of Vienna e.g. is member of the Conference of European Regions with Legislative Power. There is no similar situation in the rest of the CENTROPE region.

This seems to be a general limitation for cross-border cooperation projects, unfortunately in the core business of regional authorities, which has a crucial interface with the issue of “sustainability” of a cooperation project. The solution of this dilemma can be thought twofold:

- inclusion of central decision makers at the national level in the implementation of a regional project, or

- developing of a governance system at regional level for early as possible inclusion of non-governmental stakeholders in the process of regional cooperation.

Experience shows, that the second perspective is promising, because the process and only the process has the potential of sustainability, projects are ending and normally in parallel with the ending of subsidies and the interest of central national units to participate in regional projects is very limited.

So, the orientation at the development of a governance structure to manage a regional cooperation process including public and non-public elements is one of the main lessons learned, but needs as a prerequisite a correct, but also relaxed and robust relation between public authorities and the market, or the civil society, a relation which can be improved in Austria also in a lot of our neighbouring countries and even on European Program level.

So we all know that political commitment to a project, especially when public money is involved, must not be calculated as a stability factor in cross border regional cooperation. It seems to be true, that national public spending for transnational activities needs a very high European political consciousness, needs a political perspective and a long term view concerning the famous “value added”, which is not coming up in form of a successful performance at the next elections on community or regional level within some months.

Learned, that political commitment in this context is a factor of instability, it cannot be the aim to focus activities to reach a stable political ownership of the process. Stability in the ownership of the cooperation process more successfully can be found in the world of the civil society and the private sector, supported continuously by the administration and from time to time by the political sector. That means, that for sustainability reasons the main cost and a big part of ownership has to be sourced out from the public to the private sector, within a governance framework which secures an eye level cooperation between both sides as well as cross border.

We tried to prepare such a structure and procedure and a movement from project to process in the last 18 months of CENTROPE, the only period in the history of the project, where all partners could work on equal terms. And I am very optimistic, that it will work, because with ending of the subsidised project we are free in choosing the composition of stake holders, a freedom which is not given under the ERDF regulations. Mixed partner structures are not very appreciated in ETC projects, but unfortunately this seems to be the only guarantee for sustainability in cross border regional cooperation.

Conclusions

From a professional point of view, based on a lot of experience and some theory like “finding the truth in facts”, cross border regional cooperation has to be understood as an inclusive process, including from the beginning public and private stakeholders.

Subsidised ERDF projects, even excellent designed, should not be misunderstood as the process itself. Projects, if they allow following the inclusion principle, can highly support the development of such a process. Governance structures can be prepared within a project, but must be performed in the real world.

Cooperation needs stakeholders who can take over responsibilities autonomous, without dependence on decisions of a higher level, which is not a direct part of the cooperation process. This is a well known prerequisite of any group dynamic procedure, this is a well known prerequisite since Robert Axelrod published his famous book “The evolution of cooperation” in 1984. He asked the basic question:

“Under what conditions will cooperation emerge in a world of egoists without central authority?”

As long as regional authorities do have only a limited autonomy to decide upon cooperation, the sustainability of a project mainly owned by regional public authorities remains an open question. As argued already earlier, regional cross border cooperation projects and the related subsidy programs should take this into account and should open the opportunity to design projects with a mixed stakeholder structure from the very beginning, if sustainability remains a highly important factor in project proposal evaluation.

And I think it should.

21.11.2012

Centrope Policy Seminar, 13 November 2012, Brussels

Transnational cooperation in polycentric metropolitan areas: Lessons from centrope

Johannes Lutter, centrope capacity project coordinator

František Kubeš City of Brno, Office for City Strategy


1

21.11.2012



50.000

60.000

1995

14.700

10.300 8.300 8.000

12.400 15.800

28.500

14.900

7.600

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

0

GDP per capita at Purchasing Power Parities

2

21.11.2012


GDP per capita at Purchasing Power Parities


3

Political centrope Board

21.11.2012


Factor of success

» High-ranking political commitment


4

21.11.2012

Political commitment


Rotating presidency


5

Financing partners = centrope Steering Committee=


21.11.2012


Factor of success

» Joint financing & implementation


Financing partners centrope Steering Committee

LP PP 2

PP 3

AP AP PP 4

PP 5

PP 6

PP 7

PP 8

PP 9

PP 10

PP 11

PP 12

AP AP

6

21.11.2012

Partner engagement



Factor of success

» Continuity in staff resources

7

Project Steering Committee


21.11.2012


Project Steering Committee

LP PP 2

PP 3

AP AP PP 4

PP 5

PP 6

PP 7

PP 8

PP 9

PP 10

PP 11

PP 12

AP AP

Centrope Office CZ

Centrope Office SK

Joint

centrope agency Thematic Forum Thematic Forum

Knowledge Region Spatial Integration

Joint Managing Directorate Thematic Forum Thematic Forum

Centrope Human Capital Tourism & Culture Office AT Office HU

Centrope

CZ SK

CZ SK

centrope before 2009 centrope after 2009


AT HU

AT HU

8

21.11.2012


Factor of success

» Multi-sectoral approach


Alliance cooperation

Cooperation scheme

Tourism, culture

Labour market education

projects

Labour market, education

Infrastructure, planning

Economy, technology

2008 - 2010 2010 - 2012 2012 - 2015

Basic cooperation

9

21.11.2012


Factor of success

» A transnational perspective

FDI per 1000 inhabitants


Period: 2003 – March 2010

10

Employment rates by age groups in centrope (2010, in %)

95.0


45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

From 15 to 24 years From 25 to 34 years From 35 to 44 years From 45 to 54 years From 55 to 64 years

EU 27 36.1 73.3 76.4 70.9 36.3

CENTROPE 38.5 77.8 85.4 79.9 29.8

25.0

35.0


Development of unemployment rates in centrope (2000-2010, in %)

12,0

10,0

8,0

6,0

4 04,0

EU-27 centrope

2,0

0,0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

21.11.2012

11


Education Structure of the Workforce

100%

15,4 90% 20,0

80%

70%

60% 42,9 62,0 Tertiary Eduation

50% Secondary Education

Low Education 40%

30%

20% 37,1

10% 22,6

0% EU27 CENTROPE


Education levels of immigrants & emigrants

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

64,2

12,7

23,1

47,3

17,3

35,4

53,4

25,0

21,7

High Skilled

Medium Skilled

Low Skilled

Natives Imigrants from rest of the world Emigrants

21.11.2012

12

21.11.2012


Factor of success

» Joint strategy development


13

21.11.2012


Factor of success

» Multi-level dialogue


14

METREX Vienna Autumn Conference, 18 October 2012

21.11.2012


Factor of success

» Develop lobbying power

15

21.11.2012



Factor of success

» Visible results

16

21.11.2012



Factor of success

» Stakeholder mobilisation

17

m

21.11.2012


Strategic cooperation – example Automotive Cluster centrope

Vrchlabi

Martin Kolin

Vrchlabi

Kvasiny

Mladá Boleslav

Trnava

Esztergom

ZilinaNosovice

Bratislava

Szengotthard

Györ

Esztergo


Factor of success

» Awareness

18

21.11.2012

Strategic cooperation Tourism marketing application: www.tourcentrope.eu



19

21.11.2012


www.centrope.com

20

P bli

21/11/2012

Stef Vande Meulebroucke – Directeur général

Eurometropolis Lille – Kortrijk – Tournai & its strategic program 2014-2020 a metropolitan and territorial crossborder strategy

24/10/12

Road

Highway

SecondaryNetwork

Knots and flows

Bus

Cross-Border Infrastructure

New hubs ?

New trains ?

New rails MOVE ?

FEDER ?

New technology ?

Public Transport

Metro/Tram

Train Intercity

New TGV ?

Cross-Border Promotion Services

Tariff integration INTERREG ?

Enhancingpunctuality &

Complementarity ?

Communication & Coordination

COMM ?

EMPL ?

Water …

…

Bike …

…

Boosting & Promoting

WORKINEUROMETROPOLIS

EMTR ?

COMP ?

ESF ?

VISITEUROMETROPOLIS

STUDYINEUROMETROPOLIS EAC ?

SHOPINEUROMETROPOLIS SANCO ?

MARKT ?

Air …

…

EUROMETROPOLIS SUSTAINABLE CROSS BORDER TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

24/10/12 Eurométropole -Eurometropool 2

1

1

States

Etat Etat fédéral Federale Staat

Vlaamse overheid

2

RegionalRégion Nord-Pas de

CalaisWallonie

Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles

3

ProvincialDépartement du Nord

Provincie West Vlaanderen

Province de Hainaut

4

IntermunicipalLille Métropole

Communauté Urbaine

Intercommunale Leiedal

Intercommunale Wvi

Int rcommunale IDETAorganisations

Communauté Urbaine Intercommunale IDETA

Intercommunale IEG

’

21/11/2012

Competence levels involved

competent authorities

Belgium France g

TRAIN National National / Regional

BUS Regional Local

TRAM/METRO No Local

ROAD Regional National

WATERWAY Regional National

CYCLE Regional / Local Regional / Local

AIR Regional / Local Regional / Local

Eurométropole -Eurometropool 24/10/12 3

BT

European Level

-1 States

EL

GO

VE

RN

AN

CE

B o tt o m

u p

T o p

d o w n

-

e

2 Regional

3 Provincial

4 Intermunicipal

MU

LTI-

LE

VE


Mayor s conference Forum of Civil society

2

21/11/2012

a three wheels strategic mecanism


Strategic Program 2014-2020 : objectives

Choosing the fundamental priorities of the Eurometropolis EGTC for the period 2014 2020Eurometropolis EGTC for the period 2014-2020

Articulate at best the UE 2020 strategy with the territorial cross border needs

Once elaborated, the strategy will be the base for making the priorities of the Eurometropolis clear to all representatives of the relevant European Operational Programmes


3

21/11/2012

Strategic Program 2014-2020 : first orientations

• Develop the economic potential of the Eurometropolis

• Renforce InnovEurometropolis & the 4 choosen eurometropolitan topclusters

• Create a (more) integrated cross border labour market

• Strenghten the internal transport and the external accessibility

• Develop the blue and green network as a framework for territorial valuation and attractivity


Eurometropolis 2014-2020

areas with a transversal multiplicator impact :

culture

tourism

energy/climate

health/socio-medical

Develop the economic potential

concentrating on Strenghten Develop the

bl e and green net ork concentrating on

intelligent specialization

and

an integrated cross border labor market

internal transport

and

external accessibility

blue and green network as a

framework for territorial valuation and attractivity


4

21/11/2012

www.eurometropolis.eu


5

21.11.2012

EGTC Secretariat of the Summit of the Greater Region

Jean-Claude Sinner

Jean-Claude Sinner

Ministry for Sustainable Development and Infrastructure

- Spatial Planning Department

1995 – 2009 in charge of cross-border cooperation

Notification Authority for EGTC

( Art. 4 of Reg. 1082/2006 )

1

21.11.2012

The Greater Region

The Greater Region

1 independent MS: Luxembourg

2 German Länder: Saarland and Rheinland-Pfalz

3 Belgian entities: the Walloon Region, the French Speaking Community and the German Speaking Community

4-5 French actors: the State ( Préfecture de Région ) the Conseil Régional de Lorraine the Conseils Généraux Meurthe-et-Moselle and Moselle (and Meuse).

4

2

21.11.2012

Some statistics

Area: 65.400 sq. km

Population: 11,4 million

Density: 173 I/sq. km (from 100 to 409)

Total GDP: 315 billion €

Main problems:

Big economic differences between Luxembourg and di tsurrounding parts;

Cross-border commuting to Luxembourg: over 150,000 p.;

No big cities > Cross-border polycentric metropolitan area

Partners have quite different competences

5

Institutions

Based on an international Agreement from 2005 ( replacing an older one of 1980 )

“Summit of the Greater Region” prepared by a WP of Personal representatives of the Members of the Summit ( Senior Officers ); and thematic and ad-hoc WP;

an Economic and Social Council an Assembly of Parliamentarians, and and and

It is mainly a top-down cooperation

3

21.11.2012

Current management

g y ( y ) managges the whole process:Rotating Presidency ( 2 years ) p

Meetings (chair, logistics and content)

Staffing

Financing

Greater Region has no budget!!!

Need to create a certain continuity, mainly on staff issues

Need to assure a common financing on a permanent basis

7

Objectives on the EGTC

The objective is to be the secretariat of the Summit of the Greater Region

Not a secretariat for the Greater Region

The Greater Region is not the EGTC

Membership is linked to membership in the SSummit

EGTC shall be based in Luxembourg

4

21.11.2012

Administrative Facts

Membership is based on 5 territories as well as funding territories, as well as funding

The Director comes from the Rotation Presidency

Besides that a “gérant” and other staff, including translators

Statutes foresee a current budget

and a project budget

Added value

EGTC is a first stepp

Better transition between the Rotating Presidencies

EGTC is the employer

EGTC assures the financing of the copoperation process

But has no political role

5

21.11.2012

Other EGTC in Luxembourg and the Greater Region

EGTC to manage the Interreg A program «Greater Region” ( the onlyy one in Europpe )( )

EGTC Belval-Alzette: Brownfield regeneration at the French border

EGTC Secretariat of the Summit

EGTC EUKN having only Member States as members

6

Centrope policy seminar 13/11/2012 @ Brussels

Making the most of ERDF funding experiences of the EMR

Björn Koopmans coordinator Euregio Meuse-Rhine

Please note that the views expressed here aren’t necessarily the views of the EMR

Outline presentation

1. Introduction Interreg EMR

2. Reflection 20 years Interreg

3. Perspective 20142020

1. Introduction Interreg EMR

Eligible area

Priorities Budget

Process

BVVh

BZjhZ

EuregioM

aas-RheinEuregioM

euse- RhinEuregioMaas-R ijn

MEU

SE-RHIN MAAS-R

IJN

M

AAS-RHEIN

MEU

SE-RHIN MAAS-R

IJN

M

AAS-RHEIN

Rhein

Maas

Rhein

Meuse

Maa

s

Meuse

INTERREG IV-A programma Euregio Maas-Rijn INTERREG IV-A programme Euregio Meuse-Rhin INTERREG IV-A Programm Euregio Maas-Rhein

GERMAX media Werbeagentur Eligible area

EUREGIO EGDK>C8>:�CDDG9"

7G676CI <ZbZgi"7V`Za AVVgWZZ`

Hdc�Zc�MAAS-RIJN • MAAS-RHEIN • MEUSE-RHIN 7Zhi 7gZj\Za D^ghX]di CjZcZc!�

=âkVgZcWZZ` <ZglZc�Zc� =ZabdcY CZYZglZiiZcOJ>9DDHI"CDDG9"

:^cY]dkZc B^Zgad 9ZjgcZ7G676CI <ZaYgdeKZaY]dkZc

GZjhZa"ADMINISTRATIEVE INDELING · ADMINISTRATIVE GLIEDERUNG · DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE 9Z�B^ZgYZc LVVagZ 6hiZc:ZghZa HdbZgZc7aVYZa =ZZoZ"AZZcYZ

PROVINCIE NOORD-BRABANT KVa`Zch"

7Zg\Z^_` lVVgY 8gVcZcYdcX` CZYZglZZgiR E G I E R U N G S B E Z I R K Hamont- Gd\\Za�Zc G:<>:GJC<H7:O>G@Achel PROVINCIE �CZZg=Vbdci"PROVINCIE 6X]Za =Zni]jnhZc 9zHH:A9DG;Neerpelt

LZZgi B>99:C"Lommel D Ü S S E L D O R F HlVabZcCZZgeZai

AdbbZaOverpelt =VZaZcA>B7JG<ANTWERPEN RoermondBocholt DkZgeZai GdZgbdcY=jchZaEGDK>C8>: 7dX]dai

Maasgouw Wegberg =ZZa I]dgcARRONDISSEMENT Bree Kinrooi Roerdalen 6CIL:GE:C 6GGDC9>HH:B:CI GdZgYVaZc LZ\WZg\BVVh"

Leopoldsburg Hechtel-Eksel Peer Wassenberg =ZX]iZa":`hZa B66H:>@ 7gZZ @^cgdd^ WgVX]i

Maaseik 6bWi"Bdci[dgiKREIS EZZg LVhhZcWZg\Meeuwen- AZdedaYh"Ham MAASEIK Echt-Susteren Wjg\ :X]i"HjhiZgZc @G:>HGruitrode

Erkelenz =Vb BZZjlZc" BVVhZ^ÈGDK>C8>:PROVINCIEBeringen <gjîgdYZ EGDK>C8>:LVaY" Waldfeucht :g`ZaZcoHeinsberg HückelhovenTessenderlo Houthalen 7Zg^c\Zc A>B7JG<REGIO IZhhZcYZgadHelchteren [ZjX]i =Z^chWZg\ =�X`Za]dkZc

=:>CH7:G< Opglabbeek Selfkant De\aVW"

WZZ` A>B7JG<HEINSBERGDilsen-Heusden =dji]VaZc"Stockkem 9âhZc"GangeltZolder As HZa[`Vci7Z\^_cZc" =ZjhYZc"Zonhoven =ZaX]iZgZc Hid``ZbTitz Lummen 6hSittard-Geleen OdaYZgARRONDISSEMENT Y^_` <Vc\Zai Iîo@ZZgWZg\Zc HîiVgY"<ZaZZc9^Zhi HX]ZgeZc]ZjkZa" AjbbZcOnderbanken Geilenkirchen Odc]dkZc7ddgi" IgZbZad 6VghX]di

bZZgWZZ` Maasmechelen LinnichGenk Stein BVVhbZX]ZaZcO^X]Zb DcYZg" <ZâZc`^gX]Zc

WVc`ZcREGIER UNGSBEZIRK 6GGDC9>HH:B:CI A^cc^X]HiZ^c OJ>9"HX]^ccZc <Zc`HASSELT GdihZaVVgHerk-de-Stad =VVX]iÜbach-SchinnenHalen =6HH:AIJülich EGDK>C8>:Brunssum Baes zWVX]"=Zg`"YZ"Palenberg Hasselt 7Z``Zkddgi A>B7JG<I^Zai"L^c\Z 7gjchhjbDiepenbeek ?�a^X]Beek =VaZcweiler EVaZcWZg\ 7VZh"HiVY=dahWZZ`LandgraafZutendaal KA66BH" =VhhZai 9^ZeZcWZZ`KREIS 7ZZÀldenhovenL IMBURG Lanaken AVcY" lZâZg6GGDC9>HH:B:CIHeerlen Niederzier =ZgZciNuth OjiZcYVVa AVcV`Zc@dgiZcV`Zc =ZZgaZc \gVV[7G676CI 6aYZc]dkZcHerzogen-Nieuwerkerken C^ZYZgo^ZgMeerssen =Zgod\Zc"<ZZiWZihA:JK:C rath Alken Voerendaal Alsdorf Inden @dgiZcWZg\ Cji]AZjkZc BZZghhZc gVi]C^ZjlZg`Zg`ZcAjWWZZ`KerkradePROVINCIE <aVWWZZaBilzen @Zg`gVYZHoeselt 6ahYdg[ >cYZc6a`Zc 7âoZc @G:>HValkenburg Maastricht @dgiZhhZb KVa`ZcWjg\ KdZgZcYVVaOdji"Wellen Kortessem 7ZgiZbKREISaan de Geul Merzenich @G:>HVVc�YZ�<ZjaWürselen 7djiZghZb aZZjl BVVhig^X]i 9zG:CARRONDISSEMENT L IMBURG 7^ZgWZZ` LZaaZc =dZhZai BZgoZc^X]Simpelveld L�ghZaZc

Düren H^beZa" 668=:C6GGDC9>HH:B:CIBRABANT G:<>:GJC<H7:O>G@DjY" I^gaZbdci H^ci"Igj^YZc =ZkZgaZZ

kZaYEschweiler Langerwehe 9�gZcSt.-Truiden Nörvenich IZgkjgZcTONGEREN Riemst A^ciZgBorgloon BVg\gViZc :hX]lZâZgEijsden Margraten Gulpen-Wittem 7dg\addc IDC<:G:C G^Zbhi AVc\ZglZ]Z C�gkZc^X] @yAC<jaeZc" G:<>D=jaYZc"

DÜREN LîiZb=dZ\VVgYZcVaals Bassenge WZg\ :^_hYZcTongeren KVVahKreisfreie Stadt Heers Idc\ZgZcStolberg Vettweiß AVcYZc 7VhhZc\Z @gZ^h[gZ^Z�HiVYi

Weilerswist HidaWZg\ 668=:CAachen =ZZghVoeren Herstappe KZiilZ^�Gingelom 6VX]Zc(Provincie Limburg)Visé Kreuzau LZâZghl^hi<^c\Zadb K^h� KdZgZcPlombièresJuprelle Oupeye DahlemOreye =ZghiVeeZLincent @gZjoVj?jegZaaZ DjeZnZ EadbW^�gZh

LZa`ZcgVZYi

Kelmis HürtgenwaldBerloz A^cXZci DgZnZWaremme Crisnée 9V]aZb @Zab^hARRONDISSEMENT 6GGDC9>HH:B:CIEGDK>C8:�9J =�gi\ZclVaYAubel 8g^hc�Z 6jWZaRemicourt LVgZbbZRaeren

DEUTSCH

ARRONDISSEMENT Blégny 7Zgado GVZgZc7G676CI�L6AADC A>:<:ZülpichAwans Ans Herstal Nideggen GZb^Xdjgi 7a�\cnThimister- O�ae^X]<ZZgLontzen 6lVch C^YZ\\ZcAdcioZcGeer Faimes 6ch =ZghiVa=VccjiFexhe-le- Herve Clermont Welkenraedt Hannut I]^b^hiZg";Zm]Z"aZ"

=Vji"8adX]ZgLiège RoetgenDonceel 6GGDC9>HH:B:CIhaut-Clocher Grace- Euskirchen A^�\Z =ZgkZ 8aZgbdciBeyne-

Heusay AACHEN <g}XZ" :jh`^gX]ZcHollogneWAREMME Saint GdZi\Zc9dcXZZa

KÖLN HV^ci"Soumagne ;V^bZh =Z^bWVX]=daad\cZNicolas Eupen L6G:BB: :jeZcHeimbach 7ZncZ" HdjbV\cZC^XdaVhVerlaine KREISDisonWasseiges Braives Flémalle Simmerath Villers-le =ZjhVnSaint- LVhhZ^\Zh 7gV^kZhFléron 9^hdc A^bWdjg\ H^bbZgVi]9:JIH8="LimbourgBouillet Georges KZgaV^cZ HV^ci" ;a�bVaaZ ;a�gdcChaudfontaine Olne AACHENSeraing Baelen KâaZgh"aZ"7djâaZi

<Zdg\Zh"hjg"BZjhZ

Burdinne sur HZgV^c\ 8]VjY" DacZ [dciV^cZPepinster Verviers KZgk^ZghMeuse LIEGE MechernichAmay 7jgY^ccZ 7VZaZcJalhay BZX]Zgc^X]Trooz EZe^chiZg ?Va]VnARRONDISSEMENT 6bVnEngis

Esneux Schleiden LVcoZ :c\^h IgddoBad Münstereifel HX]aZ^YZc @G:>HWanze MonschauNeupré PROVINCE DE L IEGE 6GGDC9>HH:B:CIHéron 7VY�B�chiZgZ^[Za=�gdc CZjeg� BdchX]VjEGDK>C8:� :JH@>G8=:C

9:�A>:<:Vj" CZiiZgh]Z^b Edci

KallNandrin @Vaa:hcZjm K:GK>:GHSprimont CVcYg^cTheux EUSKIRCHENHuy Heg^bdci I]ZjmARRONDISSEMENT =jn 6GGDC9>HH:B:CI�=JNAnthisnesTinlot 8dbWaV^c"Comblain-au- Nettersheim BdYVkZ 6ci]^hcZhBütgenbachModave Marchin HUY Spa VERVIERSPont BVgX]^c 7�i\ZcWVX]I^cadi HeVAywaille HellenthalSPRACHIGE 6nlVâaZWaimes Ouffet

Kar

togr

aphi

e un

d G

esta

ltung

: Bür

o D

r. S

wee

khor

st, A

ache

n, T

el. +

49 2

41 5

5 93

79

-11 =ZaaZci]VaDj[[Zi

Hamoir =Vbd^gClavier

Ferrières Stavelot Malmedy Büllingen LV^bZh;Zgg^�gZh BVabZYn 7�aa^c\ZcBlankenheim 8aVk^ZgStoumont HiVkZadi 7aVc`Zc]Z^bDahlem 9V]aZbHidjbdci

HEG68=><:GEMEIN-Trois-Ponts Igd^h"EdcihAmel <:B:>CH8=6;ISCHAFT

St. Vith

6bZa DWZgZ�@naa Lierneux A^ZgcZjmPROVINCE DE NAMUR EGDK>C8:�9:�C6BJG =âaZh]Z^b

HVcì�Kî] @ZaWZg\

R E G I O N T R I E R

0 10 20 30km

@G:>H�KJA@6C:>;:ABurg-Reuland 7jg\"GZjaVcY Eg�b

PROVINCE DE LUXEMBOURG <ZgdahiZ^cEGDK>C8:�9:�AJM:B7DJG< 9Vjc

:>;:A@G:>HLUXEMBOURG 6go[ZaY 7>I7JG<" EGzB

ADMINISTRATIEVE INDELING · ADMINISTRATIVE GLIEDERUNG · DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE @naaWjg\

AJM:B7DJG< CZjZgWjg\

7îWjg\" AVcY 7îWjg\

Interreg EMR = >ggZa

‘Foundation’ = EUREGIO HeZ^X]Zg

met financiële steun van de Europese Unie (EFRO) “De Commissie investeert in uw toekomst”14 program partners Cofinancé par l’Union européenne (FEDER)

MAAS-RIJN • MAAS-RHEIN • MEUSE-RHIN5 partner regions “La Communauté investit dans votre avenir” Aangrenzende gebieden kofinanziert von der Europäischen Union (EFRE) Angrenzende Gebiete

Zones adjacentes Schaal - Echelle - Maß: 1:1.000.000„Die Kommission investiert in Ihre Zukunft“ Conc.www.citizencom

.com

Priorities : 65% EU Lisbon/Gothenburg goals

Strengthening of the economic structure, promotion of knowledge, innovation and creation of more and better jobs entrepreneurship * competitiveness * technology * R2B * labour market * tourism

Nature and environment, energy, natural resources and mobility nature and landscape * renewable energy resources * local public transport

Quality of life cultural diversity * public safety * health care * labour market mobility

65%

18%

11%

Technical assistance technical assessment of proposals and monitoring of projects

6%

Budget : 72 million EUR (ERDF) => 144 million EUR

17 centrope Peer Review Report_EN.doc

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS INTERREG IV A EMR PROJECTS !

Project idea

Submission of trilingual project draft to RA DRAFT CALL

Discussion of draft in JTS meeting

First joint consultation of draft in „GO/NO GO session“ of OP partners

Official submission of application form to JTS,

talking account of remarks of OP partners

Technical evaluation by JTS and check of compatibility

with OP partners

Second „GO/NO GO session“ of OP partners

Official decision is taken by monitoring committee

RA Regional Antenna MA Managing Authority JTS Joint Technical Secretariat

(+ MA + RA) OP Operational Programme

2. Reflection 20 years Interreg

from I to IV - overview

from I to IV - assessment

From I to IV - overview

4 generations of ETC - INTERREG A - EMR

Interreg I (1991-1993): 23 million ECU (ERDF) = 125 projects

Interreg II (1994-1999): 37 million EUR (ERDF) = 120 projects

Interreg III (2000-2006): 52 million EUR (ERDF) = 97 projects

Interreg IV (2007-2013): 72 million EUR (ERDF) = 51 projects

some succes stories...to be continued

healthcare police

life sciences labour mobility culturE

cluster policy

sound managmentgood output

lever for cooperationstrategic development

From I to IV - assessment

+

administrative burdenlongterm impact

post-project sustainability“operational” program

?

next slide

From I to IV - assessment

Managment

Program

N+2

audit

project development

decisionmaking

implementation program

RA

projects

strategy

crossborder

3. Perspective 20142020

Challenges programs

Comments Proposals EC

Status report Interreg V EMR

Challenges programs

Programming: general vs specific

Governance: top down vs bottom up

Monitoring: output vs outcome

level of control political influence

Priorities: less-is-more vs one-size-fits-all

borderlinecrossover

��

��

��

��

Comments Proposals EC

Thematic concentration

Administrative simplification HOCUs�� FOCUS

LEAN�� &�� MEAN

RESULTS border regions as barometer of EU2020

member�� states?

Status report Interreg V EMR

Right now: stocktaking investment priorities & eligible area

In general: rather slow but steady as we go

EMR2020EMR Development Plan

Conference 13/3/2013 @ St-Vith (B)

Thank you for your attention!

Contact:[email protected]

Information:www.euregio-mr.eu

21.11.2012

1

Integrated territorial development: A centrope perspective on the 2014-2020 programme period

Alexander WolffhardtEuropaforum Wien/centrope coordination officecentrope coordination office

A future for centrope in ETC?

A centrope perspective on the 2014-2020 programme period

p» centrope, a special case

» ETC allowing for centrope post-2013 – not yet

» Suggestions from a centrope perspective

21.11.2012

2

A cooperation framework on the EU lifeline

centrope, a special case

Basic (political, administrative) cooperation & cross-border

governance fully dependant on EU funding due to

» lack of resources among partner regions & cities

» different levels of commitment among partners g p

» lack of ownership on national level

centrope in ETC programmes: an uneasy fit


5 bilateral cross-border programmes1 transnational programme of 8 countries

21.11.2012

3

centrope ETC projects so far


» 2004-2007 BAER Building a European Region I & IIParallel projects with single consortiumin cross-border programmes AT-CZ, AT-SK & AT-HU

» 2009-2012 centrope capacitySingle project with multilateral agencyin transnational programme CENTRAL EUROPEP i it A E h i titi d tt ti Priority Area „Enhancing competitiveness and attractiveness of cities and regions - developing polycentric settlement structures and territorial cooperation”

Commission proposals…

ETC allowing for centrope post-2013 – not yet

» ERDF spending to be more targeted, thematically concentrated & in line with Europe 2020

» 11 thematic objectives, 4 of which to be selected as Priority Axes in each Cooperation Programme

» 10 issue-specific thematic objectives

» Thematic Objective 11 „Enhancing institutional capacity“, in ETC priority can be given to: „Promoting legal and administrative cooperation and cooperation between citizens and institutions“

21.11.2012

4

… that would mean for centrope» Basic cooperation & governance framework to be

ETC allowing for centrope post-2013 – not yet

» Basic cooperation & governance framework to be supported under Thematic Objective 11

» But only if included as 1 of 4 Priority Axis either in transnational CENTRAL EUROPE or in at least 3 of the 5 bilateral cross-border programmes

» Cannot be taken for granted!Cannot be taken for granted!

Options for more flexible rules suiting centrope» Make choice for Thematic Objective 11 easier allow

Suggestions from a centropeperspective

» Make choice for Thematic Objective 11 easier – allow for more than 4 PAs (or cross-cutting PA Enhancing Institutional Capacity as add-on option)

» Allow for some (e.g. 20%) of the available funds to be spent flexibly, as long within Thematic Objectives

» Include a Mini-Programme strand (like in the Include a Mini Programme strand (like in the interregional programme) in the transnational programmes

» Simplify rules on flexibility re. operations outside the programme area & encourage utilisation

1

Public and private stakeholders in interactionThe Tri-National Metropolitan Region of the Upper-Rhine The Tri National Metropolitan Region of the Upper Rhine

(TMO)

.

1Tri-National Metropolitan Region of the Upper-RhineRégion métropolitaine du Rhin supérieur

Schmitz, Vice-President, Chamber of Commerce, KarlsruheJürgen Oser, Regierungspräsidium Freiburg

Some basic facts about the Upper Rhine Region

• Area: 21.518 km²

• Population: 6,0 Mio.

• Population / km² : 274

• Demographic growth

(1990-2006): 10,6%

• Cross border commuters: 90 000

2Tri-National Metropolitan Region of the Upper RhineRégion métropolitaine du Rhin supérieur

90.000

2

Institutional Structure of the Tri-National Metropolitan Region

Tri-National Circle of the four pillars‘ representatives

Joint Working-Level of the Coordinators

Civil SocietyBusiness Research /Universities

Politics

3

Annual conference including all actors of the four pillars (“small trilateral conference“)

Tri-National Metropolitan Region of the Upper RhineRégion métropolitaine du Rhin supérieur

Founding of the TMO December 9th, 2010 in Offenburg

4

Signing of the nationalOffenburg Declaration

Signing of the regional foundation

declaration


3

Pillar I: Politics (and Administration)

Cooperation between the foreign ministries in charge of the Upper Rhine Region

Cross-border cooperation within the regional neighbourhood (regional gouvernment and parliament)

Cooperation within the local

6

neighbourhood (EURODISTRICTS)

Cooperation within the net of the 10 biggest towns of the Upper Rhine Valley


4

Co-financing partners Partners within the network

Database

NetworkingStrategy

Expertise

Intercluster

Services

Budget

Projects

7

Databaseof competencies for enterprises

Intercluster

5 regional clusters fostering energy efficiency


Pillar II: Map of Companies

situated withinsituated within the TMO

Gross domestic product

of about 208 bn. €


(compare: Finland, Denmark and Ireland)

5

Project Example: Tourism-Cluster

3 d i i3 countrys – one destination



Upper Rhine Valley

Toskana Südtirol

Surface 21 518 km² 22 990 km² 7 400 km²


Surface 21 518 km² 22 990 km² 7 400 km²

Population 6 Mio 3,8 Mio 500 000

Overnight Stays 18,3 Mio 22,2 Mio 22,9 Mio

6


• Upper Rhine Valley is cofinanced by the European Union and the INTERREG IV A Upper Rhine programUnion and the INTERREG IV A Upper Rhine program with a duration from 2009 to 2012.

• With a budget of 2 million Euros and 31 project partners it promotes the Upper Rhine abroad and supports education and innovation within the region.


• Promotion topics are:

Wine & Dine; Art & Culture; Architecture & Heritage; Tradition & Events; Nature & Landscape


Partners:


Kanton Basel-Stadt

Kanton Basel-Landschaft

7


Learn all about the project on the trilingual website:

www.upperrhinevalley.com


Project Example: Region of Stars

Since 2008 the Chambers of Commerce in the Tri-National Metropolitan Region of the Upper Rhine created a tri-national network called “Region of Stars” to promote the extraordinary culinary heritage and the high density of excellent restaurants.


8

Project Example: Region of Stars

In 2011 Michelin edited a bilingual “Guide Rouge” for the Region –where over 60 restaurants are listed with one or more stars. A revised edition will forthcome in 2013.


Pillar III: The Scientific Network

• 25 Institutions of higher d tieducation

• 170 000 Students

• 167 Research Institutions


9

Project example: The cross-regional scientific initiative


Pillar IV: Civil SocietyProject example: „Forums Citoyens“

Strasbourg, Karlsruhe, Basel (since 2010)


10

Thank you very much for your attention!

www.rmtmo.eu

19

21-11-2012

1

Medicon Valley AllianceCreating Opportunities

Ann-Sofie Andersson, Project Manager

It is all about attractiveness Triple Helix – a challenging and rewarding structure

Key messages

vision and strategyStrategic initiatives for a bright future Tradition in collaboration

21-11-2012

2

Medicon Valley

attractivenessvision and strategy

21-11-2012

3

Three Main Activities

Network / Events Lobby Strategic

Initiatives


Key messages


21-11-2012

4

Academia

PublicOrganisations

Life scienceindustry

Organisations


Key messages


21-11-2012

5

Tradition in collaboration

• Medicon Village

• US Nanomedicine Tour

•Regional PhD Academia

• Science ParksLife

scienceindustry

PublicOrganisa-

tions


Key messages


21-11-2012

6

High quality of

lifeNetworks

and platforms for ollabo ation

Favourable framework conditions

Attractiveness consists of many components

collaboration

Access to highly

qualified manpower

Access to capital

Need for a common strategyto realise the full potential

World-class Universities & research institutions

Mix of SMEs and large companies

Advanced technology Developed

infrastructure

21-11-2012

7

Beacon initiative

Medicon Valley – a world class life science cluster

A Beacon is a uniquecombination of regional scientific strongholds, built on a cross-disciplinaryplatform and addressingplatform and addressingfuture demands

Scientific Strongholds

Cross Disciplinary

Future Demands

Medical needs SynergiesMedical needsCommercial

potential

21-11-2012

8

Beacon strategy for differentiation of Medicon ValleyStrategic components

Complexity Clever networks

Combine existing strongholds smart and flexible

Academia

Convergence Specialization

Scientific Strongholds

Cross Disciplinary Synergies

Future DemandsMedical need

Market potentialCombine existing strongholds, smart and flexible• Focus in on identified key areas • Adapt to future trends and demands• Collaborate across disciplines and borders• Focus on pre-competitive collaborations to

create open innovative platforms

Life scienceindustry

PublicOrganisa-

tions

lit h kreality check

21-11-2012

9

Medicon Valley

DRUG DELIVERYINITIATIVE

Center Organisation

ESS

LU

DTU

State of the art laboratory equipment

MAH

KUPharma

MedtechLTH

MAX LAB IV

Biotech

21-11-2012

10

Center Output Top-ranked science

World-class education

Smart networks

ESS

MAH

KUPharma Medtech

LTH

LU

DTU

MAX LAB IV

Biotech

Smart networksInnovations

Commercialisation Spin-outs - JOBS

State of the art laboratory equipment

2020 Vision

• At least 4 Beacons are implemented through private and publicfunding and firmly anchored in Medicon Valley

• Beacons have reached a high international standard through recruitment of local and global talents that produce high ranked science

• Increased yearly growth in life science industry

An environment of open innovation is established• An environment of open innovation is established

• Strong collaborative relationships exist between academia and industry in both Sweden and Denmark

21-11-2012

11

??

21-11-2012

12

Medicon Valley


Key messages


1

TTR

Towards a Technological Top RegionA cross-border "smart specialisation strategy" for

Southern Netherlands – Eastern Belgium – Western North-Rhine-Westphalia

Ralf P Meyer AGIT mbHRalf P. Meyer – AGIT mbH

Policy Seminar „Governance in Transnational Metropolitan Areas“ – Brussels, 13.11.2012

1 Review: ELAt + TTR = TTR ELAt

Overview

1. Review: ELAt + TTR = TTR ELAt

2. Translating strategy into actions:The examples TTC and GCS

3 O tlook and concl sions

©

3. Outlook and conclusions

2

In the heart of Europe’s main Delta Population: ~ 44 mlnPopulation: ~ 44 mln.

Regional GDP: € ~ 1 trln.

Networks of Mainports & Brainports including Brussels

Strong in services, science, technology, industry, agro-food, transport

Important centres within convenient

Living Earth Inc 15 Jan 2002

ptravel distance

Global gateway to mainland

45 % of logistics market share to Europe (incl. internat. activities)

Once upon a time in 2004

Th f Ei dh L d A h i d • The mayors of Eindhoven, Leuven and Aachen signed an innovation declaration of intent, towards top technology

• The acknowledgement of ongoing collaboration between all kinds of stakeholders and organisations in the Eindhoven-Leuven-Aachen regions, with the help of Interreg IIIB

• Philips with research activities in Eindhoven, Leuven and Aachen and a strong ASML-IMEC connection

• Initiatives to set up a joint Dutch-Flemish research unit: Holst centre

3

First step: ELAt• A “bottom-up” initiative was started, exploring common

ground and deploying common actions with the focus on:ground and deploying common actions with the focus on:– Fostering entrepreneurship– Linking business and technology

communities– Mapping and benchmarking– Strategy development (triple helix)

• As a network of networks it provideda context; ‘orchestrated chaos’– A joint coherent and focussed

approach, a strategy– Increasing ownership and stake-

holders in action and sponsorship

In 2008 based on bilateral “letters of intent” between Netherlands, Flanders and NRW an additional “top-down”-strategy on cross-border co-operation in technology-oriented

Second step: „Top Technology Region (TTR)“-Initiative

economy, research, science & innovation involving six regions was brought to life

Partners:

Provincie Limburg Provincie Noord-Brabant Province de Liège Provincie Limburg

©

Provincie Vlaams-Brabant Land NRW

4

Basis: “TTR-smart specialisation analysis“

©

International benchmark study by BAK Basel Economics (CH)

TTR – Promising fields…

… for cross-border business- & technology-oriented cooperation

Nederland

< 100

100 =< 102

102 =< 110

110 =< 10000

Nederland

< 95

95 =< 100

100 =< 105

105 =< 110

> 110

©

Belgique-BelgiëDeutschland

Belgique-BelgiëDeutschland

Health/Life-Sciences Adv. materials/chemicalsHigh-tech-systems

5

Join forces: ELAt + TTR = TTR ELAt

©

Triple Helix: public, private & academia (No a priori leadership by public authority)

TTR ELAt – Leading principles

TTR – ELAt

Initiative Group

“Light” organisational structures

Content- and market-driven Focus on distinctive knowledge

domains and value chains Building on strengths and growth

potential

Dovetailing actions bilaterally and multilaterally

Project Bureau / (working group)

TTR-ELAt Community

NL NB NRW VB BL L

©

Open innovation in a cross-border innovation eco-system

Secure a key position within a global network of innovation regions

6

TTR ELAt – „Smart specialisation“ action plan

Focus: Three „core competencies“ and six „strategic lines“

Advanced materials & chemicals

Health/Life Sciences

High-tech-systems& chemicals Life Sciences

Strategic networks

Business development

Entrepreneurship

Brains

Working group „Economy“

©

Brains

Institutional development

Lobbying & marketing

Working group „Government“

1. Review: ELAt + TTR = TTR ELAt


©


7

Creating new business- & innovation opportunities in the TTR ELAt-area

towards Top Technology Cluster (TTC)

1. Cross-border business development in four promising fields:

Our targets

Health/Life-Sciences Advanced materials/

chemicals

Energy

2. Stimulate innovation-oriented cooperation of companies by creating cross-border, SME-based cooperation consortia

ICT

8

...taking into account

… that cross-border economic opportunities are not yet grasped and basic framework conditions are underdeveloped:

Knowledge about companies, R&D & universities at the other side of the borders is lacking

Technology-oriented companies (esp. SMEs) still maintain only very few business activities across the borders

National support tools for innovation & business across the borders are not or just poorly coordinated & do not meet SME-needs so far

Three pillars: Our offers for SMEs!

TTC GCS

9

Offer I:(inter)cluster networking

ICT Life sciences

Advanced t i l

Multidisciplinary events

Technology field-specific events

materials Energy

Offer I:(Inter)cluster networking

Meet entrepreneurs!Date Venue Title Type of event

12.09.2012 Aachen (D) IT solutions energy logistics B2B Matchmaking

13.09.2012 Hasselt (B) Biomass valorization Socialising & B2B

18.09.2012 Maastricht (NL) Smart Health (part 1) Round table

24.09.2012 Eindhoven (NL) Innovations in dementia Brokerage event

24.09.2012 Eindhoven (NL) Ambient Assisted Living Socialising event

16.10.2012 Leuven (B) B2B Forum B2B Matchmaking ( ) g

23.10.2012 Aachen (D) IT solutions in energy logistics Brokerage event

13.11.2012 Liège (B) Biocompatible materials Intercluster event

14.11.2012 Aachen (D) Mobile computing B2B Matchmaking

30.11.2012 Hasselt (B) Smart health (part 2) Round table

For more information see:

ttc-innovation.eu

10

Get connected!

Offer II: Business & Innovation Development

Find the right partner to develop your ideas to marketability

We offer hands-on support from our BDS-managers to find the right partner across the borders

Contact your regional BDS-manager (here: ICT)

Reinhard Goethe Geert Adriaens Greet Bilsen Peter Simkens Benny Daems Michel Black(Aachen) (Aachen/Leuven) (Leuven) (Leuven/Eindhoven) (Hasselt) (Liège)

Offer II: Business & Innovation Development

Generate new business ideas!Generate new business ideas!

Bring in your ideas, benefit from the creativity of other business people & explore new markets

We offer bilateral talks as well as round tables with innovative entrepreneurs

Technology/Market-Roadmap

Technology/Market-Roadmap

Company-Round tableCompany-Round table Dedicated

Workshops

11

Offer III: Enabling innovation projects

Benefit from „early-stage money“!

We offer „innovation vouchers“ for the very early stage of your cross-border consortia to verify & stimulate feasibility of a joint cross-border innovation project

Granting free research / advice from a knowledge provider up to an amount of € 5.000,-- per business case (non-repayable grant)

Eligible activities: Industrial Eligible activities: Industrial research & experimental develop-ment (e.g. a feasibility study, a pa-tent research, use of laboratories & state-of-the-art-equipment or prototyping & testing)

Offer III: Enabling innovation projects

Innovation vouchers: SME-participation per region

10 SME profit directly

Additionally 18 SME-partners involved

Other partners: 9 (4 Big companies,

1

1

2

4

3

4

3

er-r

ecip

ien

t (S

ME

)

Partn

er-SM

E

2

2 R&D, 3 Intermed.)

In total: 37 partners so far

1 1

4

5

Vo

uch

e

E(s)

AAC NLI NOB BLI LIE VLB Outside EMR

1

12

GCSThe new cross-border innovation funds

GCS highlights (I)

Target: Stimulate cross-border cooperation of SMEs in the high-tech-sector of Greater EMR area by direct fundingfor joint cross-border innovation projects

Volume: € 4.72 mln., provided as non-repayable grants

Funding: Between € 100.000,-- to € 250.000,-- per innovation project (at least equal private contribution is mandatory)

Eligible activities: Industrial research (50 %) & experimental development (40%) based on EC 800 / 2008

Basic condition: At least two SMEs out of two different countries of Greater EMR area cooperate within innovation project

13

GCS highlights (II)

Provision of funding: Via a competetive procedure – Only the best ideas win!

Ranking of applications: By an independent tri-national expert-jury

Two calls for proposal: 1. Call: May 15th until September 15th, 20122. Call: January 2nd until March 31st, 2013y

Staggered funding: 1. Call: € 1.57 mln.2. Call: € 3.15 mln.

Runtime innovation projects: To be carried out within a maximum period of 18 months!

number of applications

GCS highlights (III)

Preliminary results (1st call):

24 applications Main domains: Health / Life

sciences & High- tech-sys-tems

89 project partners (incl. 65 SMEs)

Total applied project costs: € 13.2 mln. (incl. € 5.1 mln. funding)

14

Overview

1 Review ELAt + TTR = TTR ELAt



1. Review ELAt + TTR = TTR ELAt

©


Where we are now

A strategic vision is in place, dovetailed with and incorporated in the TTR ELAt initiative

Outlook & conclusions

ELAt-initiative.

The level of interaction and intensity of collaboration is gradually increasing. But it’s not easy and still hurdles are to overcome.

In current times of crisis, more heterogenous networks may develop upon the framework laid out via ELAt and sustained by TTR ELAt (e.g. on our common challenge on attracting technically skilled people (brains) to our region).

©

region).

15

The way ahead

TTR ELAt is still making progress, steadily, with incremental steps and some big strategic achievements (like Holst Centre and the EIT co-loca-


some big strategic achievements (like Holst Centre and the EIT co location in KIC) and new activities to be set up (e. g. cooperation of high-tech-campusses, the “brains issue”, the dovetailing of national fundings)

Basically ‘unorchestrated’ now, but still ongoing

in heterogeneous networks (EIT-KIC Innoenergy, DSP Valley, Fablab),

driven by entrepreneurship (TTC, GCS)

with many supporting actors (Brainport BOM AGIT LIOF Leuven

©

with many supporting actors (Brainport, BOM, AGIT, LIOF, Leuven R&D, UHasselt, ULiège, various business networks etc.) operating under the TTR ELAt-umbrella

with ongoing strategic claim (OECD-study “Functional regions”)

Conclusions, observations

TTR ELAt means a network of networks, it was never an objective in itself.


TTR ELAt strategy has brought awareness, acknowledgement, focus and scale: “orchestration” of activities and stakeholders, rather than a “binding” structure.

A shared vision, common ambition and joint action, but… ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast’

No matter how far reaching a vision or how brilliant the strategy, i h ill b li d if d b i ’ l f

©

neither will be realized, if not supported by a region’s culture of networking collaboration.

That’s what we need to focus on an facilitate with(in) TTR ELAt.

16

TTR

Thank you for your attention!

Your contact & more information:

r meyer@agit [email protected] - www.agit.de

governance in transnational metropolitan areas ... · the solution of this dilemma can be thought...

Documents