1. 2.4. Innovation policy

2. 1. Challenges: Greek regions in the EU

3. Accessibility to knowledge, absorption capacity and diffusion capability are all weak. This group performs weak in High-tech manufacturing, Creative workers, Skilled workers, Private technology. Regions rely also on agricultural activities and tourism. Unemployment is high. Growth of per capita GDP between 1999 and 2005 has been average. Technological performance is far below average with less than 8 patents. Barriers Source: René Wintjes and Hugo Hollanders The regional impact of technological change in 2020 Challenges: Greek regions in the MED area

4. Figure 5: Regional distribution of innovation factors and activities Source : {EUROSTAT, 2007 #50} Challenges: Internal regional innovation divide

5. Challenges: GDP and Innovation

6. RRSII – 2006 EU: 0,90 – 0,01 Composit e innovatio n index Human resources in science and technology Lifelong learning High tech manufacturi ng High tech services Public R&D Private R&D Patents ATTICA0,46111195179952713 CENTRAL MACEDONIA0,27851431457783 CRETE0,26691894014832 WESTERN GREECE0,237314174012693 EPIRUS0,198028103913022 CENTRAL GREECE0,17622535235142 EAST MAKED – THRACE0,13621413286597 THESSALY0,10742719183651 PELOPONESSE0,106713152233 / 5 ?3 WESTERN MACEDONIA0,0774-15331113 NORTH AEGEAN0,0461-10903210 SOUTH AEGEAN0,0153-1918524 ΙΟΝΙΑN ISLANDS-82-318 0- EU mean0,55100 Challenges: Private sector innovation gap

7. Challenges: Innovation inputs vs. outputs

8. Innovation policy in 2000-2006 was a continuation of efforts of the 2rd CSF- together with the introduction of new measures, such as the PRAXE programme for the support of spin-offs, ELEFTHO supporting the creation of incubators and S&T parks from the private sector, and later with the creation of regional innovation poles. While funding increased in comparison to the previous CSF, only 2.4% of the 3rd CSF (2000-06) was dedicated to activities related to RTDI. At regional level, less than 1.1%, on average of the regional operational programmes budget was dedicated to RTDI with an important part directed towards acquisition of embodied technology through support from the Development Laws. The majority of RTDI policies implemented have been based on the principle of co-financing of private R&D, where the public sector participation attempted to leverage private sector participation. An important part of the interventions subsidised the acquisition of embodied technology through investments in equipment. Technological breakthroughs and investments related to innovation were with few exceptions not a prerequisite for support. 2. Innovation policy 2000-2006

9. Innovation policy of 2007-2013 started under better conditions. Three milestones were (1) invitation of OECD to review the Greek innovation system, (2) adoption of the target for raising innovation funding from 0,6% to 1,5% of GDP by 2015, and (3) inclusion of an innovation axis in all regional operational programs. The OECD’s evaluation team recommended:  Foster innovation in the business sector. Innovation policy for the Greek business sector should be broadened beyond a narrow focus on R&D. It should encompass innovation in organisation, marketing and business models. Likewise, it should be designed to help Greek firms develop their in-house learning capabilities, and to foster incremental innovation of products and processes combining existing knowledge in new ways. Particular measures should be taken to encourage innovation in services.  Strengthen the links between public research and Greek industry. The development of innovative industrial clusters, which have become an important tool of Greece’s regional innovation policy in recent years, needs to be further enhanced, accompanied by state-of-the-art monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and complemented by an improvement of some of the instruments used to promote collaborative innovation. Innovation policy 2007-2013

10.  The current research and innovation policy reproduces / deepens the regional technology gap  A highly divided country  No cohesion dimension in the policy: Unequal treatment of regions from Structural Funds Innovation policy 2007-2013 7 reg. 6 reg.

11. Innovation priorities and goals identified in regional reports for 2014-2020 are down to earth, close to needs of local companies, and focus mainly on company modernisation, new products, and exports. The review of regional reports and suggested policies indicates a deep gap between regional innovation priorities for the period 2014-2020, focusing on modernization of productive activities, exports and creation of innovative high added-value products, and national priorities set by the GSRT, which are more horizontal focusing on research excellence, human skills, science, and society. Despite the establishment of many intermediary organizations, cooperation between industry and research organisations remains at a very low level and success stories concerning the activity of intermediary organisations and the exploitation of R&D by local companies are very limited. Innovation priorities 2014-2020

12. In 2007-2013,Regional funding by the national OP for Competitiveness and the GSRT “shadow” programme: Reinforced the dominance of Attica and the ‘secondary’ poles in the Greek innovation system. Failed to address main innovation gaps, such as the regional divide, the low business research and innovation funding, and the sustainability of support institutions. In most regions, a few key players absorb the lion’s share of public funding. Innovation policy failure Failure of regional innovation policy in the past was mainly due to: Low spending for innovation Creation of technology intermediaries than leveraging capabilities and funding from the private sector. Weak sustainability of support actions. Most intermediaries (industrial change offices, university technology transfer offices, sectoral tech companies, technological development centres, etc.) ceased operation after the public support. No systemic innovation governance: low leverage of private funding; limited collaboration among innovation actors; limited synergies, networks, clusters and associations

13. Innovation Ecosystems: Innovation from networks of R&D / creativity Production capacity Innovation funding Export markets Examples of ecosystems Clusters, technology hubs, technology districts, incubators, competitive poles, competence centres, NPD platforms, open innovation platforms, smart city districts, Living Labs, seed capital funds, guarantee schemes Aims Tracing and mapping ecosystems; Opening innovation to users and global supply chains; Bring in technologies and entrepreneurial know-how Bring in export know-how 3. Recommendations: Focus on ecosystems

14. Innovation support actions should take the form of “Innovation Platforms’. Those are framework of various types (legal, organisational, resources, facilities, digital, funding, etc.) which enable a large number of actors to be involved in innovation initiatives. Each platform should provide comprehensive support to the entire innovation cycle, including financial, technological, productive, and market support. Platforms should be selected with respect to criteria of (1) business models for sustainability in the long run and mainly after the public support period, (2) creation of capabilities and know how in the region, (3) offering integrated solutions for technology-production-market- funding, (4) leading to high leverage of private investments, (5) involving a large number of beneficiaries, and (6) contribution to development goals of the Region. Public-Private-Partnerships as central implementation instrument of innovation platforms selected. In PPPs the public domain sets out the terms of collaboration and provides funding for framework conditions, while the private sector takes on management and assures long term operation of the initiative. Policy over sustainable innovation platforms

15. Innovation mix per t ype of region / specialisation From a regional innovation systems perspective four types of regions can be identified: (1)Regions with advanced research and technology capabilities (Attica, Central Macedonia, Crete) (2)Regions with strong manufacturing potential and mid- level innovation capacity (Sterea Ellada, Western Macedonia, East Mac. and Thrace) (3)Regions with strong potential in tourism ( South Aegean, north Aegean, Ionian Islands) and extremely low innovation (4)Regions relying on traditional production sectors with innovation potential in local product (Epirus, Thessaly, Peloponnese).

16. Integrated actions around sectors selected REGIONAL INNOVATION POLE: ICT SECTOR INTEGRATED ACTIONS

17. Overview of policy instruments