1. Matera Seminar ESPON 2.1.2 The territorial impacts of EU R&D policy ECOTEC, MERIT,Cardiff University, MCRIT, Taurus, Politecnico di Milano

2. Structure Main findings –Typology of regions –Spatial distribution of Framework Programmes –Spatial patterns of Structural Fund activity First policy recommendations Challenges for the next phase

3. Regional Indicators R&D indicators –Expenditure –Personnel Innovation indicators –Educational attainment –Workforce in high or medium tech employment

4. R&D expenditure

5. Regional typology

6. Breakdown

8. Regional distribution

9. Framework Programme participation

10. FP and the typology

11. Structural Funds and R&D Some 11bn euros in total planned (2000-2006) Varies from.75% (Nl) to 9.91% (L) Varies by Objective –Objective 1: 8% –Objective 2: 11% –Objective 3: 0.2% –Objective NA: 5.5% –Total: 8%

12. National variations

13. Next steps Complete Structural Funds assessment, through linking to typology Complete analysis of Case Study work to assess nature of EU supported R&D policy interventions

14. Conclusions Regional disparities in R&D capacity clearly exist Participation in Framework programmes reflects this capacity, although a small cohesion effect appears to be present A polycentric pattern can be described Structural Funds reflect cohesion objectives, but Objective 2 programmes favour R&D more SF supporting projects aimed at improving R&D and innovation capacity There is a low level of support for institution building

15. Emerging policy conclusions Support for regional innovation systems required if projects are not to merely benefit individual partners Participation in FP can avoid regional lock-in and should be encouraged No strong evidence of linkages between SF activity and FP participation at this stage – complementarities should be more strongly recognised and encouraged Hotspots of R&D and innovation activity present in all member states – provides a strong base on which to build