Regional Innovation Monitor - European Commission...Regional Innovation Monitor iii 3. Innovation...

www.technopolis-group.com

Version: Final Date: 12 April 2012

Regional Innovation Monitor Regional Innovation Report: Flanders To the European Commission Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General Directorate D – Industrial Innovation and Mobility Industries

Jon van Til

Technopolis Group

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 Jon van Til ([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

Regional Innovation Monitor i

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 3 1.3 Identified challenges 5

2. Innovation Policy Governance 7 2.1 Degree of institutional autonomy 7 2.2 Institutional-set up, co-ordination and implementation mechanisms 7 2.3 Availability and use of policy intelligence tools 10 2.4 Key challenges and opportunities 11

3. Innovation Policy Instruments and Orientations 13 3.1 The regional innovation policy mix 13 3.2 Appraisal of regional innovation policies 19 3.3 Good practice case 20 3.4 Portfolio of innovation support measures 21 3.5 Towards smart specialisation policies 22 3.6 Possible future orientations and opportunities 23

Appendices Appendix A Bibliography................................................................................................25 Appendix B RIM Repository information ......................................................................26 Appendix C Statistical data.............................................................................................27

ii Regional Innovation Monitor

Figures Figure 1-1 GDP per capita at current market prices and projected growth rates ............1 Figure 1-2 Economic and innovation performance indicators ....................................... 4 Figure 2-1 Management and implementation structure of regional innovation strategy.......................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-2 Flanders in Action (ViA): the role of strategic intelligence in Flemish policy making............................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3-3 Estimated government funding for R&D in Flanders by source (€m and %)........................................................................................................................................ 22

Tables Table 3-1 Overview of the regional innovation policy mix – for a full overview of policy priorities of the individual measures, see Table 3-2 ......................................................13 Table 3-2 Existing regional innovation support measures ............................................16

Regional Innovation Monitor i

Executive Summary 1. Introduction: Main recent trends in the Regional Innovation System Flanders is the largest region in Belgium, with a high and increasing economic performance. GDP grew substantially over the past decades to €32.2 per capita, and it is steadily about 25-30% above EU27 average. The Flemish economy is open (3rd in Innovation Scoreboard): it realised high exports and is characterised by a high number of multinationals, often decision centres abroad. Unemployment in Flanders is typically low.

The economic recession hit Flanders hard (GDP: -3.4% in 2009), as its economy is largely depending on manufacturing and international trade. However, already in 2010 the Flemish economy showed sings of recovery (GDP +2.2%). Unemployment showed a relative small decrease when compared to the decrease of economic production (-1%); but labour efficiency decreased as well as the labour time due to flexible working time arrangements.

The Gross Expenditures on Research and Development (GERD) was €4.2b in 2009, or 2.12% of GDP; which is above the levels of Belgium (1.96%) and the EU27 (1.91%). Governmental expenditures are relatively low (92% of EU27 average); business expenditures typically high. Over time the government expenditures on R&D have increased significantly, but the effects on GERD is levelled out by a relative decrease of BERD and an increase of GDP, so the research intensity is stable. BERD is depending on a large share of foreign-owned companies and multinationals with decision centres abroad. Hot spots in the Flemish economy are the chemical sector, ICT and Telecom, machinery and transport. The business sector is fit to innovate and has a rather high innovation rate of 52%. The most innovative sectors are ICT and electronics (84%).

Flanders has strong knowledge production: both the publication and impact rate of Flemish scientists are high. Performance on patents is above EU27 level, but not as high as expected from a country with sound knowledge production. Moreover, the innovation capacity of Flanders is relatively high: Flanders has a high share of researchers in the active population, and human resources are well trained. Participation of the Flemish youth and young adults to higher education is very high: as a result a large – and growing – share of the population is higher educated.

2. Major innovation challenges and policy responses Given the relative good innovation performance of Flanders, analysis of reports and reviews (Soete et al. 2007; Ziaroko et al. 2010, Bruno & Van Til 2010; Bruno & Van Til 2011); ECOOM, 2011) of Flanders and Belgium reveals the following challenges.

ii Regional Innovation Monitor

Challenge 1: Research investments largely depending on foreign companies

Flanders acknowledges the importance of R&D in the knowledge economy and adopted the Lisbon targets. This led to intensified public investments in R&D over the last decade in both absolute and relative terms, but the absolute increase of public expenditures on R&D were levelled out by economic growth. Given the recent economic downturn and its negative effect on public spending, it will be hard to reach the target of the Lisbon treaty to let public R&D funding increase to 1% of GDP. Similarly, it seems too ambitious to increase business expenditures in R&D to 2%. Although Flanders is very successful in attracting foreign companies and foreign investments, high tax burden and relatively high labour costs remain a negative element for conducting research in Belgium (Bruno & Van Til, 2010). A main challenge to the Flemish economy is thus to anchor the multinationals with headquarters abroad in the Flemish system. The New Industrial Policy of the Flemish government (2011) aims to do so, using the leadplant concept. Older policy measures coordinating public-private research efforts in strategic research centres and competitiveness poles are proven measures in embedding and attracting R&D players in the Flemish system.

Challenge 2: Changing industrial structures: renewal of the industrial sector with focus on strengths

The industrial competitive position of Flanders is under pressure. The global market share of Flanders is decreasing, which in turn may lead to decreasing exports, employment and productivity. Indicators of growth of companies and innovation performance (cf. Innovation Scoreboard and/or OECD, 2010) show the importance of the search for new competitive advantages. Key threats of the industrial innovativeness are the changing structure of industries (encompassing trends as globalisation, shift from mass production, low-cost countries) and the innovation gap (high level of knowledge, but too low levels of commercialisation) and the fragmentation of public policy initiatives. Flanders is thus facing a challenge to focus its efforts in innovation. Policy initiatives have identified a number of innovation priorities that are set with so-called “crossroads”2, and currently ways are sought towards further specialisation on these crossroads. Important developments are demand-side measures (public procurement in particular) and smart specialisation strategies.

Challenge 3: Strengthening the linkages of the Flemish system

Flanders is an open economy that strongly dependents on foreign trade. This implies a system that is highly capable of co-operation and strongly networked, both at macro-economic level as at governance level. Given the federal structure of Belgium (see next Chapter) and the high autonomy of the regions synergies are at suboptimal level; it is a clear challenge to the Flemish eco-system to strengthen co-operation at national level. In this respect the recent Policy Mix Peer Review (2011) recommends Belgium to remove the interregional innovation barriers. An aspect of this challenge is an opening up of R&D policies both at interregional as international level to an optimal degree. Low mobility of researchers and the relative low attractiveness of Flanders for excellent foreign researchers may hamper the openness of the Flemish R&D eco-system. (Bruno & Van Til, 2010; Policy Mix Peer Review, 2011)

With regard to the linkages at Belgian level it is yet uncertain whether and how the Flemish government will search for improvement. A new Belgian government was installed on 6 December 2011, after a formation period of 541 days. With regard to mobility of researchers, the Flemish government recently adopted an action plan for researchers, which aims to improve the links of Flanders at the level of researchers.

2 a junction between societal challenges as identified in ViA and sectoral strenghts and innovative capacity.

Regional Innovation Monitor iii

3. Innovation policy governance Given the federal structure of Belgium, Flanders is a highly autonomous region – policy for science, technology and innovation is primarily developed at regional level. The Flemish STI governance system as it is now, emerged since the 1980-ies when the Belgian federalisation had taken place. The system has had a tremendous growth since then, and now is a complete system. Accumulation of new bodies, actors and measures has made the system a bit too complex (Soete et al. 2007). As a result, the Flemish system consists of a large range of policy actors, including a ministerial department, agencies for innovation and research, as well as advisory bodies. Flanders has a broad range of measures in place. Figure 2-1 gives an overview of the government, administrations and agencies, advisory bodies and principal instruments.

In its policies, Flanders can rely on a number of policy intelligence tools. The last decade, the Flemish government has strongly developed a monitoring and evaluation system, in line with the act of better governance. This gave rise to a dedicated unit within the Department of economy, science and innovation EWI, which regularly analyses the instruments on a regular basis. Moreover, the minister also organised a full review of the innovation system by peers (Soete et al., 2007). In addition, also the innovation agency structurally evaluates its policies, and sets out a range of strategic studies to improve evidence based policy. Lastly, the Flemish Council for Science and Innovation plays an important role in giving advice on STI-policy.

Flemish policy stimulates traditional strong sectors, but in innovation policy there is certainly a strong emphasis on development of new sectors taking a more R&D and knowledge intensive route. The choice for developing new routes is often rooted in an assessment of societal challenges to the Flemish society. Flanders tries to develop ‘innovation crossroads’; topics where societal challenges and strengths of the Flemish economy and knowledge base come together. Based on several sources, such as a self-assessment of the Belgium government, a peer-review of Belgium the Bristi report (Ziarko et al. 2010) and ERAWATCH and Trendchart documents (Bruno & Van Til 2010, 2011) the following policy governance challenges are identified:

• Under financing of research: Traditionally, Flanders has relatively low public funding for research. The government was eager to raise the budgets heavily in the past few years. However, while research intensity of the public sectors increases; the intensity of private investments stagnated. All in all, this leads to an under financing of research; especially in light of the goals the Flemish government set in Flanders in Action, i.e. to embrace the Lisbon target to reach a R&D intensity of 3% of the GDP.

• Improvement of human resources: although Flanders has a high rate of human resources in science and technology and a large share of researchers it nevertheless faces some serious challenges with regard to the attraction of qualified researchers. In several high-tech sectors there is also a need for highly skilled personnel. Low remuneration of researchers and language restrictions hamper internationalisation of the system. Prevention of brain drain, realising brain gain and increasing the mobility of researchers and highly skilled personnel are aspects of this challenge.

• Translating the high output and input in research to economic performance in the targeted areas: Flanders offers high scientific output and invests in strategic research centres and R&D programmes. However, there is still an (perceived) innovation paradox, as the translation of the Flemish strong knowledge base to commercialisation is not perceived to be optimal. Focused support on young innovative companies and multinational companies that choose Belgium for their R&D headquarters could broaden the business base and reduce the dependence on strategic decisions taken by multinational companies abroad.

iv Regional Innovation Monitor

• Complexity of the system: Flemish policy makers face high levels of system complexity at several levels. Flanders is embedded in the Belgian federal system, with high level of autonomy, but with complex systems such as the tax system, etc. Moreover, the co-operation and coordination between policies at federal level, at inter-regional and at inter-community level is typically low: the inter-Ministerial Conference on Science Policy CIMPS-IMCWB for instance held their last meeting in May 2010. Regional compartmentalisation hampers the creation of critical mass.

4. Conclusions: future actions and opportunities for innovation policy Flanders has a strong regional innovation system, with a sound economic and innovative performance. Opportunities and future actions will thus focus on pooling Flanders between the best regions in the EU. Flanders set itself the goal to rank between the Top-5 regions in the EU (Via, 2009). Several reviews of Belgium and Flanders already pointed out the completeness of the Flemish STI-system and the comprehensiveness of the regional policy mix (Soete et al. 2007; Ziarko et al. 2010, Bruno & Van Til 2010; Bruno & Van Til 2011).

Given the innovation and innovation policy challenges, we see the following future actions emerge:

• Continuous support to Science and Innovation. In many ways, Flanders is successfully managing its innovation system and the government will continue this effort. In the past (notably the Strategic Research Centre imec), Flanders already showed fruit-bearing endurance in its support.

• Sustaining an increasing financing of research – even in times of slow economic growth. Main policy documents adopt the 3% goal set in the Lisbon treaty. The support of the current government will definitely further the governmental support to R&D. Moreover, a range of efforts is made to further anchor multinationals and foreign companies in order to boost business R&D and to avoid that public support to these companies is foot loose.

• In line with the transformation of the economy a connection needs to be made between mature industries (e.g. chemicals) and new knowledge intensive routes. This support is given to high-tech development particularly in ICT and biotech. Moreover, more specialised approaches are being developed using the smart specialisation concept.

Regional Innovation Monitor 1

1. Main Trends and Challenges in the Regional Innovation System

1.1 Recent trends in regional economic performance

Flanders is the largest region in Belgium, both in terms of inhabitants (6.28m, 58% of Belgium) and GDP3. It accounts for 58% of all inhabitants of Belgium and of the same share of GDP; the other regions are Brussels Capital (10% of inhabitants, 19% of the GDP) and Wallonia (32% inhabitants and 23% of the GDP).

Stable economic production and high employment.

A main trend in the economic performance of Flanders is a stable growth over the past decade, positioning itself right after the leading regions in Europe. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was steadily about a quarter above EU27 average in absolute terms about 15% above GDP per capita (see Figure 1-2). Per capita GDP in current prices in Flanders grew from €24.4 (in reference year 2000) to €32.2 in 2008; the EU27 showed a similar trend, but at a lower level (2000: €19.1; 2008: €25.1). Figure 1-1 shows the per capita GDP of Flanders and the EU27 until 2008; Appendix D contains more detailed statistical data.

The unemployment rate in Flanders is relatively low and decreasing; in 2008 about 7.5% of the labour force was unemployed. The unemployment in Flanders is well below the EU27 level and accounts for roughly half of the unemployment rate of the EU27 (see Appendix D for more detailed information). When compared to the other regions in Belgium, unemployment rates are very low in Flanders. The unemployment rate in Wallonia was nearly 17.5% in 2008 and nearly 20 in Brussels Capital. Over time, the unemployment in Flanders has decreased from about 8.7% in 2000 to 7.5% in 2008. (HEMREG, 2010)

Figure 1-1 GDP per capita at current market prices and projected growth rates

Sources: Eurostat for the consolidated GDP at current market prices at NUTS level 2 & HERMREG, 2010 for the projected GDP of Flanders.

3 Please note that GDP per capita is by far the largest in Brussels-Capital.

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 2012

GDP Flanders (!/cap, left axis) GDP EU27 (!/cap, left axis) Projected GDP growth rates (%) Flanders (right axis)

2 Regional Innovation Monitor

Characteristics

A main characteristic of the Flemish economy is that it is an open economy, which is depending on international trade and the establishment of many multinationals and foreign companies with decision centres abroad.

Flanders has an open economy – it is ranked third on this indicator in the Innovation Scoreboard 2010. The Flemish economy strongly relies on exports and international trade and is thus in a sense vulnerable for crises in the world trade. Moreover, the economy is characterised by a high number of multinationals notably in high tech sectors, and a large importance of exports (about 100% of the GDP – compared to 73% in Belgium). Examples of world-leading multinationals based in Flanders are General Electric, IBM, Toyota, Microsoft, Pfizer and Levi Strauss & Co. The open character also brings along a challenge, as many of the Flanders based multinationals do not have their head quarters in Flanders4. Added to foreign multinationals, there is a range of internationally operating Flemish companies, such as in the chemical industry: Afga-Gevaert and Bekaert; and in the food and beverages: Cote d’Or and AB Inbev. Among Flemish companies is a large share of SMEs.

Recent trends

Trends with a high impact on the economic performance are the changing nature of the world economy, which makes that the high-loan countries shift towards a service-oriented economy. More recently, the economic crisis – which started in Belgium – has a strong impact on the Flemish economy.

The Flemish economy clutches on strong manufacturing industries; which bloomed especially until the last decades. Since the 1950-ies Flanders developed strong industrial sectors, notably pharmaceuticals, automotive, and the textile industry. Although globalisation of the economies shifted mass production to low-loan countries, a range of leading companies are still based in Flanders and have specialised in high-end products. Obviously, the share of services-oriented companies increased strongly. The end of the traditional production economy has had a profound effect on the Flemish society and still has an effect. Industry was and is important for the employment in Flanders. Especially the automotive sector and the chemical sector have had a crucial position in the Flemish economy in terms of employment. The last decade the automotive sector nearly vanished in Flanders. This sector was dominated by large companies with decision centres abroad, and due to several reasons, including The automotive sector in Flanders has recently undergone hard decades, already in the 1990’s the Renault factory was closed; Ford, Volkswagen and most recently Opel restructured their facilities in Flanders dramatically, leading to loss of jobs in this sector.

The economic recession hit Flanders hard, because of its economic structure: it relies relatively heavily on industrial production and manufacturing and is highly dependent on exports and international trade. The recession led to a decrease of Flemish GDP in 2009 (-3.4%; see Figure 1-1). Post 2009, Flanders showed quick recovery; the HEMREG-project (2010) estimates that the GDP in 2010 increased with 2.2%. Strong recovery was shown in the sectors “equipments”, “intermediary goods” and “trade & catering”. Projections of the regional GDP are also positive: HERMREG estimates the GDP to increase with over 10% in the five-year period between 2010-2015.

4 Therefore the “New Industrial Policy” focusses on anchoring foreign companies in the Flemish eco-system.


More recently, the economic downturn had its effect on the Flemish labour market. However, when comparing the decrease in economic productivity (added value and GDP), trends in unemployment showed a relatively small decrease. The employment rate decreased with 1% and the effect on employment was thus lighter than the effect on economic activities (cf. Figure 1-1). As an effect of this, the efficiency of the labour force compared to the economic added value increased drastically. Flemish labour productivity per head decreased in 2009 with 3.1% (ibid). This decrease in productivity is an effect of the Flemish capacity to keep the employment levels relatively in shape during the period of the downturn. The downturn rather had effects on the labour time than on the number of unemployed people, partly caused by public policy aimed at flexible time keeping. (HEMREG, 2010)

1.2 Recent trends in regional innovation performance

The last decade, Flanders underwent a spectacular catch-up with the EU27 average of public research intensity. It was 20% lower in 2000 (EU27: 0.72%), but 1% higher in 2008. (EWI, 2011). Public research intensity increased slowly from 0.64% in 2000 to 0.74% in 2010 (EWI, 2011). The strong absolute growth in R&D funding in the period 2004-10 was partially levelled out by a strong growth in GDP5. Government funding specifically aimed at R&D increased strongly between 2004-9 (+€300m) but stagnated in the period 2008-9 (respectively €1.121b to €1.130b), yet increased again in 2010 (€1.224b) (ECOOM, 2011).

The continuously increasing government R&D budgets, along with public discourse show the importance given to R&D funding. When the government announced that it had to cut R&D budgets because of economic downturn, interesting public discussion arose (cf. De Standaard, 2010). This indicates the perceived importance of R&D to the Flemish public. Later that year the Flemish government expenditures were boosted to over the levels of 2009. So, even during the recent economic slow-down, Flanders was able to increase its public R&D budget. The total research budget in Flanders increased in 2010 from €1.78b in 2009 to €1.87b in 2010.

When compared to other regions, the governmental investments in R&D are relatively high in Flanders. Flemish Gross Expenditures on R&D (GERD) was €4.2b in 2009; which is 2.12% of Flemish GDP; in Belgium research intensity stood at 1.96% and in EU27 at 1.91%. But a benchmark of the Flemish R&D budgets with the EU27 shows that Flemish government expenditures on R&D are relatively low at 92% of the EU27 level (Eurostat; see Figure 1-2).

5 Except during the economic recession in 2009, when GDP was not increasing.


Figure 1-2 Economic and innovation performance indicators

Source: Eurostat and Community Innovation Survey.

The growth in public R&D budgets is to a large extent levelled out by the decreasing private investments in R&D. Traditionally, the business sector plays an important role in R&D funding in Flanders – BERD was 1.39% of Flemish GDP and was 13% above EU27 average in 2009. But when compared to regions with a similar economic performance, BERD is still relatively low when compared to OECD average. BERD has notably been under pressure during the crisis. The large share of foreign companies in the Flemish eco-system might explain this. R&D shares in individual companies increased in the period 2008-9 with 9%, but this is largely explained by the lower turnover (-13%) of companies. In absolute terms the R&D expenditures decreased (-4.9%). (ECOOM, 2011) Flemish companies are fit to innovate; the so-called innovation rate of Flemish companies is with 52% (CIS-survey, 2009) well above the EU average, but decreasing when compared to the 56% in 2007 (CIS-survey 2007). Not surprisingly, large companies are more often active in innovation activities (80% versus 64% for medium and 48% for small enterprises). The most innovative sector is the ICT and electronics sector, 84% of the companies in this sector was engaged in developing product and/or process innovations in the period 2006-2008. Hot spots in the Flemish economy are (ECOOM, 2011):

• Chemical sector (including refineries, pharma, plastics) accounting for 38% of Flemish business R&D in 2009;

• Followed by ICT and Telecom accounting respectively for 17% and 12% of Flemish business R&D in 2009;

• Machinery and transport, accounting for 12% of business R&D in 2009.

!" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!" #!!"

()*+,-./0)*-122"344*56.*)2"76)8194:/*):643269*46;"344*56.*)2"<3:=1)"1+,-69*4">?@"1A014+3.,)1"

B,234122">?@"1A014+3.,)1"(6.14.2"01)"C;4"0*0*;,69*4"

D*4E>?@"344*569*4"1A0F"G*51)4C14.">?@"1A014+3.,)1"

H1)96)I"1+,-69*4"JDDKLMHJKD"(N>OK>7MDPN"JD@JPMHK>Q"

P=64:1"34",41C0;*IC14.")6.1"R41C0;*IC14.")6.1"

G@("01)"-603.6":)*S.="G@("01)"-603.6"T(((U"

NPKDK7JP"(N>OK>7MDPN"JD@JPMHK>Q"!"#$%#&'()"*'(+*),'(-"*#".'/0"*1%*23*

4.''&5*6"7"51**892:;*


Flanders has strong human resources for innovation; it has a high share of researchers. Moreover, the level of education is high (OECD, 2010). Performance on tertiary education levels is well above EU27 average (+35% - Eurostat). Flanders is characterised by a high participation of Flemish 18-years old people in Higher Education (HE), and a strong participation of women in HE. Participation notably rose since the introduction of the Bachelor-Master system. Higher participation also leads to higher output of the HE system: the total output of HE increased with 25% over the period 2005-10 from 9,632 masters in 2005-6 to 12,023 masters in 2009-10. A similar trend is to be observed for doctorates. International benchmark shows that the output of studies in science and technology is relatively low in Flanders: 18.5% of the Flemish students graduate in sciences and technology, whereas the EU27 average is 21.9%. Human Resources in R&D is also typically high in Flanders; 0.60% of the Flemish population is R&D personnel; this is well above the Belgian (0.56%) and EU27 (0,50%) average. (ECOOM, 2011). Given this good position, availability of skilled workers and researchers in high tech areas such as ICT still seems low, although recent trends show that the situation is improving.

Lastly, the knowledge production in Flanders is at high level. The publication rates and impact of publications in Flanders is high, as well as the co-publication rates and indexes. Performance on patents is above average in the EU, but not higher than that of competing economies (ECOOM, 2011). A characteristic of the knowledge production in Flanders is the relatively high autonomy of the Flemish universities. Flemish universities have high autonomy and have relatively low incentives to work towards valorisation and commercialisation of their knowledge.

1.3 Identified challenges

Flanders has a strong position both in economic as innovation performance and displayed a capacity to recover from the recent economic downturn. Summarising the previous sections, strengths of the Flemish eco-system are the following:

• Flanders has a growing economy in terms of GDP, well-above the EU27 level – and a capacity to recover quickly after a dip in the international trade with consequent negative effects on the Flemish economy;

• Flanders is an open economy, hosting many foreign companies;

• Flanders has an industry capable of exporting products and strongly relying strongly on foreign trade; innovative capacity is notably high in the chemical sector and in ICT.

• Growing public investments in R&D, but the increase is levelled out by the growth of GDP. GERD in Flanders still relies heavily on BERD; a large share being provided by foreign affiliates;

• A large pool of well-trained R&D personnel, as well as a high share of higher educated work force. A related challenge is the share of students in science and technology, although this share is seemingly increasing.

The Flemish eco-system for innovation faces a number of challenges, notably:

Challenge 1: Research investments largely depending on foreign companies

Flanders is very successful in attracting foreign companies and foreign investments. Recent policy measures coordinating public-private research efforts in strategic research centres and competitiveness poles are a good step towards embedding and attracting force for the large foreign R&D players. However, high tax burden and relatively high labour costs remain a negative element for conducting research in Belgium (Bruno & Van Til, 2010). A main challenge to the Flemish economy is to anchor the multinationals with headquarters abroad in the Flemish system. The New Industrial Policy of the Flemish government (2011) aims to do so, using the leadplant concept.


Challenge 2: Changing industrial structures: focus on strengths

The industrial competitive position of Flanders is under pressure. The global market share of Flanders is decreasing, which in turn may lead to decreasing exports, employment and productivity. Indicators of growth of companies and innovation performance (cf. Innovation Scoreboard and/or OECD, 2010) a recovery is not to be expected on short notice. Key threats of the industrial innovativeness are the changing structure of industries (encompassing trends as globalisation, shift from mass production, low-cost countries) and the innovation gap (high level of knowledge, but too levels of commercialisation) and the fragmentation of public policy initiatives. Flanders is thus facing a challenge to focus its efforts in innovation. Policy initiatives have identified a number of innovation crossroads, but there are yet many focal points in innovation.

Challenge 3: Strengthening the linkages of the Flemish system

As Flanders is an open economy strongly depending on foreign trade and foreign companies. This implies a system that is highly capable of co-operation and strongly networked, both at macro-economic level as at governance level. Given the federal structure of Belgium (see next Chapter) and the high autonomy of the regions synergies are at suboptimal level; it is a clear challenge to the Flemish eco-system to strengthen co-operation at national levels. In this respect the recent Policy Mix Peer Review (2011) recommends Belgium to remove the interregional innovation barriers. An aspect of this challenge is an opening up of R&D policies at both interregional as international level to an optimal level. Low mobility of researchers and the relative low attractiveness of Flanders for excellent foreign researchers may hamper the openness of the Flemish R&D eco-system. (Bruno & Van Til, 2010; Policy Mix Peer Review, 2011)


2. Innovation Policy Governance

2.1 Degree of institutional autonomy

The Belgian research and innovation system is highly decentralised, which has a profound influence on the governance of research policy. There is not a Belgian research and innovation system since all regions (and the Communities) have close to full autonomy in managing their own systems. The main responsibility for innovation and research policy and funding lies with the three regions and the three communities, while the federal state retains only some competences. There are formally seven independent Belgian authorities, each carrying out their own policy in the wider field of science, research, technology and innovation. In practice, there are however five active entities: the Flemish Region and the Flemish Community have merged into one entity (Flemish Government) with one Parliament, Government, authority and administration, while the German-speaking community does not have a research policy, due to its small size. In this report we thus take into account both the Flemish Community and the Flemish Region, as these have been merged.

The mandates with regard to STI are distributed as follows: the federal level controls a limited number of fields such as scientific research in the federal science institutes, intellectual property rights (IPR), corporate taxation, employment legislation and social security; the communities are competent for matters related to persons including scientific research and education (including the universities and university colleges); the regions are competent for issues related to territorial matters such as energy, environment, and economic support, thus including innovation, applied and industrial research, technology transfer, public research organisations, etc. As a result, Belgium has the world’s highest percentage of sub-national share of R&D and related spending. Indeed, the new OECD study on Regions and Innovation Policy (2010) states that 79% is spent by the Communities and the Regions.

The institutional autonomy of Flanders is thus very high when compared to most other EU regions. In fact, regional governments take a very high responsibility in their research and innovation policies, as the regions and communities – which are merged in Flanders – are fully in charge of creating a policy that favours a strong performing science and innovation eco-system since 1980. This has led to a comprehensive structure of the public policy bodies, which will be discussed in more detail in the next paragraph.

2.2 Institutional-set up, co-ordination and implementation mechanisms

The Flemish innovation policy is rooted in a Belgium State Reform in the 1980-ies. Regional innovation policy thus has been developed since then. In the current division of the ministerial portfolio, Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policy belongs to a ministerial portfolio of Innovation, Public Funding, Media and Poverty Prevention, which includes fundamental research, strategic and policy oriented research, technological innovation and science popularisation. Whereas the previous government merged the portfolio of economic affairs and STI, the current government decided to split these portfolios. A schematic representation of the Flemish STI governance system is presented in Figure 2-1.


Policies and strategies are principally made by the responsible minister, in line with the Coalition Agreement of the government. At the start of the period of a government, the minister defines the policies for the governing period in a policy note, most recently the Policy Note 2009-2014. The Policy Note is updated (bi-) annually with so-called Policy Letter, most recently the Policy Letter 2010-2011. The department Economy, Science and Innovation (EWI) of the Flemish government is principally focused on policy design and management6. Agencies are primarily responsible for implementation, including the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), the agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT), the Hercules Foundation for funding of research infrastructure, and the Flanders Holding Company (PMV) for capital investments in innovation. The Flemish government is advised by the Flemish Council for Science and Innovation (VRWI). This advisory body has no decision making power, but may influence policy makers by evidence based advice. The VRWI played for instance a large role in selecting the hot spots in the Flemish innovation eco-systems, the so-called “innovation crossroads” (see Section 2.3).

The distributed competence for STI matters across the Belgian authorities implies the need for co-ordination on both a permanent and ad hoc basis. Co-ordination and consultation between the Belgian authorities is organised through a committee that structures dialogue on all matters requiring concerted action at national level. The Inter-Ministerial Conference on Science Policy (CIMPS-IMCWB) is the co-ordination instrument between the Federal State, the Communities and the Regions, composed of those members of respective governments having responsibilities in science policy matters. The OMC peer reviews (Verbeek 2007; Boekholt & Georghiu 2011) put emphasis on a need for increased coordination between the different policy levels in Belgium. Although several efforts were made since the first peer review (2007), the most recent peer review (2011) still suggests that mechanisms for systematic and frequent coordination between the different government bodies and policy domains in the Belgian research and innovation area could be reinforced.

The outlined institutional settings of the Flemish STI-policy systems have not changed drastically over time. A notable change has been an intensified connection between the policy domains of economy and innovation. In previous governments, these policy domains were brought under one ministerial portfolio; however, this has been undone in the composure of the current government.

Other changes in the institutional settings are actions aimed at simplification of the innovation policy. This started with a drive towards more transparent policies (in line with the ambition of better governance “BBB”); and is notably since 2007 also aimed the set of instruments. A peer review of the Flemish innovation policy by the expert committee Soete (Soete et al. 2007) indicated that the Flanders had succeeded to build up a comprehensive innovation governance system since the start of Flemish autonomy since the process of federalisation in the early 1980-ies. The peer-review concluded that the system was complete, but too complex. Since then there has been a driver towards increasing focus on the simplification of the set of instruments, which led to the merger of several instruments and re-coordination of tasks of policy actors.

6 Please note that economy is also part of this department. EWI thus resides under two ministerial portfolios.


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

Source: BRISTI report (2010) – adaptations by the author.

!"#$%$&'()'$*%&+

,+)-.%/$.&

0*1.(%#.%'

!"1$&*(2+

3*"$.&

4($%/$5)6+$%&'(7#

.%'&+)%"+#.)&7(.&

!"#$%&'%'&()*%+),-".#%/',"01%,)2),3

!"#$%&'("()#$%(*+,-."/$%$"0$,.",,,10($"0$,2.+(03

4+$5()6,7.8$%"5$"#

4+$5()6,9.8$%"5$"#,:$;*%#5$"#)

4+$5()6,-.55<"(#3,10($"#(!0,!")(#<#$) =>!,?$;*%#5$"# =:<0*#(.",@,A%*("("9,

?$;*%#5$"#

BC !>A 4>C D$%0<+$)

E@?,F<)("$)),)<;;.%#

1'=,;%.9%*55$

G,-.5;$#$"0$,0$"#%$)

H!1,0.++$0#(8$,%$)$*%06,;%.IJ

H!1,#$06,*:8(0$,*":,/$*)(F(+(#3

1#%*#$9(0,K*)(0,E$)$*%06,L1KCM

N,1#%*#$9(0,%$)$*%06,0$"#%$)

A6$5*#(0,%$)$*%06,)<;;.%#,

L5$:(*O,F(.5$:(0*+O,*9%(0<+#<%$

C#6$%,P".Q+$:9$,0$"#%$),LHR!SO,

T=E4O,'!2UO,$#0JM

VW,2.+(03,%$)$*%06,0$"#%$)

C;$%*#(."*+,/<":("9,./,<"(8J

C;$%*#(."*+,/<":("9,./,<"(8J

1;$0(*+,%$)$*%06,/<":,LKC4M

E$)$*%06,/$++.Q)6(;)O,

5.F(+(#3,9%*"#),L4>CM

C:3))$<),F%*(",9*(",;%.9%J

'$#6<)*+$5,;%.9%*55$

10($"0$,-.55<"(0*#(.",;%.9%*55$

4+$5()6,-.<"0(+,/.%,10($"0$,*":,

!"".8*#(.",LHE>!M

7%*"#),*":,/$++.Q)6(;),/.%,(":<)#%(*+,

%$)$*%06,L1KO,CS'O,K*$P$+*":M

4("*"0(*+,("#$%5$:(*(%($),("0+J,+.*")O,;*%#(0(;*#(."),*":,9<*%*"#$$),L7!'HO,A!TBO,H!TTC4M

A$06".+.93,#%*")/$%,)<;;.%#,L("#$%/*0$),

)$%8(0$)O,A=AEBO,!C4M

4+$5()6,!"".8*#(.",T$#Q.%PO,H!T

H!1&-..;$%*#(.",;%.I$0#)

H!1&A$)#("9,9%.<":)

H!1,#6$5*#(0,("&,".8*#(.",)#(5<+(

X$3,#.,0.+.<%),./,(")#%<5$"#),*":,5$*)<%$)?(%$0#,!"*"0(*+,)<;;.%#,#.,!%5)

1<;;.%#,/.%,(":<)#%3&)0($"0$,

%$+*#(.")

4<":("9,@,;%.5.#(.",./,%$)$*%06


2.3 Availability and use of policy intelligence tools

The Flemish innovation policy is increasingly evidence-based: evaluations and monitoring systems are in place. Evaluation and monitoring takes place at both systemic levels, as at the level of individual programmes. Over time, evaluations have become a common stepping-stone in the Flemish STI policy cycle.

An expert committee made a full review of the innovation system in 2007. In the so-called ‘Soete report’ the committee concluded that the set of instruments in the Flemish innovation system - which emerged only since the 1980s - is now complete, but too complex. As a result of this rather influential review, recent ministers have made the set of instruments simpler and more “customer friendly”.

Certainly for larger programmes, evaluation strategies are laid down in the Flemish Parliament Act of individual programmes. In the case of independent entities that implement policy (e.g. a strategic research centre), the planning of evaluations is laid down in the management agreement. In the case of the largest strategic research centres, Key Performance Indicators are laid down in the management agreement with the government, which enables a clear and transparent evaluation process. Evaluations at programme level are assigned to external experts, by the responsible agency, or by the Department EWI. Both IWT and EWI assign many evaluations. Evolutions in assignment of IWT are often published on the IWT website - the Department EWI often keeps the evaluation reports closed.

Important recent evaluations at programme level include the evaluation of the VIS-programme7. This programme funds subsequent steps of innovation trajectories, with a number of sub measures. The main conclusion of this evaluation was that the instrument was rather fragmented, and several strands of the programme were merged and streamlined. An impact analysis of parts of the instruments showed that the instruments served the needs of the policy target (companies) and positive indications of the effectiveness of the instrument (Verbose et al., 2008). In a response to the evaluation the measure has been adapted and the strands of the scheme for collective knowledge diffusion and knowledge accumulation have been integrated in trajectories that now focus on concrete and demand-oriented challenges to consortia of companies. Another key instrument in the Flemish set of instruments; the Strategic Research Centres have been evaluated in the start of 2011. This example shows the importance of evaluations, as well as the responsiveness of the Flemish government to evaluation processes.

Strategic studies are also part of the strategic toolbox in Flanders. The Flemish Council for Science and Innovation (VRWI) conducted a range of studies and foresights in order to set policy priorities, notably for the Flanders in Action process (ViA) – for more information, see Figure 2-2. The innovation agency IWT executes and commission studies to gain knowledge on particular questions and issues of interest. The studies are published on the IWT website.

7 Vlaamse InnovatieSamenwerkingsverbanden [En: Flemish Cooperative Innovation programme] This measure has previously been identified as a best practice and was published on the Pro INNO Europe ® website as such.


Figure 2-2 Flanders in Action (ViA): the role of strategic intelligence in Flemish policy making

ViA (2009) is a comprehensive strategy that aims to place Flanders in the top-5 EU regions by 2020 and identifies strategic “breakthroughs”8, crucial for the future wealth and well being of all in Flanders. The importance of STI in ViA is reflected by the adoption of the 3% target and a translation of several breakthroughs into specific innovation targets by 2020, in the Pact 2020.

A basis for policy priorities in line with these challenges and the EU2020 strategy has been proposed by the Flemish Science and Innovation Policy Council, in short VRWI, a few years ago. Based on a SWOT analysis of Flanders versus the EU, combined with a European foresight study of 15 key areas, an advice of the VRWI describes six strategic clusters. After an expert consultation, these 6 clusters were redefined into the following ‘spearheads’ for technology and innovation: Broad stakeholder involvement is a common practice in STI governance decision-making.

Source: Based on Bruno & Van Til (2010) and the Annexes to the OMC Policy Mix Peer Review (2011).

Technology assessment is low at the Flemish intelligence agenda. In October 2011, the Flemish government decided to close the parliamentary technology assessment office “Institute for Society and Technology” (IST). IST executed a broad range of technology assessments and foresight exercises, focusing on the interface between technology and society. The termination of the office threatens the technology assessment capacity in the region.

Nevertheless, governmental decision-making often involves round table sessions with many stakeholders from society, including captains of industry and “captains of society” (including NGOs, umbrella and representation organisations). These round tables play a large role in decision-making, also for STI and industrial policy.

2.4 Key challenges and opportunities

The Flemish STI governance system emerged since the 1980-ies and since then built up an impressive regional STI system. As concluded by the Soete review (Soete et al. 2007), the Flemish system is now complete, but complex. The first 2-3 decades Flanders was ultimately busy in setting up a system; the last 5 years Flanders has been active in optimising its policy. Coordination and alignment between the different STI governance actors, stream lining of policies and policy measures as well as improving the ease of use and transparency for users challenges that are being dealt with by the Flemish government and its agencies. In this respect, evidence-based policy plays an important role: policy studies and evaluation of existing policy instruments are common instruments; section 3.2 will provide more information on this.

8 i.e. the open entrepreneur; Flanders learning society; Innovation centre Flanders; Green and dynamic urban region; Europe’s smart hub; Caring society; Decisive governance


Flemish authorities have two integrated approaches towards generation of new economic opportunities: on the one hand existing strong (industrial) sectors with high importance for the economy and employment are backed by a number of industrial policy measures. On the other hand, more knowledge-intensive routes are stimulated by funding for R&D, large research centres and competence poles. These routes are primarily linked to the Innovation Crossroads: junctions of the strengths of the Flemish economy and innovation capacity on the one hand9, and challenges to the Flemish society on the other10. The challenges to and opportunities for policy are related to the economic and innovation trends of Section 1.3. A recent self-assessment of the Belgium government, a peer-review of Belgium and an appraisal of the author show the following challenges and opportunities:

• Under financing of research: Traditionally, Flanders has relatively low public funding for research. The government is keen on its performance to raise the budgets heavily in the past few years. However, while research intensity of the private sectors increases, BERD intensity stagnates. All in all, this leads to a under financing of research; especially in light of the goals the Flemish government set in Flanders in Action: embrace the Lisbon goals.

• Improvement of human resources: prevention of brain drain, realising brain gain, mobility, especially in science and technology. Although Flanders has a high rate of human resources in science and technology and a large share of researchers it nevertheless faces some serious challenges with regard to the attraction of qualified researchers. Low remuneration of researchers and language restrictions hamper internationalisation of the system.

• Translating the high output and input in research to economic performance in the targeted areas: Flanders offers high scientific output and invests in strategic research centres, R&D programmes and et cetera. However, there is still an (perceived) innovation paradox, as the translation of the Flemish strong knowledge base to commercialisation is not perceived to be optimal. Focused support for young innovative companies and multinational companies that choose Belgium for their R&D headquarters could broaden the business base and reduce the dependence on strategic decisions taken by multinational companies abroad.

• Complexity of the system: Flemish policy makers face high levels of system complexity at several levels. Flanders is embedded in the Belgian federal system, with high level of autonomy, but with complex systems such as the tax system, etc. Moreover, the co-operation and coordination between policies at federal level, at inter-regional and at inter-community level is typically low: the inter-Ministerial Conference on Science Policy CIMPS-IMCWB for instance held their last meeting in May 2010. Regional compartmentalisation hampers the creation of critical mass.

9 As defined by the Flemish Council for Science and Innovation (VRWI) 10 As defined by the “Flanders in Action” process (ViA)


3. Innovation Policy Instruments and Orientations

3.1 The regional innovation policy mix

This section is based on analysis of the author of several sources on the Flemish innovation landscape, including the RIM and Trendchart/ERAWATCH database.

Because of the autonomy of the regions in the federal structure of Belgium, Flanders has a wide range of STI policy measures in place. In fact, the comprehensiveness of the set of instruments would be comparable to that of a national innovation system, except for tax incentives and several large research centres and infrastructures, which are arranged at federal level. The Flemish policy mix covers a range of policy priorities; Table 3-1 shows the priorities of the policy measures in place in Flanders. Recent analysis of 20 of the below listed support measures shows the following with regard to the policy priorities shows that Research & Technologies is the most addressed policy priority.

Table 3-1 Overview of the regional innovation policy mix – for a full overview of policy priorities of the individual measures, see Table 3-2

Policy Priority

Support measures aimed at this priority Number of measures with main focus 11

Estimated 2010 budget of the measures in € and % 12

Governance & horizontal research and innovation policies

• Support centres for policy-relevant Research • Flemish Cooperative Innovation Networks • Strategic Research Centres • Technology Transfer Fund (TETRA) • MIP, Environmental and Energy Technology

Innovation Platform • Competence Poles /Centres of Excellence • Applied Biomedical Research with a Primarily

Societal Finality (TBM)

3 €53m (12%)

Research & technologies

• Strategic Research Centres • Technology Transfer Fund (TETRA) • Strategic Basic Research financing channel • Special Research Fund • SME Programme • Research mandates • Research in Agriculture • R&D projects of companies • MIP, Environmental and Energy Technology

Innovation Platform • Industrial Research Fund (IOF) • Flemish Cooperative Innovation Networks • Competence Poles /Centres of Excellence • Applied Biomedical Research with a Primarily

Societal Finality (TBM)

9 €277m (65 %)

11 Only measures in the ERAWATCH/TrendChart database taken into account. 12 Budget estimated on the basis of the principal priority only – only measures from the

ERAWATCH/TrendChart database with estimated budgets taken into account.


Policy Priority

Support measures aimed at this priority Number of measures with main focus 11

Estimated 2010 budget of the measures in € and % 12

Human Resources

• Special Research Fund • Research mandates • Odysseus programme • Methusalem Programme • IWT Postgraduate grants

3 €63m (15%)

Creation and growth of innovative enterprises

• SME Programme • Research mandates • Odysseus programme • TINA • Mezzanine • Flemish Innovation Fund • Flemish Cooperative Innovation Networks • Entrepreneurship Action Plan • Competence Poles /Centres of Excellence • Archimedes (Activation of Venture Capital)

5 €33m (8%) 13

Markets and innovation culture

- - -

Source: Based on Bruno & Van Til (2011).

Below we will elaborate upon the Flemish policy mix. The below-mentioned instruments are all listed with a full overview on research priorities, start of the measure and budgets in 2010 in Table 3-2.

Governance & horizontal research and innovation policies

In Flanders, there are three measures that principally focus on this policy priority; with a total budget of €53m or 12% of the total set of analysed instruments. Policy measures in this area predominantly focus on Strategic Research policies (long-term research agendas), Policy Advisory Services, and cluster framework policies.

The strategic research policies are often instruments of the innovation agency IWT that facilitate strategic and/or basic research (SBO, competence poles, research centres). The strategic research centres in Flanders14, aim at performing long-term strategic research, while offering services and co-operating with both Flemish and international companies. A main characteristic of this instrument is certain top-down governance, with long endurance. The first Strategic Research Centre IMEC was set up by the government in the early 1980-ies, and still is an important measure in the Flemish STI landscape. The continuous support made imec a very successful research centre of world-class.

The cluster framework policies are often an aspect of research programmes, e.g. the Strategic Research Centres are assigned to co-operate with the Flemish industry in their domain and need to set up clusters. Moreover, the Flemish Innovation Network is a tool that should enable platforming and clustering of companies with a relevant cognitive overlap, in order to stimulate innovation.

The Policy Advisory Service is predominantly delivered by the Support centres for policy-relevant research. Support centres are formed by one or more academic research groups, which support the government with evidence for policy-making. Primary tasks are accumulation of data and knowledge, analysis for specific policy domains and knowledge diffusion. There are 14 centres, e.g. for R&D indicators, one for sustainable development, one for entrepreneurship and international trade, etc.

13 This support budget will be higher in practice, as this type of support is granted via a range of measures, including funds with a one-off start investment, which are not taken into account in the budget for 2010.

14 Including imec (micro- and nanoelectronics), VITO (sustainability), VIB (biotechnology) and IBBT (broadband, IT)


Research & technologies

This type of measures is the most important set of measures, accounting for €277m (65%) among the analysed ones. As STI-policy in Belgium is organised at regional level, this includes “normal type” R&D stimuli for research centres and companies, and SMEs in particular.

Many measures aim in this regard at the development of research excellence at universities (both individual as at department level). The priority, “2.1.1. Excellence, relevance & management of research in universities” is the largest in terms of funding. This includes for instance the Special Research Fund (BOF): institutional funding for universities, which is allocated by the government, partially based on research performance.

The priority addressed by most of the measures is direct support of business R&D (2.3.1), followed by R&D co-operation (2.23.). Several measures aimed at innovation-guided research are channelled via the innovation agency IWT. These measures aim to strengthen the interface between companies and universities, such as the public support to strategic research centres, strategic basic research, excellence centres or competence poles and a technology transfer fund (TETRA Fund). Also, the previously mentioned strategic research centres play a role in for development of research & technologies, as they bridge the perceived gap of knowledge and valorisation.

Human Resources

According to our analysis, human resources are the second most important policy priority, taking up 63m (15%) of the available budgets.

In a way, all measures aimed at creating excellence or providing excellent research infrastructures could be considered to be aimed at human resources as this typically attracts researchers. However, a number of measures primarily channelled via the Fund for Scientific Research (FWO) aim at improving human resources. Measures often aim at mobility of researchers, or anchoring excellent researchers in the Flemish system. Support is often aimed at individual researchers, ranging from post-docs to excellent professors.

Creation and growth of innovative enterprises

The analysis of measures shows that creation and growth of innovative enterprises is the fourth most important research priority, in terms of budget. However, in practice this support budget holds higher importance, as this type of support is granted via a range of measures, including funds with a one-off start investment, which are not taken into account in the budget for 2010. For instance, the TINA investment fund, which is currently being developed, will receive €200m investment for start-up, which will be allocated to (start-up) companies over the next years.

Flanders has a range of investment schemes, aimed at start-ups and venture capital for innovation. This includes specific subsidies and loans that support companies in performing industrial R&D and producing prototypes, including a SME-specific programme.

Trends

Trends in the Flemish policy mix are related to the economic and institutional nature discussed in Chapter 2. A common feature is the emphasis on measures aimed at encouraging increased co-operation between the research base and enterprises. Over the last decade, this resulted in more focussed industrial R&D and mobility schemes; as well as increased focus on SMEs. Since the mid-nineties already several facilities aimed at SMEs were in place, but the efforts intensified and, most importantly, the ease of use for SMEs was increased.


Table 3-2 Existing regional innovation support measures

Title Start date and end date, if indicated

Policy priorities – main policy priority on top of the list Budget (2010 in €)

Organisation responsible

More information

Strategic Research Centres

1982 • 1.2.1 Strategic Research policies (long-term research agendas) • 2.2.3 R&D cooperation (joint projects, PPP with research

institutes)

N/a EWI • Imec; www.imec.be • VIB: www.vib.be • IBBT: www.ibbt.be • Vito: www.vito.be

Technology Transfer Fund (TETRA)

2004 • 2.2.3 R&D cooperation (joint projects, PPP with research institutes)

• 2.1.1 Policy measures concerning excellence, relevance and management of research in Universities

7941000 IWT http://www.rim-europa.eu/index.cfm?q=p.support&n=14156&r=BE2

Support centres for policy-relevant Research

2001 • 1.1.3 Policy Advisory services (technology foresight, scoreboard type activities, cluster mapping, sectoral studies of innovation)

7857000 EWI http://www2.vlaanderen.be/weten/steunpunten/

Strategic Basic Research financing channel

2003 • 1.2.1 Strategic Research policies (long-term research agendas) • 2.2.3 R&D cooperation (joint projects, PPP with research

institutes)

36674000 IWT http://www.iwt.be/subsidies/sbo

Special Research Fund

1994 • 2.1.1 Policy measures concerning excellence, relevance and management of research in Universities

• 3.1.2 Relation between teaching and research

117123000 Flemish government

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/edulex/database/document/document.asp?docid=13054

SME Programme 2001 • 2.3.1 Direct support of business R&D (grants and loans)|2.2.3 R&D cooperation (joint projects, PPP with research institutes)

• 4.3.1 Support to innovative start-ups incl. gazelles

n/a IWT http://www.rim-europa.eu/index.cfm?q=p.support&n=14155&r=BE2

Research mandates

1994 • 2.2.2 Knowledge Transfer (contract research, licences, research and IPR issues in public/academic/non-profit institutes)

• 3.2.3 Mobility of researchers (e.g. brain-gain, transferability of rights)

• 4.3.1 Support to innovative start-ups incl. gazelles

2950000 IWT http://www.iwt.be/subsidies/onderzoeksmandaten





More information

Research in Agriculture

2001 • 1.2.1 Strategic Research policies (long-term research agendas) • 2.1.1 Policy measures concerning excellence, relevance and

management of research in Universities • 2.1.2 Public Research Organisations • 2.1.3 Research and Technology Organisation (private non-

profit)

8640000 IWT http://www.iwt.be/subsidies/landbouwonderzoek

R&D projects of companies

2001 • 2.3.1 Direct support of business R&D (grants and loans) • 2.2.3 R&D cooperation (joint projects, PPP with research

institutes)

104856000 IWT http://www.iwt.be/subsidies/oeno-bedrijfsproject

Odysseus programme

2006 • 3.2.3 Mobility of researchers (e.g. brain-gain, transferability of rights)

12600000 FWO http://www.fwo.be/Odysseusprogramma.aspx

MIP 3, Environmental and Energy Technology Innovation Platform

2006- 2013 • 2.3.1 Direct support of business R&D (grants and loans) • 1.1.3 Policy Advisory services (technology foresight, scoreboard

type activities, cluster mapping, sectoral studies of innovation) • 1.3.1 Cluster framework policies • 5.2.2 Support and guidelines on innovative Green Public

Procurement (GPP)

N/a EWI http://www.mipvlaanderen.be/en/webpage/123/homepage.aspx

TINA/ Mezzanine 2011-12 • 4.3.2 Support to risk capital • 4.3.1 Support to innovative start-ups incl. gazelles

n/a PMV n/a

Methusalem Programme

2006 • 3.2.2 Career development (e.g. long-term contracts for university researchers)

20076000 FWO http://www.fwo.be/Nieuws-Persbericht.aspx?ID=d257935b-2037-413d-a671-605e00cdd221&L=nl

IWT Postgraduate grants Since 2011:innovation mandates

1994 -2011 • 3.1.3 Stimulation of PhDs 30183000 IWT http://www.iwt.be/subsidies/innovatiemandaten

Industrial Research Fund (IOF)

2004 • 2.1.1 Policy measures concerning excellence, relevance and management of research in Universities

• 2.2.3 R&D cooperation (joint projects, PPP with research institutes)

17000000 EWI http://www.rim-europa.eu/index.cfm?q=p.support&n=14153&r=BE2





More information

Flemish Innovation Fund (VINNOF)

2005 • 4.3.1 Support to innovative start-ups incl. Gazelles • 4.3.2 Support to risk capital

n/a VINNOF http://www.rim-europa.eu/index.cfm?q=p.support&n=14157&r=BE2

Flemish Cooperative Innovation Networks

2002 • 4.2.1 Support to innovation management and advisory services • 1.1.3 Policy Advisory services (technology foresight, scoreboard

type activities, cluster mapping, sectoral studies of innovation) • 1.3.1 Cluster framework policies • 2.2.3 R&D cooperation (joint projects, PPP with research

institutes)

18500000 IWT http://www.IWT.BE/VIS

Competence Poles /Centres of Excellence

2005 • 2.1.3 Research and Technology Organisation (private non-profit)

• 1.3.1 Cluster framework policies • 2.1.4 Research Infrastructures

16500000 IWT http://www.rim-europa.eu/index.cfm?q=p.support&n=14154&r=BE2

ARKimedes (Activeren van Risico Kapitaal: Activation of Venture Capital)

2005- recently ended

• 4.3.2 Support to risk capital 2368000 PMV http://www.pmv.eu/nl/diensten/arkimedes

Applied Biomedical Research with a Primarily Societal Finality (TBM)

2006 • 2.1.3 Research and Technology Organisation (private non-profit)

• 1.3.3 Other horizontal policies (ex. society-driven innovation) • 2.1.2 Public Research Organisations

5700000 IWT http://www.iwt.be/subsidies/tbm

Source: Regional Innovation Monitor repository; Bruno & Van Til (2011); ERAWATCH/TrendChart database – analysis by the author


This report should give a priority ranking of the 3 most important regional innovation measures. In the case of Flanders this is hard, given the broad policy mix and the broad range of instruments. Therefore, we here chose instruments from different policy rationales; and rather do not rank them in 1 to 3, as it would be misleading to rank different types of instruments with a different rationale and good performance. Three important regional measures are:

• Strategic Research Centres: large research centres with a thematic focus, at the interface of blue-sky research and application-oriented research. The measure has been positively evaluated in terms of the good knowledge base capacity to co-operate with industry, and a very consistent policy at governance level.

• VIS scheme: a comprehensive set of sub-instruments aimed at increasing technological innovation capacities in Flanders by stimulating cooperation and knowledge transfer between research organisations, intermediaries and companies. The scheme consists of instruments for collective research, innovation project funding and feasibility studies. The success of the instrument is determined by its ability to serve the needs of the policy target (companies), its effectiveness and fitness to reach the long-term goals of the programme.

• Methusalem Programme: Given the challenges to innovation policy, instruments aiming at improving human resources should be included; both Methusalem and Odyssesus are interesting instruments. This instrument facilitates funding for senior research capacity with proven excellence, in order to attract excellent foreign researchers, or to keep excellent Flemish researchers in the region.

3.2 Appraisal of regional innovation policies

The Flemish innovation policy is increasingly evidence-based: evaluations and monitoring systems are in place. Evaluations took place at system level and at the level of individual programmes or even sub-programmes. However, most of the evaluations are not publicly available and remain disclosed.

An expert committee made a full review of the full set of instruments in place in 2007. According to the peers, the full set of measures in the Flemish innovation system is complete. Innovation policy in Flanders emerged only since the federalisation of Belgium in 1980. Since then, Flanders has been able to built up a comprehensive set of instruments and all priorities to innovation policy are addressed by the set of measures. However, due to the process of building up this comprehensive set of measures, the accumulated set of measures became quite complex. Several priorities are targeted by a number of instruments, and instruments in it became complex.

As a result of this rather influential review, recent ministers have made the set of instruments simpler and more “customer friendly”. Streamlining took place at the level of instruments and at programme level. Both programmes and instruments have been merged and streamlined. At the end of users, the distinctions and criteria have been removed in order to make it easier to find the right measure to apply to.

At project level, evaluation protocols are often taken up in the management contracts of measures and/or institutes and the Department EWI. A milestone in this evidence-based policy making was the adoption of a “good governance” act (Dutch: Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid (BBB)) of the Flemish government. As a result, EWI set up a dedicated evaluation unit, within its strategy department. This evaluation unit is not involved in management of programmes and institutes. The evaluation unit often assigns work to individual experts, to assure integrity and independence in its evaluations. In addition, the innovation agency IWT has a good track record in evaluating its efforts. Again, external experts assure independence when necessary. Important recent evaluations at programme level include the evaluation of the VIS-


programme15. The main conclusion of this evaluation was that the instrument was rather fragmented, and several strands of the programme were merged and streamlined. An impact analysis of parts of the instruments showed that the instruments served the needs of the policy target (companies) and positive indications of the effectiveness of the instrument (Verbeek et al., 2008). In a response to the evaluation the measure has been adapted and the strands of the scheme for collective knowledge diffusion and knowledge accumulation have been integrated in trajectories that now focus on concrete and demand-oriented challenges to consortia of companies. Another key instrument in the Flemish set of instruments; the Strategic Research Centres have been evaluated in the start of 2011, but the outcomes of these evaluations are not publicly available.

3.3 Good practice case

The emergence of the Strategic Research Centres (Dutch: Strategische Onderzoekscentra (SOCs)), in the early 1980-ies was part of the first acts of the creation of a Flemish innovation policy. The Belgium Reform distributed the power for industrial policy to the Belgian regions, which led to the creation of a movement called “the Third Industrial Revolution in Flanders”. The Flemish government identified hotspots in the Flemish R&D system that showed potential for economic and societal development. Over time, these hotspots have been complemented with a strategic research centre, namely: IMEC for micro-/nanoelectronics, VITO for sustainable development, VIB for biotechnology and IBBT for ICT.

The aim of the SOCs is twofold: they are to (a) develop excellent R&D with a world-reputation in the mentioned thematic domains, and (b) should strengthen the Flemish region, notable in terms of economic added value and innovative power of the Flemish industry. The main rationale for the instrument is the lacking translation of the high-quality knowledge of Flanders to innovative products and services. Therefore, the SOCs do not only invest in high-quality front-end research, but also offer technology transfer services to both national and international companies. IMEC for instance set up a division INVOMEC that offers technological services to companies that are willing to implement micro-electronics in their products and services, it offers training to both academics and companies on how to work with micro-electronics. Moreover, SOCs provide science communication, strategic planning in their sector as well as other activities. This full package of measures increases the radiation of the accumulated knowledge to the Flemish society.

At least two SOCs have been evaluated recently (i.e. imec and VIB, mid 2011), but the results are not made public. However, renewed management agreements showed that both SOCs have been able to reach their Key Performance Indicators, and showed a positive effect on the Flemish innovation eco-system. Especially IMEC and VIB have a very good international reputation, involving the most important industrial parties. This reputation will certainly have a positive effect on Flanders. When looking back at the management agreements and decisions of the government, the anchoring of the knowledge in the economic system has remained a challenge in the case of imec, as the ICT-sector is largely located in Asia and the USA.

15 This measure has been identified as a good case example; and is managed by IWT.


The SOCs are to be observed as a good practice for the following reasons:

• The SOCs are based on strategic analysis and planning of the Flemish STI landscape. The decisions are rooted in fully-fledged analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Flemish eco-system, since 1980.

• The SOCs offer a broad package of measures, not only aimed at knowledge creation and technology transfer, but backed with training, technological services, science communication and involvement of the public. This broad package has started a culture transition from ivory tower research to more strategic science.

• The Flemish government, in some cases from the 1980s, has backed the SOCs consistently. Moreover, the SOCs were started in an early phase of technology development. As a result, some of the SOCs were able to grab a world leading position, attracting the largest industrial players in that field to Flanders.

3.4 Portfolio of innovation support measures

In Belgium, the relative importance of the national level is very low; tax incentives and funding for a small number of research initiatives are the responsibility of the national level (see Section 2.1). The regional level has high autonomy and a very large influence; in fact there are three knowledge triangles (Bruno, Van Til 2010):

• In Flanders, the policy domains of research, innovation and education have been gathered with the merger in 1980 of the Flemish Region and the Flemish Community at their setup and following the split of higher education policy in Belgium towards the Communities following the 3rd State Reform of 1988; other policies at federal level influence this triangle;

• Industrial research & innovation policy in Wallonia and education and basic research within the French Community; other policies at federal level influence this triangle;

• Industrial research & innovation policy in Brussels-capital and education and basic research within the French and Flemish Communities; other policies at federal level influence this triangle.

Given the fragmentation, synergies at intraregional level tend to be moderately high, most notably in Flemish innovation and research policy, as those policy fields are governed in one policy field (EWI) with the EWI department, and the IWT, FWO, PMV and Hercules agencies. Education policy is to a large extent aligned with research, and – to a lesser extent – with innovation policy. Other policy domains that fund research activities have connections, but are aligned to a smaller extent.

Non-Belgium funding for resources are obtained from the EU, notably through ERDF and the Framework Programmes (Research and Competition and Innovation). The Flemish return of the FP7 for Research is estimated at about 2.33% of the total investment of Flanders in (EWI, 2011b) the EU. The EU budget for Cohesion policy in Belgium is €2.26b; consisting of ERDF and funding of ESF. Almost three-quarter of the ERDF funding to Belgium is allocated to Wallonia. The Cohesion funding of ESF in Flanders accounts for 44% of the Belgian total. For the Goal 2: ‘Regional competitiveness and employment’ €670m was allocated to Flanders (€201m from ERDF and €469m from ESF). Effectively €178m has been allocated as of 31 May 2011 (EWI 2011b). Among the ERDF projects in Flanders there are two substantial projects on renewable energy within the context of the Interreg IVA-programme Flanders-the Netherlands 2007-2013:

• Bio Base Europe: construction of a polyvalent test installation for industrial biotechnology and bio-refining in Ghent, plus a training centre for process operators in Terneuzen – co-financing of €7m;

• Hydrogen region Flanders – Southern Netherlands: realisation of a trans-border hydrogen region, support for technological applications of hydrogen – co-financing to the extent of some €4m.


All in all, if we take a look at attribution of the different policy levels to public research funding in Flanders, the following picture emerges (see Figure 3-3). Over time, the relative importance of the regional Flemish government has increased, as well as the share of European funding sources, while the relative importance of the federal government has decreased over time. The high level of public funding at regional level typifies the regional STI-system in Flanders.

Figure 3-3 Estimated government funding for R&D in Flanders by source (€m and %)

2000 2005 2010 2011

595.68 898.64 1,224.02 1,231.31 Flemish government16 (66%) (74%) (73%) (74%)

235.63 233.58 300.81 280.81 Federal government (26%) (19%) (18%) (17%)

68.72 88.07 146.00 146.00 European FPs

(8%) (7%) (9%) (9%)

Source: EWI Budgetbrowser 2011 (EWI 2011c)

3.5 Towards smart specialisation policies

Smart specialisation policies are currently emerging in Flanders. This involves the following steps and milestones.17

• Setting regional innovation priorities: Evaluating and assessing the current strengths and weaknesses of the region in a sector or technology

In Flanders a number of multi-annual strategic plans and targets have been agreed upon by a broad-ranging group of stakeholders from government, civil society and industry. These plans set out a set of targets across a range of policy fields, amongst which STI is assigned a clear priority. The policy plan, setting out societal focal points in Flanders is Flanders in Action (Vlaanderen in Actie, ViA). ViA aims to place Flanders in the top-5 EU regions by 2020 and identifies strategic breakthroughs, crucial for the future wealth and well being of all in Flanders, while taking into account challenges to the Flemish society. ViA is set out against policy priorities based on an analysis of the strengths of the Flemish innovation and economy eco-system. The Flemish Science and Innovation Policy Council (VRWI) proposed six strategic clusters based on a SWOT analysis of Flanders, with the EU as a benchmark. In addition a European foresight study of 15 key areas was integrated in this proposition. After expert consultation, the 6 clusters were redefined into the following ‘spearheads’ for technology and innovation:

− Transportation - Logistics - Services - Supply chain management;

− ICT and Services in Healthcare (e-health);

− Healthcare;

− New Materials - Nanotechnology - Manufacturing industry;

− ICT for Socio-economic innovation;

− Energy and Environment.

16 Funding of the Flemish government as defined in the HBPWB: R&D share only (e.g. direct funding for universities not taken into account).

17 This section is based on a presentation by Larosse & Geerts (2011), as well as the author’s involvement in smart specialisation strategies in Flanders.


Flemish innovation and industrial policy is in search of a method for making smarter choices, to reach the targets of the Flemish ViA and the operationalisation of it in the ‘Pact2020’, based on transformation of value chains, spearhead domains, lead- companies and open innovation, targeted cluster policy.

The above-mentioned spearheads are relatively broad and do therefore not necessarily target niches in which Flanders could excel at world level, cf. the so-called “step sideward” of the smart specialisation concept). Recently, this strategy gains attention in Flanders and EWI is actively involved in developing a tool for strategic monitoring by specialisation profiles.

• Supporting an entrepreneurial process of discovery activities

The Department EWI is one of the main participants to the OECD TIP-working group on Smart Specialisation Strategies. In this frame, it prepares two case studies on smart specialisation strategies with two different angles. First, a case study is made for nanotech for health. At the moment a cluster is being formed in this area, the Strategic Research Centre imec (see 3.3) is taking a prime mover role in this process, and therefore this could be seen as a case of science push: a step sideward is taken from an excellent research position, to new niches of economic opportunities. The second case study is FISCH: a sustainable chemistry cluster based in Antwerp. This cluster is heavily rooted in the chemical sector and Essenscia takes a lead role, which is a platform organisation of the chemical sector. This case study thus takes a market/industry pull model as entrance point.

• Identifying complementary investments

The Flemish authorities support ‘entrepreneurial process of discovery’ by a number of instruments. In the first case, this is the SOC imec itself – which is a policy instrument (see section 3.1 and 3.3). In the second case, FISCH is to be promoted to the status of competence pole (see 3.1 and 3.2). As a competence, it has access to earmarked budget of the innovation agency IWT. FISCH has a role in pooling projects, while IWT will make actual support decisions for projects. In addition, FISCH takes a coordinating role and intermediary position as a representative organisation of the chemical sector. Complementarities are also found with Industrial Policy. In the New Industrial Policy (Flemish Parliament, 2011b) and in the Policy Letter for Innovation (Flemish Parliament, 2011a) a number of instruments and measures are mentioned that will play a facilitating role to smart specialisation. The current policy is focused on lead companies, markets and clusters. Relevant initiatives include:

− The “Factory of the Future” presents a leveraging approach for system innovation, targeting (trans-sectoral) networks;

− Grand Projects, aiming at strategic research linked to the EU Key Enabling Technologies programme and a toolbox of instruments including advise, coaching, demonstration and training of departments, as well as special impulse programmes for SMEs and a spin-out programme;

− The TINA-fund, a leverage fund for industrial transformation, open for consortia with a clear transition strategy (€200m).

3.6 Possible future orientations and opportunities

Flanders has a strong regional innovation system, with a sound economic and innovative performance. Opportunities and future actions will thus focus on pooling Flanders between the best regions in the EU. Flanders has set itself the goal to rank between the Top-5 regions in the EU (ViA, 2009). Several reviews of Belgium and Flanders already pointed out the completeness of the Flemish STI-system and the comprehensiveness of the regional policy mix (Soete et al. 2007; Ziarko et al. 2010, Bruno & Van Til 2010; Bruno & Van Til 2011).


Given the innovation and innovation policy challenges, we see the following future actions emerge:

• Continuous support to Science and Innovation. In many ways, Flanders is successfully managing its innovation system and the government will continue this effort. In the past (notably the Strategic Research Centre imec), Flanders already showed fruit-bearing endurance in its support.

• A sustained reinforcement of the public support to R&D and improved facilitation of private investments in R&D. Main policy documents, such as ViA and the Policy Notes of the minister responsible for Science, Innovation and Technology, adopt the 3% goal set in the Lisbon treaty. The current government will definitely pursue to continue public expenditures to R&D, but the economic slowdown and the expected increased investments of the Flemish region in the federal level might make cuts inevitable. With regard to business expenditures to R&D, the government could consider a range of efforts to anchor multinationals and foreign companies, in order to boost business R&D and to avoid that public support to these companies is foot loose. Currently, the innovation agency IWT is investigating this, using the lead plant and lead company concept.

• In line with the transformation of the economy a connection needs to be made between mature industries (e.g. chemicals) and new knowledge intensive routes. This support is given to high-tech development particularly in ICT and biotech. Moreover, more specialised approaches are being developed using the smart specialisation concept.


Appendix A Bibliography

Bruno N., Van Til J. (2010) ERAWATCH Country Reports 2010: Belgium, ERAWATCH Network.

Bruno N., Van Til J. (2011) Trendchart Mini Country Report, TrendChart.

CIS survey (2009)

EWI (2011a) Speurgids 2011 Ondernemen & Innoveren, EWI. Available at: http://www.speurgids.be/speurgids/editie-2011

EWI (2011b) De Vlaamse Deelname aan de Europese programma’s voor Onderzoek en Innovatie (2007-2013), EWI.

EWI (2011c) Budget browser. Available in Dutch at: http://www.ewi-vlaanderen.be/ewi/kerncijfers-speurgids-ondernemen-innoveren-2011

ECOOM (2011) Indicatorenboek 2011, ECOOM. Available in Dutch at: http://www.ecoom.be/index.php?id=40

Flemish Parliament (2011a) Beleidsbrief innovatie 2010-2011, Stuk 774 (2010-2011) – Nr. 1

Flemish Parliament (2011b) White Paper - A new industrial policy for Flanders. Available at: http://www.ewi-vlaanderen.be/en/ewi/white-paper-new-industrial-policy-flanders

HERMREG (2010) Regionale economische vooruitzichten 2009-2015. Available at: http://www.plan.be/publications/Publication_det.php?lang=nl&TM=34&IS=63&KeyPub=1053

Larosse J., Geerts N. (2011) Exploring ‘Smart Specialisation Strategies’ in Flanders, Workshop ‘S³ Platform’, 10/11 March 2011. Available at: http://www.eurada.org/site/files/Jan%20LAROSSE.pdf

OECD (2010) The OECD outlook 2010: country note for Belgium.

Verbeek A (rapporteur) (2006) Report of the OMC policy mix peer review. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/omc_be_review_ report.pdf

Boekholt P., Georghiu L. (rapporteurs) (2011) Report of the OMC policy mix peer review. Available online in due time.

Soete L., Oosterlinck A., Op de Beek P. (Chairs) (2007) Eindrapport Expertgroup voor de Doorlichting van het Vlaams Innovatie-Instrumentarium.

Verbeek A., Lykogianni E., Van Hoed M (2008) De effectiviteit van het Vlaamse Innovatiesamenwerkingsverband (VIS). IWT.

ViA (2009) Vlaanderen in Actie. Available at: http://ikdoe.vlaandereninactie.be/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Engelstalige_folder_Vlaanderen_in_Actie.pdf

Ziarko W., Reid A., Bruno N. (2010) Belgian Report on Science, Technology and Innovation 2010 (BRISTI). BELSPO


Appendix B RIM Repository information

Baseline regional profile

BELGIQUE-BELGIË VLAAMS GEWEST Region FlandersNUTS Code BE2

Regional Profile

In t roduct ion

Flanders (6.1m inh. in 2007) is a Belgian region, together with Wallonia (3.4m) andBrussels-Capital (1m). Belgium also has three linguistic communities (Flemish,French, German). Each type of entity has autonomous competencies with nohierarchy of powers, which for R&D policy implies a multi-level governancesystem. The region of Flanders and the Flemish community 's governments havemerged into one.

Repository

Suppor t measures

Industrial Research Fund (IOF)SME ProgrammeCompetence Poles / Centres of ExcellenceFlemish Innovation Fund (VINNOF)TETRA Fund

Policy documents

Policy Note 2009-2014; Scientific Research and InnovationFlanders in ActionScreening of the Flemish innovation policy instruments (Report of the expertgroup chaired by Dr. Soete )

Organisat ions

Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT)Department of Economy, Science and Innovation of the Flemish Government(EWI)Flemish Science and Innovation Policy Council (VRWI)

http://www.rim-europa.eu/index.cfm?q=p.baseline&r=BE

http://www.rim-europa.eu/index.cfm?q=p.baseline&r=BE2

http://www.rim-europa.eu/index.cfm?q=p.support&n=14153&r=BE2





http://www.rim-europa.eu/index.cfm?q=p.policy&n=14140&r=BE2




http://www.rim-europa.eu/index.cfm?q=p.organisation&n=14135&r=BE2




Economy

Flanders covers 44.8% of Belgium's territory and represents the majority of thecountry's industry and workforce; the region provides 58% of the national grossdomestic product (GDP). Within Belgian regions, Flanders is ranked second interms of GDP per capita with €31,700 in 2007 compared to €31,500 nationally. In2007, Flemish GDP (in purchasing power standard per inhabitant in % of the EU27average) was with 116% above the EU average (as in Belgium as a whole). Theregional advantage in comparison to the EU27 average is however declining since2004 (124%).

With an employment rate of 66.5%, Flanders lies, in 2008, both above the Belgian(62.4%) and EU27 (65.9%) averages. The Flemish unemployment rate (3.9%) is in2008 considerably below the EU27 (7%) and Belgian (7.0%) averages. In terms oflabour productivity measured by GDP per person employed, Flanders is also wellabove the EU15 average (117.7% in 2007.

During the period 1999-2007, the share of manufacturing in nominal value addedin the Flemish region has decreased from 32.2% to 27.4% and services grew by66.3% to 71.6% (75.4% in Belgium). Value added generated by medium high-techand high-tech industries, accounted for 7.9% of the total value added of the regionin 2007, which is above the national (6.49%) and the European (7.4%) averages. Theemployment figures in these industries follow the same trend: 7.24% of the totalemployment in Flanders was in medium high-tech and high-tech industr ies in2008, compared to 6.25% in all Belgium and 6.7% (2007) in the EU27.

Flanders is an important logist ic hub, due to i ts central location and i ts dense andintegrated mult imodal t ransport infrastructure. Major mult inat ional automotivecompanies are also active in Flanders, al though their posit ion is under pressure.The Flemish network economy mainly derives its power from SMEs often acting assupplier companies. In addition, the petrochemical industry and ICTs are keysectors of the regional economy.

Flanders is characterised as an open economy: the region takes more than 80% ofBelgian export, mainly going towards the European market. Flanders exports for61.5% intermediary goods, for 18,5% consumption products and 9.5% investmentgoods. Neighbouring countries, France, The Netherlands, Germany and UK takemore than half of the total export of Flanders.

Research, Development & Innovation

Flanders' expenditures on R&D reached 2.03% of its GDP in 2007 (of which 1.5%privately financed, 0.53% publicly); this is slightly above the Belgian (1.9%) andEU27 (1.83%) averages. Public and private R&D outlays represented a total of€3,847m. In 2009 €1,803m were budgeted by the Flemish government for scienceand innovation, out of which €1,146m for R&D funding. In addition, a number ofR&D activities are based on federal public outlays.

Flanders has six universities (incl. two in Brussels), four large research centres (

Flanders has six universities (incl. two in Brussels), four large research centres ( IBBT, IMEC, VIB, VITO) and a number of smaller competence poles for specific(mainly sectoral) knowledge development. With more than 22,000 researchers(full-time equivalent), the region gathers 61.2% of the researchers in the country.The share of R&D personnel in the total active population (1.73%) is howeverequivalent to the national average. The ICT sector is the most important sectorwith 36% of the overall business R&D employment. The level of education of thepopulation is relatively high with 32.5% of the population of the region aged from25 to 64 years having a tertiary education (ISCED 5 and 6), compared to 32.3% inBelgium and 24.2% in EU27 (2008). In 2007, R&D expenditures performed by thehigher education sector represented 0.38% of GDP in Flanders and 0.4% in Belgium(0.42% in EU15), which is stable since several years.

The business sector accounted for 73% of Flanders' R&D spending (69.5% inBelgium). Business R&D expenses in Flanders are mainly situated in high-techsectors such as chemistry, pharmaceuticals, ICT, mechatronics, which togetherrepresent almost 80% of the total R&D expenses. The chemical and life sciencesindustry in Flanders alone represents half of total private R&D expenditures inBelgium (€2.7b in 2007).

In terms of patenting, Flanders shows good performance: the number of EPO(European Patent Office) patent applications per million inhabitants in 2005 was214.6; Belgium reached 177.3 and EU-27 105.7. There is a strong concentration ofpatents in a small number of multinational companies, SMEs being rather absentwith regard to patenting. The main areas for Flemish EPO patent applications arechemical technologies, packaging and printing technology, material processing,texti les, paper, telecommunications and optics.

Governance

Belgium is characterised by a multi-level governance of R&D policy as the federalgovernment and the three regional and three language community governmentsall have competence for certain R&D matters. The federal level retains competencefor a l imited number of specific fields as regards the regional innovation systems,such as scientific research in the federal science institutes, intellectual propertyrights, corporate taxation measures, employment legislation and social security;the communit ies are competent for matters related to persons including scientif icresearch and education; regions are competent for issues related to terri torialmatters such as energy policy, environment, and economic support , includinginnovation and industrial research. All regions (and the Communities) have closeto full autonomy in managing their 'own regional innovation system and policies ' .

In Flanders, innovation is governed by the administration of Economics, Scienceand Innovation (EWI). EWI has two ministers responsible for the two differentparts of the EWI policy domains. Economic Affairs is the responsibility of theMinister-President whereas the Deputy Minister-President is responsible forinnovation, and has a portfolio covering Innovation, Public Funding, Media andPoverty Prevention. The latter is responsible for the policy field of fundamentalresearch, strategic and policy-oriented research, technological innovation and

http://www.ibbt.be/

http://www.imec.be/

http://www.vib.be/

http://www.vito.be/english/

research, strategic and policy-oriented research, technological innovation andscience popularisation.

EWI is responsible for monitoring, evaluating, preparing and implementing policy.For policy execution (but also with a role in policy preparation in their respectivefields) there exist a number of agencies, covering a broad spectrum of policyareas: competitive scientific research (FWO), R&D and innovation support tocompanies (IWT), training (SYNTRA), financial participations, guarantees and loans(PMV) and entrepreneurship (Entrepreneurship Agency). The Flemish Council forScience and Innovation (VRWI) advises the Flemish Government on the preparationand the evaluation of its science, technology and innovation policy.

Flanders has six universities, four large strategic research centres along with anumber of smaller competence poles for specific (mainly sectoral) knowledgedevelopment and/or knowledge t ransfer .

Policy

In Flanders, the new government has made implementat ion of the renewedFlanders in Action (FIA) plan the central theme for its term. FIA is an action planthat should lead Flanders to reach the top five of excelling regions in Europe interms of economic performance and 'be a nice place to live' . At the core of the FIAis a new agreement between the social partners to boost innovation, the Pact 2020.The importance of innovation is underpinned with several goals, such as:

Dedicate 3% of GDP to R&D by 2014;Boost creativity and innovative capacity, for instance by increasinglyinvolving the non-academic higher education insti tutes in innovation projects;Put more focus on 'spear heads' , i .e innovation policy focussed on themeswhere Flanders has a strong knowledge posit ion and good economicprospects ;Give more attention to output of research policy;Stimulate students to study sciences, and give researchers better prospects;Increase investments in higher education institutions up to 2% of GDP.

The Policy Note 2009-2014 on Scientific Research and Innovation draws up theplan for the 'Open Innovation Centre Flanders ' and addresses the following mainissues:

Economic exploitation of research results through creativity and innovativeent repreneurship ;

1 .

Focus on 'grand projets ' , ' thematic spear heads ' and economic clusters in theFlemish economy and innovation system; and

2 .

Flanders as an international player: strengthening basic research, humanpotential in research, research infrastructure and a more output drivenresearch policy.

3 .

The policy note is in large a continuation of the policy plans of the previousMinisters: simplification and efficiency of the current set of science, technologyand innovation policy instruments is st i l l on the agenda. The scope of innovation

has been broadened from technological innovation to include al l improvementsdue to the addit ion of knowledge and ideas to products, services, organisations orprocesses .

Main changes in the Policy Note 2009-2014 when compared to the Policy Letter ofprevious Ministers are the explicit preference for light (often virtual) instruments,the focus on 'grand projects ' and the widening of the definit ion of innovation.Moreover, the current Minister shifted the emphasis from simplifying the set ofinstruments to simplif ication of individual instruments.

Support measure

BELGIQUE-BELGIË VLAAMS GEWEST Region VLAAMS GEWESTNUTS Code BE2

Support Measure

Title of measure

Industrial Research Fund (IOF)

Full title

Industrieel OnderzoeksFonds (IOF)

Duration

From: 2004 To: No fixed end date

Policy objectives

2.2.3. R&D cooperation2.1.1. Universities

Presentation of the measure

The Industrial Research Fund (IOF) is one of the two programmes to supportstrategic basic research in Flanders. It aims at the economic exploitation ofknowledge production at universit ies, by building up applied science portfolio atuniversit ies, and st imulating university-industry l inkages.

The rationale of IOF is to address the gap between research and the economic



exploitation of the knowledge produced at universities. IOF aims to gearuniversit ies towards more application oriented research. The strong posit ion ofuniversit ies in the Flemish innovation system made i t possible for them to fosterthe launch of this government programme for intra-universi ty research whereasinter-university research is supported through the 'Strategic Basic Researchfinancing channel' (SBO).

The IOF is divided over the Flemish universities every year, based on distributionformula with several criteria including several output criteria (doctoral degrees,publicat ions and ci tat ions, income from industr ial contracts and from Europeanprogrammes, patents, spin-off companies) . Gradually, the distr ibution key hasindeed evolved to further take into account the knowledge exploitation trackrecord of the universit ies. Every university then has an intra-universitycompeti t ion to award the IOF-funding to projects .

Keywords

Applied business researchUniversities

Budget, source and type of funding

Currency: EUR

Source offunding

2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9

Nationalpubl ic fundsRegionalpubl ic funds

2,000,000 10,000,000 11,300,000 11,000,000 16,000,000 16,700,000

EU Structuralf u n d sPrivate fundsOthe rForm of funding provided

Gran t s

Policy learning

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

There has been a positive response by beneficiaries to the measure (e.g.over-subscribed in terms of requested versus available budget) but i t is too earlyto judge resul ts or impact

Evaluation report links

Eindrapport van de expertgroep voor de doorlichting van het Vlaamsinnovat ie- inst rumentar ium, November 2007

Evidence of outcomes based on evaluation and other evidence

The IOF was evaluated in 2007, according to the decree. The evaluation wasconducted externally. However, the findings of the evaluation have not beenpublished yet .

Based on press releases of the Flemish government, one might conclude that theIOF evaluation is positive. The IOF will be continued and streamlined.Furthermore, the IOF will be merged with university-industry interface (ormatchmaking) services.

Do's and Don'ts

There is no public evidence yet on the results of the programme.

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

N o

Organisation(s) responsible

Department of Economy, Science and Innovation of the Flemish Government(EWI)

Support measure


Support Measure

Title of measure

SME Programme

http://www.iwt.be/sites/default/files/eindrap_doorlichting_innovatie_instrumentarium.pdf


http://www.rim-europa.eu/index.cfm?q=p.organisation&n=14134




SME Programme

Full title

KMO Programma

Duration


Policy objectives


SME support has been a core activity of the IWT since its founding in 1991. TheSME programme has been set up in 2001 with the aim of st imulating andenhancing innovation activities in Flemish SMEs. The SME programme is acontinuous programme functionning through horisontal open cal ls . In order forthe programme to be easi ly accessible and transparent the thresholds for thepotential users are low. Innovation is defined as ' the realisation of a new product,process or service for which a technological solution is required' , where the lattershould be understood as innovative to the company with a clear impact on themarket. This innovation can require the internal development of a technology orthe creative application of an existing one. Also non-technological activitiesrequired for the innovation can be eligible. A second aspect concerns knowledgeacquisition: through the innovation, the SME's knowledge should increase.

The SME programme has been simplified in 2009, after public debate andrecommendations of the Soete Expert review. As a result , the amount of threadsoffered by the programme were brought back from six to two:

SME feasibili ty studies - these are preliminary studies for a well-definedinnovation trajectory. New (technology based) firms can also assess theirbusiness plans and models. Also, this study can be followed up with meansfrom another programme/project , such as the SME innovation trajectory;SME innovation trajectory - this is aimed at projects that should lead toinnovations.

Keywords

Smal l and medium-sized enterpr isesNew technology-based f i rms


Currency: EUR

Source of funding 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8National public funds

Regional public funds 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000EU Structural fundsPrivate fundsOthe rForm of funding provided

Gran t s

Policy learning






The programme has not been evaluated since 2002. This evaluation was input andprocess or iented.

In 2007 however, there was an evaluation of the whole Flemish innovation systemunder the Soete expert review, in which the SME programme was a crucial part.The expert review had the following conclusions on the SME programme:

The SME programme has a high satisfaction rate;The amount of funding for the SME programme needs a further increase;The international dimension of the SME programme needs furtherdevelopment ;The innovation measures and in particular the measures for SMEs aref ragmented;Although SMEs were satisfied about the SME programme, it is crucial forSMEs to have clear and simple measures;

The expert committee's plea for a simplication of the SME support led to acomplete reform of the programme in 2009.

Do's and Don'ts



I t appears from the evaluation of 2002 that key success factors for such measurestargeted at SMEs are:

Simplified administration;Short delay for treating the files;Sufficient budget , durat ion and number of suuported studies per year;Broad definition of innovation.

The following elements were evoked as being less successful:

Lack of communication between the funding provider and the knowledgecentre;The different project types were not enough known by the f irms, moreexamples should be given;Need of a clearer definition of SME;Need of further simplification of procedures.

The 2009 assessment further showed that i t is crucial for SMEs to have clear andsimple measures .


Yes


Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT)

Support measure


Support Measure

Title of measure

Competence Poles / Centres of Excellence

Full title

Competent iepolen




Duration


Policy objectives

1.3.1. Cluster framework policies2.1.3. Research and Technology Organisation (private non-profit)2.1.4. Research Infrastructures


The Competence Pole programme aims at facil i tat ing co-operation and interactionbetween the relevant actors from science, technology and industry and to createand diffuse knowledge creat ion and knowledge diffusion between industry andknowledge inst i tutes.

Within the excellence centres, industrial partners co-operate with public researchorganisations (PRO), universities, professional organisations, etc. The centres aresupported through resul t -or iented contracts (usual ly for four years) under theVIS-scheme. The main activities are knowledge creation and knowledge diffusion,with the focal point of the activities varying case by case. The organisationalmodel is dynamic and bottom-up and the act ivi t ies are focused on a large groupof companies. The centres are primari ly oriented towards the structuring of andthe co-operation amongst actors of a specific industrial sector with relevantresearch and innovation potential at Flemish level. The initiatives are:

Flanders' DRIVE (automotive);Flemish Institute for Logistics;Flanders' Mechatronics Technology Centre;Flanders' Food;Flanders Materials Centre;Flemish Institute for Mobility;Flanders InShape (product development and industrial design);Flanders' Synergy (innovative labour organisation);Flanders' PlasticVision (plastic processing).

Keywords

Science-industry cooperat ionApplied business research


Currency: EUR

Source of funding 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0National public fundsRegional public funds 7,780,000 15,060,000 22,125,420 27,739,290 16,600,000

Regional public funds 7,780,000 15,060,000 22,125,420 27,739,290 16,600,000EU Structural fundsPrivate fundsOthe rForm of funding provided

Gran t s

Policy learning


It is too early to judge the success of the measure (e.g results of first call forproposals sti l l not known).




The competence poles are too recent a development to evaluate their effects.Nevertheless, an expert review of the Flemish Innovation system (chaired by DrSoete) indicated that there is consensus that the broad execution of thecompetence poles can be improved significantly. Therefore, the panel of expertsmade the fol lowing recommendations:

The complete procedure of the competence poles needs thorough review.The end goal is to create a t ransparent mechanism that f i ts the need of theoverarching Flemish innovation strategy;The competence poles need the t ime and means to reach cri t ical mass, longterm and short term objectives as well as a monitoring of these objectives;Partners - both academic as industr ia l - that become part of the competencepole need to be involved as soon as possible in all aspects of the competencepole, including intellectual property rights;Competence poles need to be allowed to have an international dimension.Actors from outside Flanders that can have a posit ive impact on the quali tyof the competence poles should be al lowed to part icipate in order to createwin-win s i tuat ions.

Do's and Don'ts



The poles of excellence are too recent a development to evaluate their effects.Following the analysis performed by the Soete panel of experts, the followingaspects can be emphasised:

The procedure of the competence poles should be t ransparent and f i t theneed of the overarching regional innovation strategy;The competence poles need the t ime and means to reach cri t ical mass, longterm and short term objectives as well as a monitoring of these objectives;Partners - both academic as industr ia l - that become part of the competencepole need to be involved as soon as possible in all aspects of the competencepole, including intellectual property rights;Competence poles need to be allowed to have an international dimension.Actors from outside the region that can have a posit ive impact on the quali tyof the competence poles should be al lowed to part icipate in order to createwin-win s i tuat ions.


N o



Support measure


Support Measure

Title of measure

Flemish Innovation Fund (VINNOF)

Full title

Vlaams Innovatiefonds (VINNOF)

Duration

From: 2005




To: No fixed end date

Policy objectives

4.3.1. Support to innovative start ups incl Gazelles4.3.2. Support risk capital


The seed and incubation phases are considered crucial for the s tar t-up of newcompanies. Private capital for these phase is scarce and banks tend to invest inproven quali ty only, thus ignoring entrepreneurs without reputation. In order toguide innovative start-up companies to private capital , the Flemish InnovationFund (Vinnof) was set up in 2005. ParticipatieMaatschappij Vlaanderen is oneshare short of whole ownership of the company and is the s tatutory businessmanager. Vinnof 's authorised capital currently equals €50m.

The aim of the fund is to provide risk-bearing capital to innovative starters inFlanders. Vinnof offers such entrepreneurs greater opportunit ies by investingfrom the star t-up phase. Known as seed funding, this type of investment makes i teasier for entrepreneurs to call on private capital in a next phase.

The fund invests seed capital in start ing enterprises with the intention ofobtaining a financial return. The investment generally takes the shape of ashareholding. Consequently, the envisaged return typically consists in capital gain.The Vinnof investments are meant to be l imited in t ime, and primarily take placeduring the s tar t -up and ini t ia l growth phases .

The most prominent fields of investment in 2008 were life sciences (28%),industrial products (20%) and communications (16%).

Keywords

GazellesEarly stage-financingNew technology-based f i rms


Currency: EUR

Source of funding 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0National public fundsRegional public funds 75,000,000 75,000,000 20,000,000 50,000,000EU Structural fundsPrivate fundsOthe r

Form of funding provided

Subsidised loans (including interest allowances)Venture capital (including subordinated loans)

Policy learning




Vinnof was founded with the aim of providing buffer financing for regionalinnovative companies during the early years of their business life. Vinnof wasuntil 2008 able to offer three different financial products: incubation financing,sowing capital and project financing. However, these products were subject to avariety of different criteria, financing mechanisms, maximum investment l imits,target groups, etc. This often led to confusion amongst applicants. For this reason,i t was decided that as of 2008 Vinnof is henceforth simply used as a brand namefor sowing capital investments. The restyled Vinnof can provide sowing capital upto a maximum of €1.5m. The target group of 's tarters ' was expanded to covercompanies which are younger than six years old. The organisation anddistribution of incubation financing is henceforth left to the IWT. Project financingwas also withdrawn from the Vinnof remit and transferred to the new PMVfinancing scheme known as 'PMV Mezzanine' that provides leverage for attractingdebt capital from private lenders.

Do's and Don'ts

From 2006 to 2008, Vinnof used three different f inancing products, each subjectto i ts own criteria, financing types and maximum investment l imits.This regularlycreated confusion among entrepreneurs . Furthermore, the maximum investmentamount of €500,000 for seed capital repeatedly turned out to be a handicap, bothfor the companies involved and for Vinnof itself. This is why the decision wasmade in 2008 to reorganise Vinnof:

Vinnof will only be used as a brand name for seed capital investments.Based on an application fi led with the European Commission under theframework regulation on state aid for research, development and innovation,Vinnof can provide seed capital up to a maximum of €1.5m.


N o

Support measure


Support Measure

Title of measure

TETRA Fund

Full title

TETRA Fonds

Duration


Policy objectives

2.2.3. R&D cooperation2.1.1. Universities


As was the case for its predecessor the HOBU Fund (1996-2004), the TETRA Fund(TEchnology TRAnsfer) is in line with the third strategic objective of the PolicyNotes of the Ministry responsible for Science, i.e. more strategic technologicalinnovation in Flemish companies and the operational objective of developing apolicy targeting less innovative companies.

The TETRA Fund aims at the economic exploitation of the scientific achievementsof Flemish higher education institutes (HEI) - both universities as well aseducation institutes of applied sciences. This economic exploitation is facili tatedby technology transfer processes between HEIs and companies or nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). The final goal is twofold:

increasing the innovative capacities of companies and NGOs, and



increasing the knowledge base of HEIs by notably encouraging a betterintegration with technologic, economic and social actors.

The TETRA Fund supports applied research projects that study a innovativeconcept and that promise resul ts that can f ind applicat ion in the industry orprivate sector. TETRA projects have to be technology-focussed and the resultshave to be aimed at economic viabili ty. The projects should stimulate networkingof HEIs and other societal actors, based on research results.

Although there is not thematic focus, nor a strict selection of eligible companies,TETRA seeks to stimulate sustainable technologies, and also the technologytransfer to SMEs.

Keywords

Science-industry cooperat ionUniversitiesKnowledge transfer


Currency: EUR

Source of funding 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9National publicf u n d sRegional publicf u n d s

6,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 7,400,000 8,889,000 9,077,000

EU Structural fundsPrivate fundsOthe rForm of funding provided

Gran t s

Policy learning


There is evidence of an impact of the measure based on verifiable indicators or anevaluation (e.g. sales generated from new products, jobs created, etc.)


TETRA and its predecessor HOBU were evaluated in 2007. Over 1997-2006 a totalbudget of €55m was allocated to technology transfer at HEIs via the TETRA Fund,and 2700 participations were launched. According to the evaluation, TETRA

reaches its ultimate goal: i t reinforces technology transfer, and fosters ' fruitfultechnology transfer ' . The transferred knowledge is applied in new processes, newor improved products and services, thus improving the competi t ive advantage ofthe involved actors. A large majority has a positive return on investment, althoughthis is often not easy to quantify. The economic exploitation of research results ishowever often hindered by mechanisms out of reach of the research groups andcompanies. These barriers are however not fatal , but restrictive.

The evaluation also highlighted that the budget of the TETRA projects is not largeenough to support al l applicat ions, al though there is no reason to assume that'good' but not granted applications would be less successful. Hence, according tothe evaluation, an increase of the total budget of TETRA would lead to an equalincrease of the economic effects of the programme.

Do's and Don'ts

Following the evaluation, TETRA appears to be highly valued by companiesbecause i t t ransfers new technology and fosters new and sustainable networksbetween companies. The SMEs mainly appreciate the commercial side of thisaspect, which is two-fold: they gain new technology and integrate in networksenabling them to expand their activit ies.

For HEIs, TETRA is an important measure to reach critical mass of their researchgroups. Researchers see TETRA as a quasi structural form of support. It is awell-known route to acknowledgement .

On the other hand, several weaknesses of TETRA are identified. The mainchallenge appears to involve the industry and to get engagement. More specificallythe main weaknesses are:

The relative low contribution of the companies allow them to be less engaged;Research groups can get ' trapped' by TETRA if they count on another TETRAgrant .

The relatively short duration of the projects leads to uncertainty about the jobs ofresearchers, and to a decrease in their efficiency since a lot of their time isdedicated to the draft ing of project proposals .


Yes



Policy document



Policy Document

Policy Note 2009-2014; Scientific Research and Innovation

Beleidsnota 2009-2014 Wetenschappeli jk Onderzoek en Innovatie


Department of Economy, Science and Innovation of the Flemish Government (EWI)

Con ten t

The Policy Note is the white paper of the minister responsible for science andinnovation in the coali t ion that took office in 2009. The document is presented tothe Parliament; i ts main function is to legitimise the minister 's science, technologyand innovation (STI) policy. It will be guiding all policy lines in STI policy for theperiod 2009-14 set out by departments and agencies . The document a lso informsall those with interest on the important policies in the upcoming period and i tguides actors in the field to position themselves within the policy framework.

The document presents a number of chal lenges to be met:

From idea to economic exploitation: market results and societal impact;More creative and innovative entrepreneurs;Focussing on economic clusters, thematic spearheads and 'grand projets ' ;Flanders as international player (embedding in ERA, co-operation withneighbouring countries and regions, international capital Brussels);Reinforcement of the excellence and dynamics of basic research: the basis forinnovat ionMore chances for research talent;An excellent research infrastructure;A more s t reamlined and output-dr iven innovat ion model .

Year of publication

2 0 0 9




Link to website

Link: h t tp : / /www.ewi-vlaanderen.be/ewi/bele idsnota-wetenschap- inno . . .

Policy document


Policy Document

Flanders in Action

Vlaanderen in Actie (ViA)

Conten t

With 'Flanders in action' (ViA) the Flemish government aims to place Flanders inthe top-5 EU regions by 2020. It identifies strategic breakthroughs, crucial for thefuture wealth and well being of everyone in Flanders. The 'breakthroughs' are:

The open entrepreneur;Flanders learning society;Innovation centre Flanders;Green and dynamic urban region;Europe 's smart hub;Caring society;Decisive governance.

Science, technology and innovation (STI) play a role across these various themes.Policy initiatives taken in these areas are expected to match the overall goals ofthe ViA framework. The importance of STI in ViA is reflected by the target tospend 3% of the gross domestic product on R&D by 2014. In addition to thistarget, the 'breakthroughs' of ViA are translated into 20 targets in the 2020 Pact.In concrete terms, the targets set include:

A year-on-year increase of the number of patent applicat ions,To be amongst the EU's top-5 regions for public spending on eco-innovation,An increase of turnover from new or improved products and services,A higher share of spearhead areas such as ICT and health, logistics, smartelectricity networks (GRID) in the economy.

http://www.ewi-vlaanderen.be/ewi/beleidsnota-wetenschap-innovatie-2009-2014



Year of publication

2 0 0 6

Link to website

Link: ht tp: / /www.flanders inact ion.be

Policy document


Policy Document

Screening of the Flemish innovation policy instruments (Report of the expertgroup chaired by Dr. Soete )

Eindrapport expert groep voor de doorlichting van het VlaamsInnovat ie - Ins t rumentar ium



Conten t

The document was prepared by an expert committee chaired by Professor Dr. LucSoete and installed by the Flemish Minister of Economy, Science, Innovation andForeign Trade in order to assess the set of instruments used for science,technology and innovation (STI) policy in Flanders. The information retrievedshould be used as strategic intelligence for formulating new policies. In fact, thedocument has been rather influential in the policy-making for STI after thatper iod.

Based on the assessment, the fol lowing recommendations were formulated:

Simplication of the complex set of instruments;

http://www.flandersinaction.be




Internationalisation of the regional innovation policy; andStronger focus on SMEs, instead of the current focus on large companies.

Especially the conclusion that the Flemish innovation system is complete (i.e. allthe systemic fai lures identif ied are addressed with at least one instrument) butrather complex (i .e. simplification was needed in order to ensure an effective andefficient functioning of the set of instruments), has been taken up in many of thefollowing policy plans, such as the 2009 Policy Letter and the White Paper onScience and Innovation for 2009-14.

Year of publication

2 0 0 7

Link to website

Link: h t tp : / /www. iwt .be /n ieuws/he t -e indrappor t -van-de-exper tg roep- . . .

Organisation


Organisation


Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT)

Link: h t tp : / /www. iwt .be /

Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 16Brussels,B -1030

Mission

The IWT is the one-stop-shop for all industrial R&D and innovation support inFlanders. The agency was set up in 1991 by the Flemish Government and assistscompanies, research centres and knowledge centres in realising their research anddevelopment projects, by offering funding, advice and a network of potentialpartners in Flanders and abroad.

More specifically, it encourages innovation through:

http://www.iwt.be/nieuws/het-eindrapport-van-de-expertgroep-voor-de-doorlichting-van-het-vlaams-innovatie-instrumentar



http://www.iwt.be/

Funding: financing innovative projects of companies, research centres,collective research initiatives, organisations and individuals;Advice and services: support to all Flemish companies and research centresby helping these during their applications, or providing technological adviceduring their innovative projects;Co-ordinat ion and networking: s t imulat ing co-operat ion by bringinginnovative companies and research centres in contact with Flemishintermediate organisat ions that s t imulate innovation.Policy development: supporting the Flemish Government in i ts innovationpolicy.

Activities

The IWT supports all types of innovators in Flanders:

Companies that are act ively innovating, from small s tart-ups tomultinationals with a branch in Flanders: specific attention is paid to SMEs,whilst partnerships of companies and knowledge centres (e.g. excellencecentres, innovative co-operation networks or clusters) are also eligible forinnovat ion support ;Individual researchers and research centres: they can apply to the IWT for theappropriate support and receive funding, advice and contacts with potentialpartners for innovative scientific research, applied research and technologytransfer ;Organisations: f inancial support is provided to various types of organisations(e.g. collective research centres) that stimulate innovation in Flanders. TheIWT also unites these organisations via the Flemish Innovation Network tofacilitate active support of innovation.

The agency applies a bottom-up approach: subsidies and advice are at t r ibuted toinit iatives proposed by the actors themselves and any project with a technologicalinnovation component is eligible for funding. Apart from direct f inancial supportthrough a wide range of different support measures, the policy mix of the IWTalso consists of various forms of indirect support and services (advice, technologyscans, partner search, networking). There exist relatively few thematic Flemishresearch programmes and support is to a large extent awarded through genericinitiatives.

The IWT acts as a one-stop shop for companies and research centres to accessinnovation funding in Flanders and at Europen level. It is the national contactpoint (NCP) for Flanders for supporting applications to thematic programmeswithin the 7th European Research Framework Programme, ERA-nets, INNO-nets,EUREKA, Joint Technology Initiatives, or Ambient Assisted Living. Moreover,through the Enterprise Europe Network, the IWT stimulates internationalcollaboration by bringing Flemish companies and research centres in contact withforeign partners and assis t ing them in penetrat ing new markets for theirtechnology transfer projects .

Organisation



Organisation

Department of Economy, Science and Innovation of the Flemish Government (EWI)

Departement Economie, Wetenschap en Innovatie of the Flemish Government (EWI)

Link: h t tp : / /www.ewi-vlaanderen.be

Koning Albert II-laan 35 bus 10Brussels,B -1030

Mission

The EWI manages policy-making in the field of science, technology andinnovation. It was established in 2006 following a major administrative reform,entitled BBB ('Better Governing') of the Flemish public authority. The role of theEWI department is to prepare, monitor, and evaluate public policy in the field ofeconomic support ( including entrepreneurship), science and innovation, tocontribute to more wealth and well-being in Flanders. Thereto, i t aims atst imulating:

Excellent scientific research;An attractive and sustainable business climate;A creative, innovative and entrepreneurial society.

The EWI co-ordinates the co-operation between the different agents of theFlemish government regarding economic, scientific and innovative domains."Transforming Flanders to one of the most advanced and prosperous regions inEurope is , in accordance with the governmental agreement, the most importantstrategic goal" (source: EWI website).

Activities

The EWI:

Prepares all legislative initiatives in the field of science, research andinnovation;Promotes close co-operat ion between research inst i tut ions, higher educationinst i tut ions and companies;Promotes a positive image of science, technology and innovation (STI)through an annual act ion plan;Prepares mul t i -annual management agreements wi th a number oforganisations, such as the Flemish strategic research centres, the ResearchFoundation Flanders (FWO), or the Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ);Evaluates policy instruments and organisations that receive governmental



http://www.ewi-vlaanderen.be

Evaluates policy instruments and organisations that receive governmentalsuppor t ;Coordinates on all STI topics within and outside the Flemish Government;Holds the responsibili ty for the direct implementation of a few policyinstruments, examples of these being the interface services, the IOF(Industrial Development Fund), the Steunpunten (policy research centres) orthe PWO (project-based scientific research conducted at university colleges).

The EWI plays also a leading role in the preparation and follow-up of policyinitiatives at bilateral, European, interregional, or international policy levels. Inparticular, there is a focus on an active involvement in the European research andinnovation policies, through notably:

the preparation of decisions within the Competit iveness Council of theEuropean Union (EU) (Industrial Policy and Research subgroups);the EU's Research Framework Programme: preparation of the themes in theprogramme, programme committee members, involvement in ERA-Nets,OMC-networks, and support act ions;the EU's Competit iveness and Innovation Programme: coordinator forFlanders for the three thematic pil lars;contributions to reports and consultations at EU level on economy,entrepreneurship, science and innovation;the participation in networks of the European Fund for Regional Developmentrelated to R&D and innovation;the participation of Flemish institutes and companies in COST.

The department holds a lso numerous representat ion funct ions l inked topreparation and follow-up policy-making and activit ies of mult i lateralorganisations (OECD, United Nations).

Organisation


Organisation

Flemish Science and Innovation Policy Council (VRWI)

Vlaamse Raad voor Wetenschap en Innovatie (VRWI)

Link: ht tp: / /www.vrwi.be

Koloniënstraat 56Brussels,



http://www.vrwi.be

B-1000

Mission

The Flemish Council for Science and Innovation (VRWI) was established by an Actof the Flemish Parliament on 30 April 2009 that came into force on 1st January2010. It builds on the policy advice foundations of i ts predecessor, the FlemishScience Policy Council. The VRWI has 20 voting members, who are appointed bythe Flemish Government for a period of four years. In addition, there are sixex-officio members who attend council meetings by virtue of the public officesthey hold, each of them having an advisory vote.

The Flemish Government is obliged to ask for the advice of the VRWI on:

The preliminary drafts of parl iamentary acts concerning science andinnovation policy;The draft decisions of the Flemish Government that concern science andinnovation policy and that are of strategic importance.

Furthermore the VRWI can, on its own initiative or by request, give advice, makerecommendations, conduct surveys and general ly provide contr ibutions onmatters related to STI policy.

Activities

The Flemish Government is obligated to ask VRWI for advice on:

draft bills concerning science and innovation policy;draft conclusions of the Flemish Government concerning science andinnovation policy, having strategic importance.

The VRWI can also proactively or on request of the government carry on thefollowing activities:

publish advisory reports on the outl ines of Flemish science and innovationpolicy;publish advisory reports on draft bil ls concerning science and innovationpolicy;publish advisory reports on bills concerning science and innovation policy;publish advisory reports on draft conclusions of the Flemish Government;publish advisory reports on agreements of s trategic importance which theFlemish Community or the Flemish Region wishes to enter into with thefederal state or with other Belgian communities and regions, and on drafts ofEuropean and international treaties of strategic importance;reflect upon the policy notes submitted to the Flemish Parliament;monitor and interpret societal developments;contribute to forming policy visions;offer s trategic advise and perform studies on long term developments andchallenges in science and innovation policy, in particular on theirinternat ional dimension;publish a yearly advisory report on the current and future budget policyconcerning science and innovation policy.

The Flemish Government can furthermore authorise the VRWI to represent theFlemish Community or Flemish Region in federal or international advisory bodies.

The Flemish minister for innovation sees an important role for the VRWI to helpdesign the strategic innovation policy, including through the establishment andcoordination of ' innovation directing groups' . Within this innovation directinggroups a l imited number of innovation leaders and experts are brought togetherwith a dual purpose, namely:

1. Design and advice on focused innovation strategies; 2. Platform for collaboration and directing the implementation of thesestrategies.

The groups del ineate a s trategic innovation agenda for the medium-term. Thisprovides clear strategic and operational objectives, measurable indicators and aroadmap to deal with the social and economic challenges in question.


Appendix C Statistical data

Vlaams Gewest (BE2) EU27

Indicator 2000 or around

Previous year

Most recent

Most recent

GDP per capita (PPP) 23800 29000 28800 25100

(Year) 2000 2007 2008 2008

3.98 3.47 2.51 3.73

(Year) 2000-03 2006-07 2005-08 2005-08

Unemployment rate 4.1 3.75 3.75 6.98

(Year) 2000-03 2006-09 2007-10 2007-10

Change in unemployment rate -1.13 0.15 0.00 -0.30

(Year) 2000-03 2006-09 2007-10 2007-10

Tertiary education 0.32 0.39 0.40 0.30

(Year) 2000 2009 2010 2010

Government R&D expenditure 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.24

(Year) 2000 2007 2007 2008

Non-R&D innovation exp. 0.55 0.55 0.41 0.41

(Year) 2004 2004 2006 2006

Patents per min population 129.3 158.7 154.5 115.1

(Year) 2000 2005 2006 2006

Business R&D expenditure 1.69 1.37 1.37 1.21

(Year) 2000 2007 2007 2008

Higher education R&D expenditure 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.44

(Year) 2002 2007 2007 2008

Source: Eurostat and Community Innovation Survey

Technopolis Belgium Avenue de Tervuren 12 B-1040 Brussels Belgium T +32 2 737 74 40 F +32 2 727 74 49 E [email protected] www.technopolis-group.com

Regional Innovation Monitor - European Commission...Regional Innovation Monitor iii 3. Innovation...

Documents

Transcript of Regional Innovation Monitor - European Commission...Regional Innovation Monitor iii 3. Innovation...