INTERREG IVC Thematic Programme Capitalisation Analysis … · 2019-03-25 · October 2013 Credits: Experts for thematic capitalisation on eco-innovation Asel Doranova Asel Doranova

www.technopolis-group.com

INTERREG IVC

Thematic Programme

Capitalisation

Analysis report on

Eco-Innovation


October 2013

Credits:

Experts for thematic capitalisation on eco-innovati on

Asel Doranova Asel Doranova is a researcher and consultant at Technopolis Group where she focuses on eco-innovation, sustainability, and energy policies. She works extensively with the European Commission’s DG Environment, DG Regio, DG RTD as well as UNIDO & OECD on the topic of eco-innovations, green, and sustainable growth. Asel has a PhD in Economics and Policy studies of Technical Change, and Master’s degrees in Environmental Sciences & Policy and Development Studies.

Geert van der Veen Geert van der Veen has more than 20 years of experience in the field of science and innovation policy and eco-innovation/sustainability. Over years, he has accumulated a wealth of experience though consulting international agencies, national governments, and regional authorities. Among his clients are the European Commision’s DG Environment, DG RTD, DG Enterprise as well as OECD, Government of Flanders, Finnish technology agency Tekes and the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science. Carlos Hinojosa Carlos Hinojosa specialises in public policy evaluation and urban and regional development policy. He has acquired significant experience in eco-innovation by assessing the Environmental Technology Verification scheme, analysing eco-innovations in France, an impact assessment of the EU’s Eco-Innovation Action Plan (EcoAP), project evaluations for the French Environment and Energy Agency and a study on the effects of climate change for the OECD. He has Political Science degrees from the Universidad de las Américas-Puebla in Mexico and the Institute of Political Studies in Paris.


“The contents of this work reflect the views of the author(s) and do not represent the position of the INTERREG IVC programm e. The authors are entirely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented.”


Foreword: Capitalising on achievements

Over the last seven years, more than 2 000 public institutions across Europe have been learning from each other through cooperation in 204 interregional projects with the goal of improving regional policies. Hundreds of individual examples now exist of how a region or city has built on the experiences of their counterparts elsewhere to enhance their own policy and delivery strategies. For example, inspired by the approaches taken by the ECO Centre in Wales (UK) and an Educational Centre of the city of Sittard-Geleen (in the Netherlands), the Hungarian city of Vecsés developed activities on renewable energy and sustainability for its school children. In another example, based on lessons learnt through dialogue with Paterna (Spain), the Daugavpils City Council in Latvia upgraded its infrastructure for industrial parks, which had been active during the Soviet era but which also have great potential today. In a final example, after exchanging information with the Cypriot authorities the Region of Crete in Greece invested in water recycling and re-use schemes, applying the Cypriot models. The sheer scale of the knowledge shared in the INTERREG IVC Programme is impressive: almost 5 000 staff involved in regional policy have improved their skills, and more than 250 policies have been improved. With such a wealth of experience, the programme was eager to go a step further and harness the knowledge that has been collected or generated at project level. Policymakers across Europe are searching for evidence to support their actions – and even more so during this period of financial instability. Local and regional authorities don’t necessarily have the resources to try out different policy practices without the assurance that they have worked elsewhere. Over the course of the past year, 12 teams of experts in different fields have been analysing the project results and benchmarking the knowledge they have accumulated. This report is the fruit of their work. It showcases the tried-and-tested practices exchanged - and policies improved - by INTERREG IVC projects, and will be of interest to all EU regions. Synergies and complementarities within the projects are identified as well as links with other EU initiatives. Policymakers and practitioners at all levels - regional, national and European – will find theme-specific recommendations tailored for them. There is no longer a need to look project by project and policy by policy to understand the key regional policy issues and potential solutions in the field of eco-innovation. You will find in this report an organised ‘repository’ of the valuable knowledge gained by the INTERREG IVC projects working in this important area, to help you to shape the policies of tomorrow.

Michel Lamblin Erwin Siweris


Programme Director Deputy Programme Director


Table of contents

Contents

Foreword: Capitalising on achievements ............................................................................................ iv

Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. x

1. Introduction and Methodology ................................................................................................... xiv

1.1 Objectives of the programme's thematic capitalisation exercise on eco-innovation...................................................................................................................................... xv

1.2 Methodological approach ........................................................................................................ xvi

1.3 Projects analysed in this exercise ...........................................................................................xvii

2. Policy context............................................................................................................................. xx

2.1 Why eco-innovation matters? ................................................................................................... xx

2.2 EU policies supporting eco-innovation ................................................................................ xxi

2.2.1 Europe 2020: towards a strategic approach to eco-innovation ..................................... xxi

2.2.2 The EU’s research and innovation policy measures relevant to eco-innovation ................................................................................................................................ xxiii

2.2.3 The EU’s initiatives in the area of environment and industry relevant for eco-innovation ......................................................................................................................... xxv

2.2.4 EU’s climate and energy policies relevant to eco-innovation ...................................... xxvii

2.2.5 Eco-innovation in the EU regional policies ................................................................ xxviii

2.3 Conclusion – the added value of the interregional cooperation on eco-innovation under the INTERREG IVC programme........................................................................xxix

3. Analysis ...................................................................................................................................xxxi

3.1 Analysed projects..............................................................................................................xxxi

3.1.1 Cleantech-incubation Europe (CIE) .................................................................................xxxi

3.1.2 Forwarding regional environmental sustainable hierarchies (FRESH) ....................... xxxiii

3.1.3 Regions using ECO-ManageMENt for eco-innovation Development (RECOMMEND)..................................................................................................................... xxxvi

3.1.4 European Clusters and Regions for Eco-Innovation Network Plus (ECREIN+)........................................................................................................................... xxxviii

3.1.5 ECOREGIONS.............................................................................................................. xl

3.1.6 Developing Sustainable Regions through Responsible SMEs (DESUR) ...................... xlii

3.1.7 Producer Services for European Sustainability and Competitiveness (PROSESC) ..............................................................................................................................xliv

3.2 Aggregated thematic analysis ........................................................................................... xlvii

3.2.1 Promoting eco-innovation from the regional front: are regions legitimate stakeholders? .......................................................................................................................... xlvii

3.2.2 Eco-innovation: a crossroads of policy intervention ......................................................xlix


3.2.3 Innovative good practices in support of eco-innovation ................................................. lix

3.2.4 Lessons in identification and transfer of good practices ............................................... lxx

3.2.5 Key success factors in promoting regional eco-innovation policies .............................. lxxii

3.2.6 Actual and potential links and synergies .................................................................... lxxiii

4. Key policy messages and Conclusions .................................................................................... lxxvi

Annexe 1: Eco-innovation Cluster factsheet ................................................................................. lxxviii

Annexe 2: Eco-Innovation Partnership Map .....................................................................................lxxx

Annexe 3: Eco-Innovation Analysed Projects ................................................................................. lxxxi

Annexe 4: Eco-Innovation Thematic Workshop Report ...................................................................... xc

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: INTERREG IVC Lot 3 projects overview ............................................................................xvii

Figure 2: Eco-Innovation lot 3 project partners: geographic representation. ..................................... xviii

Figure 3: Types of organisations partnering in projects ..................................................................... xix

Figure 4: Concentration of ERDF funds by thematic priorities and types of regions in 2014-2020 ............................................................................................................................. xxviii

Figure 5: Prioritised good practices of the FRESH project .............................................................. xxxv

Figure 6: Role of regional players in the promotion of eco-innovation ............................................. xlviii

Figure 7: Approaches to eco-innovation identified in the projects ......................................................... li

Figure 8: Approaches and focuses of projects ................................................................................... lii

Figure 9: Multi-dimensional framework for the categorisation of good practices ................................. liv

Figure 10: Three types of Good Practices ........................................................................................ lvii


ACRONYMS

ABMC Automotive Benchmarking Club

ADEME National Environmental and Energy Management Agency

AER Assembly of the European Regions

AFNOR French Agency for Normalisation

BMU German Ministry of Environment

BREEAM Building Research Establishment (BRE) Environmental Assessment Method

C2C Cradle to Cradle

CCC Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster

CIP Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme

COSME Competitiveness & SME Equity & guarantees

CPR Construction Products Regulation

CSH Code for Sustainable Homes

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

DESUR Developing Sustainable Regions through Responsible SMEs

DHI Danish Hydraulic Institute

DTU Danish Technical University

EAP Environmental Action Programme

EC European Commission

Eco-IP European Eco-Innovation Platform

EcoAP EU Eco-innovation Action Plan

ECREIN+ European Clusters and Regions for Eco-innovation Network Plus

EEAP Energy Efficiency Action Plan

EI Eco-innovation

EIO Eco-innovation Observatory

EIP European Innovation Partnership

EPBD Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

ERA European Research Area

ERFD European Regional Fund for Development

ERRIN European Regions Research and Innovation Network

ETAP Environmental Technologies Action Plan

ETV Environmental Technology Verification

EU European Union

EV Electric Vehicle

FP Framework Programme for Research

FRESH Forwarding Regional Environmental Sustainable Hierarchies

GEUS Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland


GPI Genuine Progress Indicator

GPP Green Public Procurement

IiE Investors in the Environment

INPI National Institute for Industrial Property (France)

JTS Joint Technical Secretariat

NGO Non-governmental organisation

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PROCESC Producer Services for European Sustainability and Competitiveness

REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals

RECOMMEND Regions using ECO-ManageMENt for eco-innovation Development

RIP Regional Implementation Plan

RIS3 Regional Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation

SCP-AP Sustainable Consumption and Production Action Plan

SET Sustainable Energy Technology Plan

SME Small and Medium size Businesses

SPG (Sustainable Design and Construction) Supplementary Planning Guidance

TC/CEN Technical Committee /Comité Européen de Normalisation (European Committee for Standardisation)

UBA German Federal Environmental Agency

COUNTRY CODES

AT Austria HU Hungary

BE Belgium IT Italy

BG Bulgaria LT Lithuania

CZ Czech Republic MT Malta

DE Germany NL Netherlands

EE Estonia NO Norway

EI Ireland PL Poland

EL Greece RO Romania

ES Spain SE Sweden

FI Finland SI Slovenia

FR France UK United Kingdom


Executive summary

The importance of Eco-innovation is clearly being recognised in the EU and worldwide.

Eco-innovation is not limited to a particular sector or only equated to environmental technologies, goods or services. It can be defined as: “the introduction of any new or significantly improved product (good or service), process, organisational change or marketing solution that reduces the use of natural resources (including materials, energy, water and land) and decreases the release of harmful substances across the whole life-cycle." 1

The development of eco-innovation and eco-industries presents a significant economic opportunity. Eco-innovation in companies leads to reduced costs, improves their capacity to capture new growth opportunities and strengthens company image in the eyes of customers. Furthermore, there are growing markets for environmental goods & services, for technologies for pollution management, cleaner production etc. (market volume estimate for 2020: €2.2 trillion)2, as well as growing opportunities in the market for more pervasive and systemic eco-innovations designed to reduce resource use across all aspects of the economy.

Given its potential for decreasing environmental pressure and economic opportunities, eco-innovation is being addressed by policymakers at all levels. At EU level, the agenda is set out by the Eco-innovation Action Plan (2011) and confirmed by flagship initiatives, such as ‘Resource Efficient Europe’, ‘Innovation Union’ and ‘An Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era’ within the Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation. Various European Innovation Partnerships3 as well as funding mechanisms in Horizon 2020 provide a means to promote eco-innovation. The Eco-Innovation Observatory4 is also gathering strategic knowledge resources on eco-innovation for businesses and policymakers. Many other EU initiatives, including those with an environmental focus, are relevant to eco-innovation.

As part of its effort to focus EU cohesion policy resources for 2014-2020 on a smaller number of priorities, the Commission is proposing that member states and regions concentrate resources on thematic priorities directly linked to the Europe 2020 objectives. These include the shift towards a low-carbon economy; climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management, environmental protection and resource efficiency. In the coming years, EU Regional Policy will consequently become one of the main EU policies to foster eco-innovation and to respond to the challenges of sustainable energy, climate change and the use of natural resources. Across EU regions, there are, however, wide disparities in terms of eco-innovation performance

1 Definition by the Eco-innovation Observatory (www.eco-innovation.eu) 2 Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) and Umweltbundestamt (UBA) (2009), Umweltwirtschaftsbericht 2009, Berlin 3 In particular, the innovation partnerships on water, raw materials, agriculture, smart cities. See details on http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?pg=eip 4 access to resources for www.eco-innovation.eu


and eco-innovation policy-making experience level, which can be addressed by the numerous opportunities offered for interregional learning.

Within the current INTERREG IVC programme, there are already a number of initiatives for policy learning in the field of eco-innovation policy at regional level. This study has focused on analysing seven projects grouped under the ‘eco-innovation’ theme:

�� Cleantech-incubation Europe (CIE): supporting regional policies for cleantech incubation

�� Forwarding regional environmental sustainable hier archies (FRESH): promoting regional policies to support and measure eco-innovation in the construction sector

�� Regions using ECO-ManageMENt for eco-innovation De velopment (RECOMMEND): supporting regional policies to promote eco-management as an instrument for corporate eco-innovation

�� European Clusters and Regions for Eco-Innovation N etwork Plus (ECREIN+): developing an effective regional policy mix to support eco-innovation

�� ECOREGIONS: improving the effectiveness of local and regional development policies in the area of eco-innovation and more specifically, green technologies, with a particular focus on SMEs

�� Developing Sustainable Regions through Responsible SMEs (DESUR): helping businesses to grow in a more sustainable and innovative way by improving regional policies aimed at promoting responsible innovation in SMEs by means of Corporate Social Responsibility programmes

�� Producer Services for European Sustainability and Competitiveness (PROSESC): fostering regional policies to promote the environmental sustainability and competitiveness of road transport (from two-wheel to e-vehicles and fuel-cell powered buses), with a focus on the role of the knowledge-intensive producer services sector

In terms of projects’ achievements, some 110 good practices were identified in these projects. Analysis of the good practices reveals that:

- The large majority of good practices are non-financial (83), despite the fact that most regions consider financial support crucial to the development of eco-innovation;

- Financial good practices are exclusively focused on grants, subsidies and vouchers while other types of financial support measures (guarantees, loans, fiscal incentives, venture capital) are not tackled by projects;

- A majority of good practices have a supply-side focus (68); among these, 26 focus on the promotion of networks and partnerships, and 22 on education, training and mobility;

- good practices with a demand-side focus are relatively few; the majority of these focus on setting regulations and standards;

- Most good practices have a strong focus on eco-innovation but also cover other areas of innovation (non-exclusive focus);

- Thematic coverage: there is a good representation of good practices with an energy efficiency/renewable energy focus, a few with a focus on sustainable


construction and transport; other good practices aimed at improving resource efficiency are less present.

Overall, three types of good practices can be identified:

�� Policy Good Practices related to specific policy instruments (e.g. policies, programmes, strategies, initiatives etc.)

�� Support Good Practices in relation to specific pol icy tools for eco-innovation analysis (e.g. benchmarking instruments, technology atlases, genuine progress indicators (GPIs), etc.)

�� Technical Good Practices in relation to various technological solutions to environmental issues (e.g. low energy housing, biogas plants, etc.)

In terms of transferability, the transfer of technical and support tool good practices are likely to be less complex, but the impact on eco-innovation may be more limited.

Eco-innovation can be supported through ‘traditional’ innovation support mechanisms. However, providing support more efficiently requires tailoring policies to more specific eco-innovation-orientated objectives. Some of the objectives pursued by the projects include: developing support infrastructure, promoting sustainability, protecting the environment and promoting more ethical behaviour.

Lessons for identifying and transferring Good Pract ices

These lessons can be divided into two broad categories based on how they relate to the issue of eco-innovation:

The first set of lessons can be categorised as generic, as they can apply to any good practice regardless of the theme addressed:

�� Transferring a good practice is not a direct ‘copy-paste’ procedure: it is important to take into account the relevance, rationale, concept and context (institutional, political, social, economic, etc.) of the good practice when considering transfer;

�� In some cases, it is more important to improve existing policy initiatives based on the experiences of other regions, rather than transferring new policy initiatives and starting from scratch; this approach will enable the region to build on previous work and benefit from the ‘incremental’ policy development perspective;

�� When transferring good practices, the motivation level of regions is very important, as well as the skills of regional authorities and institutions involved in the transfer;

�� It is very helpful to have well developed methodologies for the identification and transfer of good practices;

�� When transferring a good practice, there needs to be a supportive policy framework and sufficient capabilities/knowledge/expertise in the receiver region to implement it.

�� Technical good practices should be transferred along with the policy measures supporting them;

�� Methodological good practices (e.g. benchmarking tools, scoreboards) should complement tangible good practices (policy instruments, technologies), thereby helping regions lagging behind to catch up more quickly;


In the specific field of eco-innovation, the following lessons for identifying and exchanging good practices have been noted:

�� It is important to consider the responsiveness of the society, environmental pressures and the local market demand when identifying and exchanging eco-innovation good practices;

�� The commitment of the regional government to sustainability goals (e.g. having specific green targets, or a sustainability strategy) can help ensure the success of the transfer and the implementation of eco-innovation good practices;

�� Technical and support tool good practices require less coordination and long-term commitment to be successfully transferred; however, the impacts in terms of eco-innovation outcomes are likely to be lower than those of a policy good practice - in addition, when transferring a technical good practice, it is important for partner regions to also ensure a minimum transfer of the know-how necessary to enable the successful implementation of the technological solution;

�� Due to the cross-cutting nature of eco-innovation, importing eco-innovation-related good practices requires additional efforts from regional stakeholders to involve a wide range of players and audiences in the process;

�� Eco-innovation can be supported through generic innovation support instruments, however tailoring the instruments to better meet eco-innovation objectives will ensure more effective results;

�� Eco-innovation is riskier and generally more expensive than traditional innovation; greener products and services are still not part of the mainstream and, in terms of cost, cannot fully compete with mainstream products and services - therefore, special support measures and framework conditions need to be fostered; this should be taken into account when identifying and exchanging good practices

Concluding messages of the study

�� All things considered, eco-innovations are central to the promotion of sustainable and smart growth in regions because of their wide-ranging benefits for the economy and the environment. Regional authorities are well positioned to facilitate transformative changes by supporting various eco-innovations and involving different players in the development and implementation of eco-innovative strategies. Consequently, regions should place eco-innovation at the core of their smart specialisation strategies (RIS3) and their regional operational programmes in light of the next programming period of European funding.

�� When designing their strategic policy framework for eco-innovation regions should remember that eco-innovation is not limited to specific industries and sectors. Eco-innovation can be introduced into any field via new or improved products, technologies, services, management and organisational structures, institutional arrangements, lifestyles and social behaviour. In addition, eco-innovations should not be seen simply as a remedy for environmental problems in the regions, but also as a means to boost the economy and to strengthen the regions’ competitiveness in national and international markets.

�� Including eco-innovation as a main pillar of the RIS3 is one of the key conditions to developing an integrated approach, capable of generating systemic impacts at a regional level. This will also require establishing a long-term vision and the development of a model for sustainable and smart regions.


�� When planning eco-innovation strategies and activities, it is recommended that regions conduct a thorough analysis of the state-of-the-art in the field of eco-innovation. This includes identifying key economic stakeholders, priority sectors and policy targets, as well as measuring eco-innovation markets. It also involves identifying existing and emerging drivers and barriers to eco-innovation. In order to achieve this, regions may rely on tools such as directories and databases, foresight and prospective studies, aimed at assessing the performance and needs of the companies and SMEs, analysing the sustainability, the environmental performance and the footprint of major industries in the region and developing a deeper understanding of the barriers and drivers to eco-innovation at a regional level.

�� Effective eco-innovation policy and strategic support requires the participation of many different types of stakeholder. This is particularly true of systemic eco-innovations, for which a wide range of stakeholders should be involved, namely regional and local authorities, businesses and industries, research organisations, cluster organisations and universities, NGOs, citizens, living Labs, user groups, and regional or local innovation or development agencies.

�� In order to achieve far-reaching results in promoting eco-innovations, regions should develop a comprehensive policy mix that includes both supply and demand-side measures. When doing this, it is important for regions to build on good practices from other EU regions and countries, taking account of both their successes and failures. The INTERREG IVC eco-innovation projects include a number of policy initiatives addressing issues such as: eco-innovation assessment and planning, regional eco-innovation strategies, demand-side policies including procurement, eco-innovation incubation and clusters, eco-innovation funding and eco (-innovation) management in SMEs. This being said, when exchanging good practices, it is crucial to take into account the specific economic, regulatory, technological, innovation and climate profiles of the regions, as they may respond differently to the different incentives and barriers to eco-innovation.

�� To create demand for eco-innovative products and services regions should make innovative use of the policy instruments at their disposal, such as green public procurement .They should also support eco-innovation in SMEs directly, through providing subsidies, advisory and technical support.

�� Finally, when planning eco-innovation focused projects and programmes, regions should apply a comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation framework based on a well-defined and measurable set of indicators designed to track progress in activities and outputs and results.

1. Introduction and Methodology

Capitalisation is an increasingly important feature of European Territorial Cooperation Programmes (ETCs) and plays an essential role in exploiting the knowledge created by the projects funded within them. This report draws upon a comparative analysis of promising approaches and practices identified within seven INTERREG IVC projects in the field of eco-innovation and aims to help policymakers and practitioners to utilise these practices to develop effective policies and support instruments at regional, national and / or European level.

The following section presents a brief overview of the objectives of the programme's thematic capitalisation exercise as well as the methodology used to carry it out.


1.1 Objectives of the programme's thematic capitali sation exercise on eco-innovation

The main objective of the programme's thematic capitalisation exercise is “to better exploit the knowledge resulting from projects working on a similar topic in particular for the benefit of local and regional authorities in Europe”. This overall objective is supported by a set of specific objectives, which are:

�� to identify innovative approaches that could also be relevant to other regions in Europe;

�� to draw policy recommendations for the national and the EU level;

�� to identify potential synergies and possibilities for mutual enrichment among the INTERREG IVC projects dealing with similar issues;

�� to link the projects to related initiatives in other EU programmes;

�� to draw specific topic related recommendations for the projects.

The programme's capitalisation exercise with regard to ‘eco-innovation’ focuses exclusively on INTERREG IVC projects dealing with issues, policies and practices in this field. The assignment covered ongoing projects, as well as closed projects financed under the INTERREG IVC programme.

In order to reach these objectives, the programme's thematic capitalisation exercise is designed to deal with a number of questions. The following table presents the main questions addressed by the exercise and the present analysis report.

Table 1: Core questions addressed by the thematic programme's capitalisation exercise

1. What are the common features/ challenges / difficulties/ successes among the projects of the same topic?

2. In particular, do these projects have similar good practices in common? If yes, what are these good practices? Are they easily transferable to other regions? Should they be further disseminated for the benefit of other regions?

3. Did the partner regions find different solutions to the same issue?

4. Does one region have a particularly interesting or innovative practice or policy identified which merits being made available to other regions in Europe?

5. Has a project achieved a particularly interesting result (e.g. in terms of good practices transferred or policies improved) which could be useful for the other projects in the same topic and more generally for other local/regional authorities dealing with that topic?

6. Do the participating regions identify core pre-requisites for the successful implementation of their regional policy in the area tackled?

7. Are there any possible synergies among the projects and initiatives concerned undertaken in other EU programmes (depending on the extent of the expert’s knowledge)?

8. Based on the findings of the analysis, can specific recommendations be made to individual projects which may not be up to date with important practices/


policies or which may be less advanced and experienced than other projects?

9. Based on the answers to all the above questions, which general lessons learnt / policy recommendations can be drawn that could be useful for policymakers at regional, national and/or European levels?

By addressing these questions, the exercise aims to provide a macro-analysis of the INTERREG IVC programme’s contribution to the development of eco-innovation within European regions. This analysis is intended to be of added-value for a wide number of programme stakeholders such as: project leaders and partners; European local, regional and national authorities and European policy and decision-makers involved in the design and implementation of innovation, eco-innovation and sustainable growth support policies. It also intends to give the INTERREG IVC programme bodies clearer insight into the thematic achievements of their work, which may serve as an evidence base for strategic decision-making in the future.

1.2 Methodological approach

The team of experts responsible for carrying out the programme's thematic capitalisation designed a tailored methodology, divided into two distinct phases:

�� Phase 1 – Data collection and analysis : The first phase of the assignment focused on collecting and analysing data on the activities, outputs and outcomes of the projects being considered - content analysis being the main focus at this point

�� Phase 2 – Dissemination of results : Based on the results obtained during the first phase of the assignment, the experts were responsible for drafting an analysis report with the main lessons drawn from the capitalisation exercise and for providing the INTERREG IVC programme with the necessary documents to be able to disseminate these findings (e.g. the capitalisation brochure)

The methodology used for this assignment was based on the use of quantitative and qualitative data collection and on different analytical tools. The main methodological tools used during the course of the programme's thematic capitalisation exercise were:

�� Desk research (application forms, progress reports, good practice guides, a good practice sheet, etc.)

�� Project fact-sheets drafted with data based on interviews and desk research (one per project analysed)

�� Interviews with the programming bodies (INTERREG IVC officials)

�� Telephone interviews with project lead partners and stakeholders

�� Visits to projects (ECREIN+, PROSESC, RECOMMEND, FRESH)

�� A Thematic Workshop with core project representatives (Brussels, 31 October 2012)

�� A electronic questionnaire for Thematic Workshop participants

�� Presentations given at events


1.3 Projects analysed in this exercise

At the start of the assignment, the capitalisation team was provided with a list of seven projects identified by the INTERREG IVC Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS) as being directly related to the theme of eco-innovation (core projects). The team then carried out a screening of the thematic homogeneity and relevance of the seven core projects under the eco-innovation theme. This analysis went beyond the seven pre-selected projects in order to identify possible additional projects financed by the programme that may have been relevant to the assignment. After this analysis was carried out by the capitalisation team, it was decided, however, not to modify the list of ‘core’ projects under study, nor to include additional ‘satellite’ projects to be taken into consideration in the thematic capitalisation process.

The following tables provide an overview of the seven projects analysed as part of the programme's capitalisation exercise on eco-innovation. The seven projects involve a total of 73 partners from 22 EU Member States (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 below). The majority of partners come from Italy, the UK, France and Finland. Among the project partners, there are 11 local public authorities, 22 regional public authorities, and 2 national public authorities. The remaining 38 partners represent universities, research organisations, associations and intermediary consultancies.

Figure 1: INTERREG IVC Lot 3 projects overview

Projec

t

Priority Sub-theme Detailed

topics

Type

of

proje

ct

Start

ing /

end

date

s

ERD

F

fundi

ng

Total

cost

N°

of

par

tne

rs

Countr

y

represe

ntation

CIE A.1 Priority 1:

Innovation

and

knowledge

economy

A.2 Entrepreneurship

& SMEs

A.3 Entrepreneurs &

SME's

working in

the field of

clean

technology -

Cleantech

incubators

Regi

onal

Initiat

ive

Proje

ct

01/01

/2012

-

30/06

/2014

1 136

410

€

1 487

632

€

11 FI, FR,

HU, IT,

NL

DESU

R

A.4 Priority 1:

Innovation

and

knowledge

economy


& SMEs

A.6 Corporate Social

Responsibilit

y and its

dimensions

(economic,

social and

environment

al)

Regi

onal

Initiat

ive

Proje

ct

01/07

/2012

-

30/06

/2014

1 160

627

€

1 474

214

€

8 BE, EL,

ES, HE,

IE, IT,

LT, SI

ECOR

EGION

S

A.7 Priority 1:

Innovation

and

A.8 Innovation,

Research &

Technology

A.9 Governance of eco-

innovation

and green

Regi

onal

Initiat

ive

01/01

/2012

-

30/09

1 083

996

€

1 410

971

€

11 BE, DE,

FI, FR,

HU, IT,

MT,


knowledge

economy

Developme

nt

technologies

in the private

sector (in

particular

SMEs)

Proje

ct

/2014 NO, SE

ECREI

N +

A.10 Priority 1:

Innovation

and

knowledge

economy

A.11 Innovation,

Research &

Technology

Developme

nt

A.12 Development of

innovation

and

sustainable

development

Regi

onal

Initiat

ive

Proje

ct

01/01

/2010

-

31/12

/2012

1 471

723

€

1 914

169

€

12 BG,

DE, ES,

FR, IT,

PL, RO,

SE, UK

FRES

H

A.13 Priority 1:

Innovation

and

knowledge

economy

A.14 Innovation,

Research &

Technology

Developme

nt

Strengthenin

g of

sustainable

value

creation

based on

eco-

design/eco-

innovation

Regi

onal

Initiat

ive

Proje

ct

01/01

/2010

-

28/02

/2013

1 625

377

€

2 138

224

€

12 FI, IE,

IT, PL,

RO, UK

PROS

ESC

A.15 Priority 1:

Innovation

and

knowledge

economy

A.16 Innovation,

Research &

Technology

Developme

nt

Promotion of

innovation

for green

transport

Regi

onal

Initiat

ive

Proje

ct

01/01

/2010

-

31/12

/2012

1 002

311

€

1 295

594

€

9 DE, ES,

HU, IT,

RO, SI,

UK

RECO

MMEN

D

A.17 Priority 1:

Innovation

and

knowledge

economy


& SMEs

A.19 Eco-innovation -

Eco-

management

systems

Regi

onal

Initiat

ive

Proje

ct

01/01

/2012

-

31/12

/2014

1 162

975

€

1 442

593

€

10 AT, BG,

CZ, EE,

IT, PL,

SI, UK

Figure 2: Eco-Innovation lot 3 project partners: geographic representation.

Project

Number of partners representing EU Member States

AT BE BG CZ DE EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT MT NL NO PL RO SE SI UK

CIE 2 3 1 2 2 1

DESUR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ECOREGIONS 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

ECREIN+ 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1

FRESH 4 3 2 1 1 1

PROSESC 1 2 1 1 1 1 2


RECOMMEND 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2

Total 1 2 3 1 4 1 1 5 75 8 4 46 9 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 7

Figure 3: Types of organisations partnering in projects

Project Body governed by

public law

Local Public

Authority

National Public

Authority

Regional Public

Authority

Total

CIE 6 5 11

DESUR 4 2 2 8

ECOREGIONS 6 2 3 11

ECREIN+ 5 7 12

FRESH 6 6 12

PROSESC 5 1 1 2 9

RECOMMEND 6 1 1 2 10

Total 38 11 2 22 73

5 Kainuun Etu Ltd (FI) takes part in two projects: FRESH and ECOREGIONS, therefore counted here twice 6 South West Regional Authority (IE) takes part in two projects: DESUR and FRESH, therefore counted here twice


2. Policy context

2.1 Why eco-innovation matters?

The importance of eco-innovation is clearly being recognised in the EU and worldwide. Eco-industries and eco-innovation increasingly attract the attention of policymakers and businesses alike, as they promise economic, employment and environmental benefits. This is particularly relevant in a time of mounting economic and environmental pressures.

Eco-innovation is not limited to a sector or solely equated to environmental technologies, goods or services. This pervasive nature of eco-innovation makes the task of ascertaining its full scope more challenging using currently available statistical indicators. It also presents a particular challenge to policymakers engaged in support for eco-innovation in diverse policy areas.

Table 2: Definition of eco-innovation

The EU Eco-innovation Action Plan7 defines eco-innovation as, “any form of innovation resulting in or aiming at significant and demonstrable progress towards the goal of sustainable development, through reducing impacts on the environment, enhancing resilience to environmental pressures, or achieving a more efficient and responsible use of natural resources”.

The Eco-Innovation Observatory (EIO)8 defines eco-innovation as, “the introduction of any new or significantly improved product (good or service), process, organisational change or marketing solution that reduces the use of natural resources (including materials, energy, water and land) and decreases the release of harmful substances across the whole life-cycle”. EIO also recognises systemic eco-innovations, which can lead to systemic changes in both social (values, regulations,

7 The EU Eco-innovation Action Plan text is available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0899:EN:NOT 8 See the Eco-innovation Observatory (EIO) platform and resources at www.eco-innovation.eu. The methodological report provides a definition of the concepts and is available at www.eco-innovation.com/reports


attitudes etc.) and technical (infrastructure, technology, tools, production processes etc.) spheres and, most importantly, in the relationships between them.

Challenging as it may be, the development of eco-innovation and eco-industries does represent a significant economic opportunity. There is mounting evidence that eco-

innovation in companies leads to reduced costs, improved capacity to capture new growth opportunities, as well as opportunities to strengthen corporate image in the eyes of customers. Furthermore, eco-innovation appears to be increasingly economically viable. A detailed analysis of around 100 cases where material efficiency measures were implemented with support from the German Material Efficiency Agency (DEMEA) reveals that typical investments pay off within 13 months9.

Developing and selling eco-innovative goods and services represents another broad category with economic opportunity. There are growing markets for environmental goods and services, for technologies for pollution management, cleaner production, etc. The German Federal Ministry for the Environment and the Federal Environmental Agency (BMU and UBA) estimated that the world's ‘green market’10 will represent approx. €1 trillion in 2005. By 2020, this value is expected to double (€2.2 trillion), notably due to the significant growth of the energy efficiency and water management markets.11

Growing opportunities are expected in the market for more pervasive and systemic eco-innovations designed to reduce resource use across all aspects of the economy. Examples include new business models based on the sharing of goods, new mobility schemes, product-service systems, sustainable industrial and urban symbiosis12.

2.2 EU policies supporting eco-innovation

2.2.1 Europe 2020: towards a strategic approach to eco-innovation Since the introduction of the Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) 13 in 2004, up to the recent approval of the Europe 2020 Strategy, which includes flagship initiatives focusing on innovation, resource efficiency and sustainable industries, eco-innovation has been steadily climbing up the EU agenda.

At the end of 2011, the Eco-Innovation Action Plan (EcoAP) 14 took over from ETAP and set out a new agenda for eco-innovation for the EC. The action plan includes targeted actions both from the demand and supply-side perspective, on research and industry and on policy and financial instruments. In particular, it maintains ETAP’s priority areas, but also seeks to expand the focus from green technologies to all 9 EIO (2012a), Eco-innovation in business: reducing cost and increasing profitability via material efficiency measures, EIO thematic brief N10, prepared by S. Fischer and M. O’Brien. Available at www.eco-innovation.com/reports 10 The BMU and UBA study took into account areas such as environmental protection, energy efficiency, sustainable mobility, material efficiency and recycling. 11 Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) and Umweltbundestamt (UBA) (2009), Umweltwirtschaftsbericht 2009, Berlin

12 EIO (2012). The Eco-Innovation Gap: An economic opportunity for business. Eco-Innovation Observatory. Funded by the European Commission, DG Environment, Brussels.

13 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/about-action-plan/etap-previous-action-plan/index_en.htm 14 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/index.htm


aspects of eco-innovation. The new plan also attempts to meet the challenges for employment and economic growth in a resource- and environmentally-constrained world. The Commission has identified seven actions as key drivers for promoting eco-innovation:

�� using environmental policy and legislation as a driver to promote eco-innovation;

�� supporting demonstration projects and partnering to bring promising, smart and ambitious operational technologies to the market that have been suffering from low uptake;

�� developing new standards boosting eco-innovation;

�� mobilising financial instruments and support services for SMEs;

�� promoting international cooperation;

�� supporting the development of emerging skills, jobs and related training programmes to match the labour market needs;

�� promoting eco-innovation through European Innovation Partnerships.

The implementation of the EcoAP actions is supported by a partnership-based approach between stakeholders, the private and public sector and the European Commission. A dedicated High-Level Working Group brings together Member States to facilitate the exchange of information while providing stronger policy guidance at both EU and national levels.

The Europe 2020 strategy15 includes a dedicated flagship initiative on ‘Resource Efficient Europe’ 16 (2011), which responds directly to the challenge of resource scarcity. Eco-innovation is also explicitly mentioned in the ‘Innovation Union’ (2010)17 flagship initiative, which lists support to eco-innovation among its strategic commitments for action. The flagship initiative, ‘An Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era’ (2010),18 includes the issue of sustainable supply and management of raw materials in the context of industrial processes.

European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs) 19 are a new approach to EU research and innovation under the Innovation Union flagship initiatives. EIPs are challenge-driven, focusing on societal benefits and a rapid modernisation of the associated sectors and markets. The EIPs address such areas as Agriculture and Sustainable Production, Smart Cities and Communities, Water, Raw Materials and Active and Healthy Ageing. Sustainability and eco-innovations are explicitly or implicitly promoted in each partnership.

The eco-innovation concept is mentioned explicitly in a number of strategic EU policy documents and programmes. Support however varies, depending on the budget allocated to each programme, the scope of the issues covered, stakeholders addressed and the salience of eco-innovation as an issue. In addition, the exact understanding and scope of eco-innovation differs among these programmes. The

15 http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm 16 http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/ 17 http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm 18http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/industrial-competitiveness/industrial-policy/files/communication_on_industrial_policy_en.pdf 19 http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?pg=eip


upcoming Horizon 2020 programme20 is likely to have a simplifying effect on eco-innovation support by bringing the research and innovation programmes under one roof.

Furthermore, many other policy fields, notably research, environment, energy and climate provide support to eco-innovation. The following sections briefly introduce key measures and processes that are of relevance for eco-innovation in different policy fields.

2.2.2 The EU’s research and innovation policy measu res relevant to eco-innovation

The main objective of environmental research under the 7th Framework Programme for Research (FP7) 21 is to promote the sustainable management of both the man-made and the natural environment and its resources. A key issue is to integrate competitiveness, innovation and sustainability into research activities. Several themes covered by FP7 address eco-innovation. For example, relevant public-private partnerships for the theme, ‘Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies’, include topics such as ‘factories of the future’, ‘energy efficient buildings’ and ‘green cars’.

‘Environmental technologies’ research under FP7 looks at technologies for water, soil, waste, built and marine environments, as well as for mitigating and adapting to climate and environmental change. For 2011, the work programme included a specific industry/SME orientated bottom-up eco-innovation call for proposals where applicants could choose the sector and the kind of technologies/solutions to develop22.

Within the FP7, the ERA-NET scheme23 aims to structure the European Research Area (ERA) in line with the objectives of FP7. Here, it is no longer a ‘stand-alone’ action but an implementation tool, which is used in the cooperation and capacities programmes. An example of a relevant ERA-NET for the purpose of this study is the ERA net on eco-innovation (Eco-Innovera)24, which builds synergies with other complementary EU initiatives and tools such as the Innovation platform on eco-innovation and the Eco-Innovation Observatory25.

20 http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm 21 The information about the FP7 can be accessed via CORDIS FP7 Service (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html) and the European Commission FP7 website (http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm) 22 ENV work programme, 2011. 23 The objective of the ERA-NET scheme is to develop and strengthen the coordination of national and

regional research programmes through two specific actions:

• 'ERA-NET actions' - providing a framework for programme owners/managers implementing public research programmes to coordinate their activities e.g. by developing joint activities or by mutually supporting joint calls for trans-national proposals.

• 'ERA-NET Plus actions'- providing, in a limited number of cases with high European added value, additional EU financial support to facilitate joint calls for proposals between national and/or regional programmes.

Under the ERA-NET scheme, national and regional authorities identify research programmes they wish to coordinate or open up mutually. The participants in these actions are therefore programme 'owners' (typically ministries or regional authorities defining research programmes) or programme 'managers' (such as research councils or other research funding agencies managing research programmes). 24 www.eco-innovera.eu 25 www.eco-innnovation.eu


The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP)26 supports eco-innovation activities, carried out by SMEs, primarily under the Entrepreneurship and Innovation operational Programme (EIP). EIP facilitates the commercialisation of innovative production processes, products or services and new management and business practices seeking to reduce environmental impacts and to promote an efficient and responsible use of resources, while simultaneously encouraging the competitiveness of European businesses and, ultimately, the growth and competitiveness of the European economy. EIP-eco-innovation addresses almost the entire range of sectors/areas with the exception of renewables and energy efficiency covered by the Intelligent Energy Europe sub-programme of EIP.

CIP and FP will be replaced by Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 27, which will bring together all EU research and innovation funding under a single programme worth about €80bn. Sustainable development will be an overarching objective of Horizon 2020. Eco-innovation is explicitly mentioned in the programme in the context of one of the aims of Europe 2020 and Innovation Union: Industrial leadership (EC 2011). The dedicated funding for climate action and resource efficiency will be supplemented through the other specific objectives of Horizon 2020 with the result that at least 60% of the total Horizon 2020 budget will be related to sustainable development.

The thematic areas covered by Horizon 2020 address major problems across six key themes:

1. health, demographic change and well-being; 2. food security, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research and the

bio-economy; 3. secure, clean and efficient energy; 4. smart, green and integrated transport; 5. climate action, resource efficiency and raw materials; 6. inclusive, innovative and secure societies.

Eco-innovation is relevant for very nearly all the themes.

In addition, there are several more targeted EU eco-innovation initiatives. The European Eco-Innovation Platform (Eco-IP) 28 is a European platform established under the Europe INNOVA initiative, with the aim of accelerating the take-up of eco-innovative solutions in Europe. The initiative focuses on the development and testing of new or better innovation support mechanisms for innovative small and medium sized businesses (SMEs), in particular in technological and industrial fields. The Eco-IP brings together public and private partners from different countries willing to cooperate in developing new forms of support for innovation, taking into account the specific needs of those companies holding eco-innovative solutions, as well as the potential role of services' innovation in support of societal needs. The Eco-IP contains four partnerships in the sectors of:

- bio-based products, - water and wastewater, - recycling and resource efficiency, and

26 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/cip_en.htm 27 http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm 28 http://www.europe-innova.eu/web/guest/eco-innovation/overview


- the food industry.

Each partnership addresses a number of specific challenges with a view to better responding to the specific needs of potential high growth companies engaged in eco-innovative solutions.

Additional horizontal support action links the partnerships of the Eco-IP to the wider eco-innovation community in addition to fostering the exchange of experience among European innovation champions in the area of eco-innovation. The Eco-innovation Observatory 29 supports the Eco-IP by being a strategic knowledge resource on eco-innovation for businesses and policymakers. As part of ETAP, its main objective is to gather market intelligence on eco-innovation, analyse technology trends and provide sectoral analysis.

2.2.3 The EU’s initiatives in the area of environme nt and industry relevant for eco-innovation

These initiatives include action plans as well as regulatory, market and financial instruments.

Environment Action Programmes (EAP) have guided the development of EU environment policy since the early seventies, and the 6th EAP should be seen as part of a continuous process spanning almost 40 years. The 6th EAP, adopted in 2002, constitutes the basic framework underpinning the EU’s environmental policy for 2002-2012. It is aimed at ensuring high levels of protection of the environment and human health, improving the environment and quality of life and at enhancing resource efficiency, resource and waste management. It also seeks to contribute to sustainable development throughout the EU and to decouple environmental pressures (e.g. GHG emissions, resource depletion and waste generation) from economic growth and the rate of growth. Eco-innovation is addressed in the sections on the strategic approaches used and on the climate change priority, which include provisions whereby the EAP will encourage product and technological innovations as well as eco-efficiency practices and techniques in the industry (Art. 3) and promote reduction in gas emissions (Art. 5). A proposal for a new EU Environment Action Programme to 2020 draws on a number of recent strategic initiatives in the field of the environment, including the Resource Efficiency Roadmap30, the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy31 and the Low Carbon Economy Roadmap32.

The Sustainable Consumption and Production Action Plan (SCP-AP)33, which began in 2008, outlines an integrated approach to sustainable production and consumption patterns and to sustainable industrial production, primarily via regulatory and support measures aimed at enhancing the energy and environmental performance of products and encouraging their uptake by consumers.34 The support measures set out in the SCP-AP relate to issues including eco-innovation and Green Public Procurement, both key targets of ETAP. It also suggests setting up an EU-

29 www.eco-innovation.eu 30 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:DKEY=615217:EN:NOT 31 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244:EN:NOT 32 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0112:FIN:EN:PDF 33 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm 34 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan, COM(2008) 397 final.


wide, voluntary environmental technology verification (ETV) scheme to ensure the independent assessment of the performance and impacts of environmental technologies and to facilitate their uptake by the industry.

The Green Public Procurement (GPP) 35 is a voluntary market instrument addressed under the SCP-AP. The GPP is to contribute to the reduction of environmental impacts, encouraging sustainable production and consumption patterns and promoting the growth and competitiveness of the environmental industry. Given the importance of the GPP, the SCP-AP, for instance, called for strengthening the GPP via the provision of guidance and tools by the Commission (e.g. setting indicative targets or model tender specifications) to EU Member States so as to facilitate their uptake of GPP and the emergence of common GPP criteria for products and services with a view to including them in national action plans.

The Revised Waste Framework Directive 36, introduced in 2008, outlines the key concepts and waste management principles, i.e. ‘polluter pays’ and the ‘waste hierarchy’ principle. The revised directive also puts forward examples of new measures that can shape the generation of waste, including the “promotion of R&D for the development of cleaner and less wasteful products & technologies and the dissemination and use of R&D results”.37 Although the links between the components of the Directive and environmental technologies and eco-innovation are not direct, environmental technologies and EcoAP can play a role in the successful implementation of the Directive.

The Eco-design Directive 38 of the European Union aims to improve the environmental performance of products throughout their life-cycle. The Eco-design directive prevents disparate national legislations on the environmental performance of these products from becoming obstacles to intra-EU trade. The Eco-design Directive was extended in 2009 to all energy-related products. The EU Commission has recently developed the Eco-design consultation forum for the new working plan for the period 2012-2014.

The REACH regulation 39 (of 2006) concerns the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals and their use with a view to providing a high level of protection of human health and the environment, promoting alternative methods for the assessment of hazardous substances, permitting the free movement of chemical substances within the European Economic Area and finally, encouraging the innovative performance and competitiveness of the EU chemical industry.40 The innovation-related objective of the regulation is to promote the development and application of environmental technologies with a view to enhancing the competitiveness of the EU’s environmental technology industry.

35 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm 36 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/revision.htm 37 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L312. 38 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/ecodesign/index_en.htm 39 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm 40 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) OJ L396/2006.


The LIFE+ Programme 41 is one of the EU’s financial instruments promoting environmental technologies during 2007-2013. LIFE+ is managed by DG Environment and focuses on supporting the development and implementation of the EU’s environmental policy, legislation and relevant thematic strategies. Eco-innovation and environmental technologies are part of the Environment Policy and Governance component of LIFE+. In 2009, projects related to innovation in general, including the development of innovative policy ideas, technologies and processes, reportedly accounted for the largest share of the EU support under the LIFE+ instrument, amounting to about €20.9m.

2.2.4 EU’s climate and energy policies relevant to eco-innovation Energy and climate change policy is one of the most important drivers of eco-innovation in the EU.

The ‘climate change and energy package’ , proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Council and the European Parliament in 2008, constitutes the EU’s integrated approach to climate change and energy policy. The package set the ‘20-20-20’ binding targets to be met by 2020, which would enable a shift toward a sustainable, low-carbon and energy-efficient EU economy. To facilitate the implementation of targets, the EU set a series of binding regulatory measures, concerning, for instance, the EU’s Emissions Trading System, national renewable energy targets and developed new state-aid guidelines to promote the climate change and energy objectives via environmental technologies.42 The package and the accompanying measures are relevant to eco-innovation as they encourage the demand for innovative environmental technologies.

The Sustainable Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan) promoted by the Commission (managed by DG Energy) is aimed at expediting the development and application of low-carbon and cost-effective technologies in the EU via strategic planning, effective implementation, increased resources and a concerted approach to international cooperation43.

Initiatives by the Commission for the revision of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan (EEAP, 2007-2012) by 2011 stemmed from the EU Members’ commitment to reach the 20% energy consumption target by 2020 by enhancing energy efficiency in key energy-consuming sectors, thereby permitting the EU and its Members to address climate change, energy security and competitiveness.44

The revised Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), introduced in 2010, sets an integrated approach to energy efficiency in buildings.45 The higher performance requirements for buildings and energy supply systems outlined in the EPBD could arguably enhance the demand for environmental technologies.

41 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 42 Notices from European Union Institutions and Bodies, Commission, Community Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection. OJ C82, 1.1.2008. 43 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Investing in the Development of Low Carbon Technologies (SET-Plan), COM(2009) 519 final. 44 Communication from the Commission, Energy Efficiency: delivering the 20% target, COM(2008) 772 final. 45 Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast), OJ L153.


2.2.5 Eco-innovation in the EU regional policies The importance given to sustainable development and the fight against climate change is illustrated by the changes introduced by the draft legislative package framing the EU Cohesion Policy for 2014-2020 . As part of its effort to focus resources on a smaller number of priorities, the Commission is proposing that regions concentrate resources on thematic priorities directly linked to the Europe 2020 objectives. This includes the shift towards a low-carbon economy; climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management, environmental protection and resource efficiency.

In order to ensure that EU investments are concentrated on these priorities, the new framework establishes minimum allocations for a number of priority areas. In more developed and transitional regions, “at least 80% of ERDF resources at national level should be allocated to energy efficiency and renewables, innovation and SME support, of which at least 20% should be allocated to energy efficiency and renewables”46. Less developed regions will have to devote at least 50% of ERDF resources to energy efficiency and renewables, innovation and SME support (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Concentration of ERDF funds by thematic priorities and types of regions in 2014-2020

46 European Commission (2011a) Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 Investing in growth and jobs. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/inforegio


Source : http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/hlg_documents_en.cfm#7

Note: white segments of the chart represent allocations for the European Social fund (min 25%), safety net of previous allocations, and EU co-financing for a wider range of activities

In the coming years, EU Regional Policy will become one of the main EU policies to foster eco-innovation that responds to the challenges of sustainable energy, climate change and the use of natural resources. It is expected to play a pivotal role in strengthening both the sustainability and competitiveness of European regions. Furthermore, the next programming period of the Cohesion Policy (2014-2020) will concentrate public investment on a limited number of growth-enhancing investment priorities. The availability of the Regional Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) will be a precondition for eligibility to regional funding. In light of the challenges posed by environmental degradation, climate change and resource scarcity, the EU Member States and regions are encouraged to integrate the sustainability objectives into their RIS3. Under the RIS3, smart growth and sustainable growth are seen as ‘two sides of the same coin’, while eco-innovation is called to be at the core of RIS3.47 Regions also need to use the innovation-orientated Thematic Objectives of the future regional policy to build a low-carbon economy and promote sustainable and smart growth.

2.3 Conclusion – the added value of the interregion al cooperation on eco-innovation under the INTERREG IVC programme

The European policy framework in support of eco-innovation is rather dense. This is due to the adoption of an increasing number of policy initiatives exclusively aimed at stimulating the development of eco-innovation but also because there are a number of ‘connected’ initiatives (e.g. industry, climate, environment and energy) that are also of relevance to the field.

47 Technopolis & EC (2012) Connecting Smart and Sustainable Growth through Smart Specialisation – A Practical Guide for Managing Authorities, Link: http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10157/0/greengrowth.pdf


European Territorial Cooperation and specifically the INTERREG IVC programme, has a specific added value with respect to these initiatives.

Firstly, the collaboration under the INTERREG IVC contains a significant territorial dimension, which is generally absent in many other European programmes. There are disparities in terms of eco-innovation performance and eco-innovation policy-making experience level among EU regions. Therefore, there are numerous opportunities for interregional learning that are being addressed by the INTERREG IVC programme.

Secondly, while the cooperation dimension in many EU eco-innovation focused programmes is widely promoted, there is a limited focus on interregional cooperation and exchange. Instead, the focus is set mainly on cooperation and networking among specific research organisations, businesses, innovation intermediaries regardless of the territories they come from. INTERREG IVC adds value by promoting interregional cooperation among innovation players, as well as linking this cooperation with regional development objectives.

Thirdly, the interregional collaboration promoted by INTERREG IVC allows regions to explore and exchange knowledge on innovation from policy and governance perspectives. This makes it distinct from other programmes focusing on an industrial or research perspective. The lack of information regarding the potential benefits of eco-innovation may prevent eco-innovation from being prioritised in the regional policy agenda. At the same time, regions looking to promote eco-innovation lack policy and governance expertise in this area. Currently, the main strategy is one of experimentation and pioneering in promoting eco-innovation, but learning from another experience could be a more efficient approach.

In addition, the INTERREG IVC approach to knowledge-sharing appears to have a strong dimension for capacity building. Participants generally acquire skills and knowledge thanks to their involvement in projects, which they can then put to use in their daily activities.

Finally, the cooperation promoted by INTERREG IVC allows regions to engage in a mutual learning process with other regions with similar interests and priorities. It is specific enough to attract the interest of stakeholders on a particular issue, while allowing for flexibility to adapt good practices to different territorial realities.


3. Analysis

This section presents INTERREG IVC actions in support of eco-innovation. It presents an overview of each of the seven projects which have been reviewed as part of the eco-innovation capitalisation work and explores their impact on eco-innovation policy and practice within partner regions. It goes on to highlight some of the common and different challenges regions face and provides answers to the core questions raised during the capitalisation work.

3.1 Analysed projects

3.1.1 Cleantech-incubation Europe (CIE)

3.1.1.1 Overview of the project and its main object ives The CIE project started in 2012 and will run until the end of June 2014.

The project has eleven partners including the Delft University of Technology (the Netherlands, Lead Partner), City of Delft (the Netherlands), I3P - Innovative Companies Incubator of the Politecnico of Torino (Italy), Municipality of Turin (Italy), City of Helsinki, Economic and Planning Centre, Business Development (Finland), Green Net Finland (Finland), Peterborough City Council (UK), Szent Istvan University (Hungary), School of Engineers (France), the French local authority, subdivision of the Essone region (France) and Novagreen (France).

The partner selection was carried out in such a way that each region is represented by the local/regional authority and an organisation that addresses research and innovation issues.

The main objective of CIE is to stimulate and accelerate growth in the cleantech sector by supporting entrepreneurs and SMEs working in this sector. This should be achieved by:

� researching policies and procedures designed to encourage cleantech incubation;

� facilitating the exchange of best practice, policy development and experiences with policymakers and cleantech incubator authorities;

� helping authorities to choose suitable policy interventions tailored to their own local and regional situation;

� enabling complementary policies designed to provide a positive business climate.


The project target group is regional and local authorities, cleantech incubators and research institutions dealing with green and sustainable products, services and processes. During the project’s life-cycle, each CIE partner will host a seminar to bring together key players of the target group. At the seminars, local best practice will be shared. They will also include a site visit to a successful business incubator.

The project’s main output is expected to be a handbook entitled ‘Cleantech Incubation: Policy and Practices’, which will showcase the good practices gained from partner countries and from 13 cleantech incubators monitored during the project.

3.1.1.2 Main eco-innovation issues tackled The thematic focus of the project is the cleantech sector, which covers green, sustainable products, services and processes, the incubation of cleantech activities and cleantech start-ups.

Eco-innovation issues are addressed in terms of cleantech incubation and cleantech clusters. The project does not have any direct reference to eco-innovation, however its focus on cleantech clusters is very much linked to the field of eco-innovation.

Furthermore, by focusing on incubators, it addressed the very important issue of research into the market translation of eco-innovative R&D ideas.

3.1.1.3 Innovative good practices/aspects of the pr oject 2012 was the first year for the projects and no final decision on the selection of good practice examples has yet been made. The project partners have started surveying the local scene and have suggested a number of cleantech clusters and incubators that could be considered as good practice examples.

The project is also looking into good practices on cleantech clusters and incubators that exist outside the geographical scope of the project. In particular, focus has been drawn to the Copenhagen cleantech cluster (CCC), which is one of the most successful cleantech clusters, as well as to the Danish cleantech cluster support policy experience, in general (see 4.2.3. for a detailed description of the good practices).

3.1.1.4 Ties and potential synergies with other INT ERREG IVC projects/European funded projects

CIE team members from Delft University have been exchanging with RECOMMEND project members from Peterborough (UK), driven by mutual interest in the matter of cleantech incubators. CIE has been looking into the experience of Peterborough in developing the EnviroCluster (a network of 350 cleantech businesses) and its ‘Eco-Innovation Centre’ cleantech incubator.

In the topic of ‘cleantech clusters and incubators’, these two projects have a clear potential for synergies and formal cooperation in future.

3.1.1.5 Recommendations �� The project is in its early stage of implementation, therefore it is crucial that they

learn from experiences of cleantech support programmes outside of the project, such as the programme by Carbon Limiting Technologies (http://www.carbonlimitingtechnologies.com/incubator-programmes/), Los-Angeles Cleantech Incubator (http://laincubator.org), Eco-World Styria (http://www.eco.at/)

�� When transferring good practices of cleantech incubators support measures, it is helpful to look into the best practices of the leading cleantech clusters and export


their methodologies and support instruments. However, it is also important to define the background conditions that could be essential in the viability of clusters, such as structure of industry, market demand, local technological capacities, geographical location, etc.

�� When promoting the cleantech clusters, it is important to work closely with the government and policymakers in order to be better informed about the benefits and needs of cleantech clusters and incubators. This will help to tailor the right support policy measures. In particularly, the traditional supply-side measures need to be supplemented by the innovation demand support measures that do not rely on funding but rather create market demand for cleantech products and innovations.

3.1.2 Forwarding regional environmental sustainable hierarchies (FRESH)

3.1.2.1 Overview of the project and its main object ives FRESH project duration is from January 2010 till March 2013.

The partners of the project are Kainuun Etu Oy (Finland, Lead Partner), the Joint Authority of the Kainuu Region (Finland), the Regional Council of Päijät Häme (Finland), the Lappeenranta University of Technology, the Lahti School of Innovation (Finland), the Mid-West Regional Authority (Ireland), the Southwest Regional Authority (Ireland), the University of Limerick (Ireland), the Veneto Region (Italy), the University of Padova (Italy), the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (UK), the Regional Development Agency – the West Region (Romania) and Lubeslkie Voivodeship (Poland).

The overall objective of the FRESH project is to strengthen development based on sustainable value creation at regional level and to contribute to the implementation of the EU’s Environmental Technologies Action Plan.

Project outcomes include the identification of good practices in the partners’ regions and beyond, helping to change the regional development plan in four regions: Kainuu – FI, Lubelskie – PL, Veneto – IT and the West Region – RO and the regional innovation strategy of three regions: Lubelskie – PL, Päijät Häme – FI and the West Region – RO, as well as raising awareness about the construction sector’s potential for innovation and growth, taking account of sustainable construction trends at global level, bridging local construction practices with global performance potential based on EC standards and approaches and strengthening this side of demand-led innovation in the field.

3.1.2.2 Main eco-innovation issues tackled The FRESH team had a very integrated approach to refining its thematic focus, which is ‘sustainable construction’. It concentrates on improving the conditions for eco-innovation in the regions and has built its good practice collection around 11 policy themes:

- How to include sustainable value creation-based development in the regional development objectives and development priorities

- Measurements of sustainable value creation-based development at regional level

- Industry-specific measurements of sustainable value creation (sustainable construction case)


- Eco-innovation strategies and solutions - Comprehensive eco-innovation assessment tools - Comprehensive eco-innovation planning tools - Knowledge competences - SME involvement - Educating consumers - Sustainable innovation sessions - Funding tools/Sustainable procurement

The FRESH team has chosen to focus on promoting eco-innovation in the construction sector.

The project target group is regional and local authorities, research and construction industry representative institutions.

3.1.2.3 Innovative good practices/aspects of the pr oject The project is almost completed and has already resulted in the identification of 53 good practices. Twelve of them have been prioritised as better practices, some of which have been transferred between partners (see Fig. 2 below). It is interesting to see that this project, in comparison to the others analysed, had the largest number and the widest diversity of good practices, which ranged from policy measures, to technologies, governance/planning and information/learning tools and benchmarking instruments.

Many of the identified good practices of interest to partner regions (as well as potentially of interest to other EU regions) and some of them are relatively easily transferable due to the low cost of implementation and minimal learning needed for their uptake. Examples might include the Genuine Progress Indicator, regional planning guidelines or sustainable public procurement regulations.


Figure 5: Prioritised good practices of the FRESH project


The FRESH team has also been exchanging with the RECOMMEND project team on eco-design, under the theme of sustainable construction. ECOREGIONS has also been exchanging quite well with the FRESH project team. FRESH had cross fertilisation with the SCINET project on sustainable procurement approaches (which is supported by the European Commission’s CIP programme under the Lead Market Initiative; www.sci-network.eu). The team also cooperated with the INTERREG IVC Cradle to Cradle project (C2C) (www.c2cn.eu).

The specific design and technological solutions proposed by the partners Päijät Häme (MERA) and Veneto (Treviso homes) have a potential for further development under the European Eco-Innovation calls or even the Regions of Knowledge calls.

3.1.2.5 Recommendations �� FRESH project partners have achieved significant results and accumulated solid

knowledge in defining and transferring policy and technical good practices. It is important that they share this knowledge within the Lot 3 (eco-innovation) group of INTERREG IVC projects, as well as with projects from other lots. To this end, the project needs to improve communication about its experience, e.g. via a clearer presentation on the project’s website and publishing it in various European and international best practices repositories (e.g. www.eco-innovation.eu, www.ecopol-project.eu/, etc.)

�� The project has identified a large number of interesting good practice examples, most of which have not been transferred yet due to the project’s time constraints.


It is important that the project team continues to keep track of the subsequent transfer of the identified good practices and monitors the impact of the project in the host countries.

3.1.3 Regions using ECO-ManageMENt for eco-innovati on Development (RECOMMEND)

3.1.3.1 Overview of the project and its main object ives The RECOMMEND project started in January 2012 and will run until the end of 2014.

The project has nine partners including: the Lower Austrian Regional Government Office, the Department of Environmental and Energy Economics (Austria, project Lead Partner); the Union of Bulgarian Black Sea Local Authorities (Bulgaria); Ekoport (Czech Republic); the Tartu Regional Energy Agency (Estonia); the Province of Ascoli Piceno (Italy); Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship (Poland); the Local Energy Agency Spodnje Podravje (Slovenia); Opportunity Peterborough (United Kingdom) and the UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development (United Kingdom).

Three of these partners are public authorities responsible for businesses development and the environment. The remaining six have a direct influence on regional policies aimed at promoting eco-efficiency through eco-management.

The main objective of RECOMMEND is to improve regional economic policies with regard to environmental sustainability. More specifically, the project will address the following:

- Promoting the development and use of supporting instruments and funding schemes that will appeal to target beneficiaries plus the application of eco-management systems as an instrument for corporate eco-innovation;

- Providing businesses and public authorities with information on co-management systems

- Creating and interlinking the ‘regional frameworks of eco-management and eco-innovation’;

- Increasing the visibility of the contributions made by regional economies to the solution of ecological challenges at the European level.

The project's target groups are regional public authorities and local businesses/SMEs.

The main outputs of the RECOMMEND project will be:

- Eight Regional Implementation Plans (RIP). Each RIP will describe a ready-to-implement policy instrument aimed at fostering eco-management and/or eco-innovation in the respective region. Each RIP will also include the political commitment of the relevant regional and national stakeholders for the implementation of the described policy instrument.

- Policy recommendations for regional authorities on how to support eco-management and eco-innovation in SMEs

3.1.3.2 Main eco-innovation issues tackled The projects’ thematic focus is eco-management and eco-innovation. More specifically, the project addresses the dissemination of the best eco-management practices and schemes in SMEs, including eco-awareness, eco-efficient production and eco-design.


Precise recommendations and instruments, such as funding schemes, will be developed during the lifetime of the project. This input will offer regional authorities and public intermediaries a set of proposals and ideas on how they can promote eco-management as a lever for enhanced eco-innovation in their region. Furthermore, they will receive guidance on how they can convince SMEs and their suppliers to implement eco-management systems as an instrument of corporate eco-awareness and eco-efficient production.

3.1.3.3 Innovative good practices/aspects of the pr oject The project partners have identified fifteen good practices, nine of which were submitted by partner regions: Lower Austria (AT), Sofia (BG), Central Bohemia (CZ) (x2), Tartu (EE), Ascoli Piceno (IT), Kujawsko-Pomorskie (PL) and the East of England (UK) (x2). Another six were collected from non-partner regions. All good practices focus on eco-innovation support measures. The majority of good practices collected are grant schemes (8), four of which are green innovation voucher schemes. Other good practices are accreditation / certification schemes (3), eco-innovative clusters (2) as well as one voluntary agreement and one open scheme (operational programme).

When the analysis was performed, the project was still in the early stage of implementation. Regions have not yet progressed any further with their plans on adopting the good practices and developing the regional instruments for eco-innovation support. However, early insights into their transferability have been noted in the analysis report48, counselling caution that a “policy instrument cannot be transferred in its entirety into a different regional context; each good practice has to be broken down into its different constituents or aspects which then can be transferred and adopted to a new regional or local context”. Regions have confirmed this by pointing out that their good practices can be transferred in a relatively easy manner but that attention has to be paid to a careful adaptation to the regional context.


The RECOMMEND project is in its early stages. The necessity for building wider partnerships with other projects and initiatives still needs to be identified. The project has managed to maintain some ties with the CIE project. In particular, the partners from Delft and Peterborough have a common interest in cleantech incubators and cluster developments, on which they have been exchanging information on an informal basis. However, no formal cooperation or plans have been developed.

The RECOMMEND team has also been informally exchanging with the FRESH project team on eco-design under the sustainable construction theme, the main interest being the good practice examples that could be relevant for the project.

3.1.3.5 Recommendations �� In this first year of the project, the project team has managed to identify an

interesting set of good practice examples supplied both by the partners, as well as by sources from outside the project consortium. It is important that the partners now identify how the partner regions can learn from these practices and how they can adopt them. It would be helpful to look at experiences of the advanced or

48 http://www.recommendproject.eu/docs/RECOMMEND_Best_practice_study_Final_Draft.pdf


completed INTERREG IVC projects in the field of eco-innovation, such as FRESH (beyond the eco-design topic), PROSESC and ECREIN+.

�� It would be beneficial for the project partners to establish more contacts with other INTERREG IVC projects in other fields (e.g. renewable energy, SME support). This will help them to draw useful lessons, find synergies and possibilities for long-term cooperation.

3.1.4 European Clusters and Regions for Eco-Innovat ion Network Plus (ECREIN+)

3.1.4.1 Overview of the project and its main object ives The ECREIN+ project started in January 2010 and ended in early 2013.

The project was led by the Rhône-Alpes Region (FR), in collaboration with 10 additional partners from eight European Union countries, including: the Regional Ministry of Environment of Andalusia (ES), the Ministry of Environment of the State of Baden Wurttemberg (DE), the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Stara Zagora (BL), the R&D General Directorate of the Government of Galicia (ES), the Ile de France Region (FR), the Lombardy Region (IT), the Malopolska Region (PL), the Association of Romanian Municipalities (RO), the Uppsala Regional Council (SE), the Coventry, the Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce (UK) and the Assembly of the European Regions (AER).

The main objective of the project was to create and share knowledge on effective instruments for managing and implementing effective regional policy in support of eco-innovation and eco-businesses. This objective was defined based on the common need to:

- Clarify existing aids (i.e. policy initiatives aimed at supporting the development of eco-innovation)

- Improve knowledge of the market to propose more adapted supports - Improve coherence between policies led by the different services within each

region and to adapt these measures to the specific type of eco-innovation concerned

- Set up coordination between the various regional players involved in eco-innovation (players from the public and private sectors, financiers and entrepreneurs)

In light of the issues identified, partners decided to organise their work around three objectives:

- Improve knowledge of the market in order to ascertain which players the regions are working with

- Study the regional policies and tools aimed at supporting eco-innovation in order to ascertain how regions are working with them

- Study the assessment of the eco-innovation instruments to ascertain the effectiveness of the instruments used by regions in support of eco-innovation?”

The ECREIN+ project is the extension of the ECREINetwork project started in 2006 under the Environmental Technologies Action Plan.


3.1.4.2 Main eco-innovation issues tackled One of the specific features of the ECREIN+ project is that it does not focus on any particular issue or type of policy instrument for supporting eco-innovation. Instead, the project covers a wide range of eco-innovation issues including:

�� Defining target populations for regional policy interventions, measuring markets;

�� Green public procurement and other demand-side policies;

�� Financing eco-innovation in businesses and particularly SMEs (financial instruments to support eco-innovation) and other supply-side policies;

�� The development of eco-parks;

�� Measuring the effectiveness of eco-innovation support tools;

�� The promotion of 'public-private’ partnerships and multi-level cooperation in the governance of eco-innovation support schemes;

�� Eco-innovation support schemes.

This generic approach to eco-innovation however did represent another challenge for the project, leading to the adoption of quite a wide scope and focus to the objectives the project had set out to achieve, as well as to the types of good practices it identified. Future projects should probably seek to define a more limited scope with regards to the types of eco-innovation, instruments and the branch of the industry they plan to address.

3.1.4.3 Innovative good practices/aspects of the pr oject The project’s main distinctive feature (compared to other projects analysed) lies in its exclusive focus on the support of eco-innovation policy development. This means that the exchange of knowledge and experiences focused on specific policy instruments implemented by regional authorities, rather than, for example, innovative technical solutions to environmental issues. In this respect, the project directly aimed at sharing knowledge on what local regional authorities can do on their level to improve policy development conditions for eco-innovation in their territories.

The regional eco-innovation platforms set up by project partners also represent an innovative element of the project. These platforms included representatives of both the private and the public sector, able to deal with issues regarding the development of innovation, eco-innovation, eco-businesses' operation and specific difficulties of SMEs. Regional platforms have demonstrated their added value, especially with the regional governance of eco-innovation support.

The project identified a total of 14 good practices. Four of these are of particular interest due to their innovative nature (see 3.2.3.). There is a wide diversity of policy types capitalised as good practices by the ECREIN+ project. There is a relative balance between the good practices in terms of funding modes, with 5 good practices being financial and the rest being non-financial. However, among the financial instruments, there is a predominance of grants/subsidies/vouchers, while other types of funding schemes such as guarantees, loans, fiscal incentives and venture capital are completely absent. Unsurprisingly, supply-side capitalised good practices far outnumber demand-side good practices. The only two good practices with a demand-side dimension are the Green Public Procurement initiatives implemented by the Lombardia region and the co-owned photovoltaic power plant in Uppsala. The remaining good practices all focus on more upstream phases of innovation, (supply)


such as support for R&D (basic, applied, development and demonstration); education, training and mobility, networks and partnerships. In terms of the scope and focus of the good practices, most of these are directly focused on eco-innovation (vs. generic innovation instruments).


The thematic orientation of the project’s good practices can potentially be relevant for three projects: RECOMMEND, FRESH and ECOREGIONS. However, given that the project is already completed, formal49 activities on cooperation and building synergies are not expected. However, the informal exchange and contacts are likely to continue, which might allow younger projects (e.g. RECOMMEND and ECO-REGIONS) to look into the good practices identified by ECREIN+.

3.1.4.5 Recommendations The ECREIN+ project has recently come to an end. The project has produced an insightful good practice guide directly targeted at regional authorities seeking to develop and implement policy initiatives in support of eco-innovation. It would be useful for project partners to disseminate the findings and lessons drawn from the good practice guide. Some partners have already taken it upon themselves to translate a summarised version of the good practice guide, to be used locally. Partners are also encouraged to continue the work started in their eco-innovation platforms, and take the necessary measures to make them sustainable.

3.1.5 ECOREGIONS

3.1.5.1 Overview of the project and its main object ives The ECOREGIONS project started in January 2012 and will run until September 2014.

The ECOREGIONS project was launched by members of the RUR@CT network aimed at sharing experiences among rural regions of Europe. It is led by the Picardie Regional Council (Lead Partner, FR) in collaboration with ten partners which include the Picardie Region (FR), the Region of Jamtland (SE), ENEREA Eszak-Alfold Regional Energy Agency Nonprofit Llc. (HU), the District Office Bamberg, Hordaland County Council (NO) , Kainuun Elu (FI), the Regional Council of Limousin (FR), the Cremona Chamber of Commerce (IT), the State Development Corporation of Thuringia (DE), the Malta Intelligent Energy Management Agency (MT) and the European Regions Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN).

The overarching objective of the ECOREGIONS project is to “improve the effectiveness of local and regional development policies in the areas of eco-innovation and more specifically green technologies”50. This is achieved through the exchange, sharing and transfer of policy experience and good practices in the field, with a view to contributing to the economic modernisation and increased competitiveness of the European territories concerned. The project places a particular emphasis on the support directed to SMEs.

49 The project is no longer able to participate in formal project clustering initiatives for example. 50 Project application form.


3.1.5.2 Main eco-innovation issues tackled As is the case with the ECREIN+ project (cf. 3.1.4), the ECOREGIONS project was not designed to focus on any particular issue or dimension of eco-innovation. Instead, it develops a rather generic approach to eco-innovation. However, the analysis of the selected good practices does reveal a particular emphasis placed on increasing the capacities of SMEs to adopt sustainable practices (e.g. eco-management and implementing energy efficiency measures) and on the uptake and development of renewable energy resources and energy efficiency solutions (e.g. biogas plants and low energy housing). The selected good practices to be transferred among partners can be divided into two fields: eco-innovation support instruments (e.g. cluster-building) and green technologies (technical solutions to specific environmental issues, e.g. biogas plants).

The analysis of the good practice sheets selected by the project illustrates the diversity of the eco-innovation issues addressed:

�� Capacity building of SMEs in the fields of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency

�� Production of renewable energy using biomass

�� Strategy building in the field of climate action

�� Development of cleantech clusters

�� Eco-management in SMEs

�� Improving market access for new environmental technologies

3.1.5.3 Innovative good practices/aspects of the pr oject Before the project was officially launched, the ECOREGIONS partners identified an initial set of 15 good practices that could be potentially exchanged among them. Identifying the good practices to transfer was actually carried out as part of the design of the project itself. As a result, the project started a step ahead of other projects in the field, thereby saving the time and effort the others had to put into identifying and capitalising on good practices. The project already possesses completed good practice sheets for each of these good practices, making it easier for partners to identify the good practices they are interested in importing.

Currently, out of the 15 identified good practices, nine of them may potentially be transferred among partners. No formal transfer of good practices has taken place yet, given the early stage of project implementation. However, according to the Lead Partner, project partners have expressed particular interest in the Energy Efficiency Network and the Portaferm small manure biogas plant in the Thuringia region in Germany and the Cremona Bio-energy factory (Italy).

The Bio-energy Factory promotes and optimises the use of available biomasses, thereby increasing the production of green energy without being detrimental to the existing productive resources in favour of green technologies. The operation is structured around three interconnected layers: research, services and observatory. From a social perspective, the inclusion of the civil society in the development pathway of the Bio-energy Factory represents an important achievement towards the creation of a situation that is conducive to the interaction between local authorities, research centres, SMEs and local communities.


The Energy Efficiency Network Thuringia aims at exchanging good practices to gain and spread knowledge. Its overarching goal is to find solutions for improving the energy efficiency of production processes. The network supports businesses in their efforts to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Within a pilot phase, 15 businesses monitor their energy consumption and receive such support. Since the network activities include best practice exchange, various methods for improvement are being discussed and presented in a common catalogue of measures. Currently, the networks’ businesses are implementing the measures they selected in order to reduce their energy consumption, leading the way to cuts in expenditure and CO2 emissions.


The focus and approach to eco-innovation developed by the Eco-Regions project is similar to that adopted by ECREIN+ and FRESH. In this respect, there could be room for an exchange of knowledge and best practices among the three projects. The Eco-Regions project could draw interesting lessons from the best practice guide developed by the ECREIN+ project.

In addition, given the breadth of the project’s focus on renewable energies and energy efficiency, it might be worth exploring synergies with and drawing inspiration from the work carried out in the Covenant of Mayors initiative. The Covenant’s website includes a significant database of benchmarks of excellence illustrating energy efficiency and renewable energy good practice actions adopted at the local level.

3.1.5.5 Recommendations �� The Eco-Regions project has made significant headway in defining and

capitalising the good practices to be shared among project partners. The project must now ensure it capitalises on the efficiency of its methodology and go as far as possible in the actual exchange of good practices and delivery of implementation plans.

�� It would be interesting for the project to look at good practices capitalised on by other INTERREG IVC projects in the field of eco-innovation which have already come to an end such as the PROSESC project and the ECREIN+ project. These projects might have good practices of interest for Eco-Regions project partners, or may contain aspects that may enrich their current work.

3.1.6 Developing Sustainable Regions through Respon sible SMEs (DESUR)

3.1.6.1 Overview of the project and its main object ives The DESUR project, as a project from the fourth INTERREG IVC call for projects, has only recently started (July 2012) and aims at ‘helping businesses to grow in a more sustainable and innovative way by improving regional policies to promote responsible innovation in SMEs. It will run until July 2014. It focuses on policies to support Corporate Social Responsibility in SMEs. SMEs often have neither the resources nor the awareness necessary to adopt sustainable practices, namely: respect for the natural environment, removal of barriers and inequalities, lifelong learning, increased productivity, efficient resource usage, better quality of life for employees, etc. Since most companies are SMEs, the inactivity of SMEs in adopting such practices is a barrier to the sustainable development in a region.


The regions that make up the DESUR project are coordinated by FUNDECYT, the science and technology support agency in the region of Extremadura (ES). Other participants are the South West Regional Authority (IE); the Region of Western Macedonia (EL); the Province of Bologna (Italy); the Kaunas University of Technology (LT); the Pannon Business Network association (HU) and Labour Fund Zasavje (SI). The project aims at developing policies to make it easier for SMEs to adopt sustainable practices in their day-to-day business and foster eco-innovation in SMEs to increase competitiveness, create quality employment and be more respectful to the environment.

The main objective of the DESUR project is to share knowledge across regions to improve policies, instruments and methodologies aimed at promoting responsible innovation in SMEs with the purpose of increasing sustainability in the participating regions.

The other objectives are to:

- Exchange knowledge on best practices and experiences between the partners to replicate the identified models that have been successful in other regions.

- Help bridge the existing gap in the level of development of sustainability policies for SMEs between the more experienced countries (sources of knowledge) and the less advanced (recipients of knowledge).

- Train staff members to promote business eco-innovation, particularly aimed at SMEs, to be active agents in the future of the region.

- Capitalise on the knowledge available in public policies for environmental and human sustainability in SMEs by integrating it in a single concept of SME eco-innovation. (This concept is defined as any innovation resulting in the prevention or the reduction of environmental impacts, impacts on the natural environment as well as social and economic impacts.)

- Identify, classify and understand the main needs of SMEs with respect to sustainability, allowing for improvement in the policies aimed at them.

- Learn to use effective and efficient public resources to promote sustainability. - Disseminate the results so as to enable learning beyond the duration of the

project and beyond the geographical scope of the regions involved. - Contribute to achieving the European and national targets in the future design

of policies for sustainable development of SMEs in the regions involved. - Establish links between partners that foster collaboration and knowledge

sharing (networking) for the duration of the project and beyond.

The main focus is on the bilateral exchange between partners during study visits and staff exchanges.

3.1.6.2 Main eco-innovation issues tackled The regions participating in the DESUR project (all except Lithuania) are suffering heavily from the economic crisis, and their economies all largely consist of SMEs. The SMEs of the DESUR partner regions are faced with the important challenge of boosting competitiveness through productivity growth, in which innovation, new skills and sustainability are important components. In this respect, CSR is a definite and decisive way to integrate these factors into the companies' strategies and policies.

Many of the micro and small firms involved in the DESUR project did not think that the term CSR was applicable to their business because they were small and assumed that CSR was only applicable to much bigger firms that better fit the ‘corporate’ aspect


of CSR. They often only see it as an additional cost and not as an opportunity. “What emerged, in particular, picking over DESUR partners' reports, is an insufficient development of an entrepreneurial culture of Corporate Social Responsibility and, above all, SMEs hardly understand the competitive surplus that might result from activating a sustainable corporate strategy and an effective internal and external stakeholders' involvement51”.

In the project, the focus is not directly on eco-innovation but on Corporate Social Responsibility within SMEs, which is very broad, ranging from community involvement (donations, sponsorships, corporate voluntary work, etc.), workers health & safety and codes of conduct to work safety certification, ethical codes, etc.

CSR however may be a catalyst to eco-innovation projects within these SMEs. The SMEs themselves see CSR in the area of eco-innovation as a tool for the reduction of energy consumption and waste.

3.1.6.3 Innovative good practices/aspects of the pr oject The first results include an analysis of European regions that promote social responsibility in small and medium-sized businesses and a model developed to promote responsible innovations. The project only started in 2012, so no good practices have yet been identified at policy level. Some good practices in the area of environmental management at company level have however been identified. An important feature of all these good practices is the commitment of the companies towards protecting the environment. Furthermore it has become clear that in order to involve SMEs, the concept of CSR must not be made more complex than it already appears.


With its generic focus on policies supporting the introduction of a CSR ‘attitude’, which may be adopted by all SMEs, the project is relevant for many other INTERREG IVC projects focusing on SMEs. Within the specific cluster of projects focusing on eco-innovation, these are RECOMMEND (eco-management and eco-innovation in businesses), ECOREGIONS (eco-innovation in SMEs), ECREIN+ (eco-businesses), FRESH (sustainable value creation in the building sector) and to some extent PASE52 (focused on social businesses).

3.1.6.5 Recommendations At the time of the analysis, the focus of the initial exchange of good practices was on CSR practices companies/SMEs. No policy good practices have yet been identified. The recommendation would be to focus more on the policies supporting the development and wider adoption of CSR practices and less on individual company level good practices.

3.1.7 Producer Services for European Sustainability and Competitiveness (PROSESC)

51 DESUR – Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility Trends in the Region of Extremadura, 2013 52 www.pase-project.eu


3.1.7.1 Overview of the project and its main object ives In the PROSESC project, a project from the second INTERREG IVC call, therefore already finished, seven European regions with strong automotive sectors cooperated to exchange information on support strategies and policies regarding environmental sustainability and the competitiveness of road transport. The project leader was the Stuttgart Region Economic Development Corporation (DE). Partners were Pannon Novum West-transdanubian Regional Innovation Non-profit Ltd. (HU); the Hungarian Vehicle Engineering Cluster - HVEC (HU, Associate regional partner); the province of Turin (IT; the Regional Development Agency for the West Region (RO); the Government Office of Climate Change (SI); the Galician innovation agency of the Ministry of Economy and Industry (ES); the Galician Automotive Cluster CEAGA (ES, associate regional partner); Norfolk County Council, UK) and the University of Hertfordshire (UK). The focus of the project is on the knowledge-intensive producer services sector and, more specifically, the type of services that are integral to the development and production of means of sustainable road transport (from two-wheelers to e-vehicles and fuel-cell buses). The services targeted by PROSESC cover a broad span of areas: product-design, R&D, engineering and IT-services, and even specialised logistics. The businesses concerned (often SMEs) deliver a complex ecosystem of enabling services that accelerate the absorption rate of innovative technologies by the automotive sector.

The conclusion of the project is that sustainability and electric transport offer opportunities for renewal of the still very important car manufacturing industry in Europe. Increased technology transfer between research organisations, SMEs and large manufacturers is important for grasping this opportunity. At present, however, the innovation process is not very open.

3.1.7.2 Main eco-innovation issues tackled The issues with respect to eco-innovation include the electrification of personal vehicles powered by batteries or by hydrogen and better use of info-mobility technologies (e.g. technological assistance to driving and traffic management) so as to increase transport energy efficiency. New technologies are a means to decrease the environmental pressure of personal mobility as well as an opportunity for the revival of the European car manufacturing industry.

3.1.7.3 Innovative good practices/aspects of the pr oject The good innovation policy practices identified in the project relate mainly to the development and introduction of electric vehicles and to the supporting of SMEs with their innovation(s).

The three good practices related to electric vehicles focus on the implementation of infrastructure networks. To support this, regional authorities are promoting innovation by means of ensuring framework conditions for successful implementation. MOBEGA, an electric mobility plan, brings together both public and private resources to encourage the use of electric vehicles in Galicia. Rather than searching for an elusive business model, the project is fostering regional R&D. Mobigrid is a very practical project, building an EV (electric vehicle) corridor from Vigo to Porto, demonstrating that EVs can be used on such major routes. Evalu8 is building a special EV network with 600 charging points across the East of England, raising the profile of EV use and facilitating opportunities for innovation. The EV focus is bringing SMEs and larger players together.


Although the following good practices in SME support measures relate to the car manufacturing sector, they may be more easily transferable to other sectors:

�� In the Automotive Benchmarking Cluster in Hungary, company performance data is being collected and (anonymously) disseminated among participants so they can benchmark their own performance against that of their colleagues. The greater the willingness of companies to input data, the greater the benefit they will receive by having access to the anonymous benchmark data of the cluster. The role of the government is mainly to initiate and help to build trust. The independence of the cluster manager and the additional external expertise, brought in to analyse the result, further strengthens the cluster.

�� The TecNet platforms in Germany provide a straightforward methodology for progressing an open innovation agenda. Companies in the network are encouraged to submit proposals to solve a problem posed in general terms by a potential customer (here possibly a vehicle manufacturer). The platform organisation provides a secure holding area to manage the release of information once intellectual property agreements are in place. This engenders a vital sense of trust, which allows the network partners to collaborate: it gives SMEs a potential customer and large companies access to SMEs, which they otherwise would not be able to cooperate with.

�� The design of the Hethel Engineering Centre in Norfolk, England, is intended to encourage start-up companies to engage with each other. The Pilot-Innovation-Projects build on this by bringing together companies from different disciplines. By introducing a number of unlikely partners, the seeds of innovation are found in these new connections.

More traditional good practices that demonstrate the role played by regional authorities and Chambers of Commerce to support and encourage SMEs are an ERDF co-financed R&D programme for SMEs (Piedmont, Italy) and an organisation for joint international marketing of a regional cluster (Turin, Italy).


The PROSESC project is based on earlier cooperation projects: the Network of Automotive Regions (co-financed by INTERREG IIIC) and BeLCAR (financed by Europe INNOVA Initiative), which addressed the clustering phenomenon in the automotive industry from different angles.

The project in itself with its strong focus on the automotive sector does not seem to have a generic synergy with other INTERREG IVC projects. Furthermore, as stated above, the lessons from the PROSESC project may have a broad use outside the project. The specific good practices related to electric vehicles show the importance for (regional) governments to create framework conditions for (radical) innovations as well as the opportunities for regions to create the right framework conditions in (niche) markets. The SME good practices may be more directly transferred outside the automotive sector (but are not specific for eco-innovation).

3.1.7.5 Recommendations The PROSEC project has now ended and published its results in reports, a conference and brochures. In order to create a maximum impact, it would be useful to keep on communicating the lessons of the project. One important way to achieve this


is to (continue to) update the contact-info on the PROSESC website so that the people involved can be directly contacted by any parties interested.

3.2 Aggregated thematic analysis

3.2.1 Promoting eco-innovation from the regional fr ont: are regions legitimate stakeholders?

As has been discussed above, there are two main drivers for the development of public policy in support of eco-innovation:

o Reducing the environmental impact of our society

o Exploiting potential economic opportunity

These drivers are valid at all government levels: EU level (Horizon 2020, see above), local, regional as well as national level (sustainability and economic growth are major issues in all EU countries. The specific role regions can play in this arena depends on national legislation and traditions, regional (economic) strengths and weaknesses, added value of policy at regional level and the leadership that is available in the region. While the legislative powers at regional level are often more limited than at national level, the smaller scale of regions allows for a more direct and intensive interaction with society, offering a faster and more tailored implementation of policy initiatives. Regions can also capitalise on the uniqueness of their innovation ecosystems and so realise comparative advantages over other regions. Being generally larger and therefore possessing more specialist knowledge, regional public organisations may be more suitable to support eco-innovation than the local level.

The EU Cohesion Policy for 2014-2020 confirms the importance for regions to reach Horizon 2020 goals and has established minimum allocations for the spending of ERDF resources on energy, innovation and SME support (see 2.2.5). In doing so, the EU has confirmed the role of regions to foster an eco-innovation that responds to the challenges of sustainable energy, climate change and the use of natural resources.

Depending on their competences and local institutional frameworks, regions can play different roles in the promotion of eco-innovation:53,

- Regions can play a role as a consumer (e.g. green public procurement, implementation of energy saving activities for their own buildings);

- Regions may be local producers and suppliers of services & utilities (as owners of utility companies e.g. for heating and energy solutions)

- Regions can play a role as regulators, setting standards and local laws - Regions can play a role as a motivator and facilitator, inspiring and supporting

the adoption of eco-innovative practices

The project partners from the analysed group of INTERREG IVC eco-innovation projects formulate the role of the regional authorities as follows54:

�� They should show a committed leadership in promoting sustainability in the region

53 Based on Appendix of the Covenant of Mayors (2009) 54 Based on the discussion at the Thematic Capitalisation Workshop for INTERREG IVC projects, Lot 3: eco-innovation held on 31 October 2012; Technopolis Group, 2013


�� They should develop a long-term development strategy incorporating sustainability goals and targets that give a basis for regional actions, measures and policies aimed at promoting eco-innovation in regional industries (manufacturing, services), public sector and other areas (greening regional development plans)

�� Based on the strategy, they should design and promote (economically and environmentally sustainable) eco-innovation support measures and incentives for SMEs, NGOs and consumers

�� They should also act responsibly. For example, the regional authorities can set an example by applying green principles in the regional public administration (e.g. applying Green Public Procurement)

�� They should provide political support to good practice transfer, innovation and implementation

�� They should promote information campaigns to raise green awareness of all stakeholders

�� They should link all stakeholders together with knowledge institutes and industries. They should support skills development and find skills/collaborators across borders.

Moreover, according to the representatives of the projects analysed, different groups of regional stakeholders can play various roles in the further uptake of eco-innovation. Figure 6 below shows the possible roles that the various players can adopt in the promotion of eco-innovation(s).

Figure 6: Role of regional players in the promotion of eco-innovation55

Player/Stakeholder

Roles

Universities and knowledge institutes

�� Support development of entrepreneurship skills at the universities, and facilitate spinoffs that are especially focused on sustainability related (env. management, eco-innovation) topics

�� Support/fund/facilitate R&D programmes focused on eco-innovation

�� Development and opening of related study courses (e.g. cleantech engineering, sustainability management, etc)

�� Provision of PhD grants that will support eco-innovation related topics

Companies/SME

�� Support clusters creation and incubators focused on cleantech and sustainable innovation areas

�� Create incentives for SMEs and companies to start introducing eco-innovation and environmental management measures (e.g. tax incentives,

55 Based on the discussion at the Thematic Capitalisation Workshop for INTERREG IVC projects, Lot 3: eco-innovation held on 31 October 2012; Technopolis Group, 2013


financial incentives)

�� Promote incentives through competitions and awards for the most eco-innovative SMEs

�� Promote / support the internationalisation of SMEs that will help with their export effort, knowledge diffusion, and learning. This will also help regions to obtain international recognition

Consumers �� Provision of information, education and awareness raising via various campaigns, advertisement, and other channels.

�� Particular attention should be on ecological education of children in school programmes.

�� Launching specific incentive programmes and instruments aimed at making consumers behaviours more sustainable (e.g. energy saving, use public transport, recycling, water saving)

NGOs and non-for profit organisations

�� They should be involved more actively in information and education campaigns.

�� They should cooperate with regional authorities in developing sustainability strategies

�� Citizen or user or consumer organisations focusing on green/ sustainable topics/ services should be promoted (e.g. an association of households with PV roofs, or of wind installation owners)

The existence of the necessary institutional conditions for effective eco-innovation policy support to be implemented at the regional level strongly depends on organisational patterns, which may differ from country to country. Experience from the INTERREG IVC eco-innovation projects show that regional strategies must take into account national and supranational policies in order to avoid conflicting strategies as well as to benefit from opportunities for broader implementation (outside the region) of eco-innovations. A good example comes from Germany by promoting hydrogen car charging stations. In this case, the first initiatives for promoting hydrogen cars were predominantly localised (Berlin, Stuttgart) with a limited number of cars and charging stations. For further implementation, up-scaling and setting-up outside the region is necessary (hydrogen car drivers also want to drive their car outside of their own region). A national strategy is therefore necessary for it to be a real success and ensure expansion to the national level. In Germany, this is provided by the Clean Energy partnership, where energy and technology companies, car manufacturers, transportation companies and the federal states (Länder) cooperate.

3.2.2 Eco-innovation: a crossroads of policy interv ention

3.2.2.1 Different approaches, one subject Although eco-innovation is present in all projects, the approaches to eco-innovation vary significantly among and within them. As a result, the good practices being looked into by projects also vary significantly. The following figure provides an overview of the main types of focus developed by each of the projects analysed. The figure does not


seek to provide the basis for categorisation of the projects but instead aims to illustrate the diversity of approaches developed by them. It must be kept in mind that each of the points included are not mutually exclusive and projects have often included several of these dimensions in their design.

�� Technologies: Some projects are explicitly aimed at supporting the development and uptake of environmental technologies. The PROSESC project for example is aimed at supporting the development of electric-vehicle technologies, while ECOREGIONS and FRESH have identified several good practices based on specific innovative technologies (e.g. heat pump, low impact building, biogas production, non-industrial waste biosizer, etc).

�� Sectors: Although eco-innovation is not limited to any particular economic sector (eco-innovation is a process that can take place at any point in the value chain and any sector in the economy), certain projects have decided to focus on particular sectors. Again, the PROCESC project focuses on the road transport sector, while the FRESH project has chosen to focus on the construction sector by introducing eco-design principles and CIE identified cleantech as a broader sectoral area including green, sustainable products, services, processes and technologies.

�� Policies: While all projects seek to influence the policy framework by introducing better policy measures or shaping regional strategies, some of them have a stronger focus on strengthening policies and the roles of regional policymakers in support of eco-innovation (e.g. ECREIN+, FRESH). Other projects focus on policies in selected areas, like supporting cleantech incubation in CIE, eco-management and eco-design in RECOMMEND, cluster policies in PROSESC and corporate social responsibility in SMEs in DESUR.

�� Capacity building: Some projects have been designed to facilitate the development of processes with regard to institutional capacity building at the regional level. The PROSESC project for example seeks to promote the “transfer of academic and expert know-how on cluster support to regional policymakers”, while the ECREIN+ project seeks to strengthen the capacities of regional policymakers to effectively design, implement and evaluate eco-innovation support policy instruments. RECOMMEND focuses on capacity building in eco-management and eco-design expertise in companies in its partner regions. The CIE project is explicitly designed to facilitate the incubation of young eco-innovating SMEs, which otherwise face difficulty in starting the business and entering the market.

�� Target groups: Some projects explicitly target certain populations/groups. DESUR and ECOREGIONS place a strong emphasis on supporting the uptake of eco-innovation among SMEs. The CIE project targets cleantech incubators and start-up SMEs nurtured within these incubators.


Figure 7: Approaches to eco-innovation identified in the projects

Source: Technopolis

3.2.2.2 Eco-innovation, eco-technologies, eco-indus tries: overlapping but distinct

The diversity of approaches to eco-innovation that can be found within the selected INTERREG IVC projects also stems from the fact that the notion itself is rather broad and cross-cutting. Eco-innovation is also a young concept, which means that the use of the term in the policy-making sphere is in some cases rather vague. Projects often use terms like eco-innovation, eco-businesses, eco-technologies and green growth indiscriminately, which in some cases leads to a lack of clear-cut conceptual frameworks and scope. In some cases, this has led to misunderstandings regarding the objectives pursued by the project (e.g. ECREIN+).


Consequently, it is of vital importance that projects provide clear conceptual frameworks. The following paragraphs provide an overview of a number of definitions of concepts tied to eco-innovation.

�� The OECD and Eurostat have narrowed the interpretation of eco-industries, defining them as “those [identifiable] sectors within which the main – or a substantial part of – activities are undertaken wit h the primary purpose of the production of goods and services to measure, pr event, limit, minimise or correct environmental damage to water, air and soil , as well as problems related to waste, noise and eco-systems ”. Based on this definition, a distinction can also be made between ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ or ‘connected industries’, based on the relevance of the industry’s activity to the previously mentioned purpose. For example ‘core’ industries include sectors such as wastewater treatment and renewable energy sources. These sectors are generally classified under two broad groups: pollution management and resource management. Connected industries, on the other hand, include a larger set of sectors, such as ICT, chemicals or automotive.

�� According to Cleantech Group, cleantechs are “ new technologies and related business models that offer competitive returns for investors and customers while providing solutions to global challenges ”. Cleantech industry segments include energy efficiency, energy storage, wind, bio-fuels and bio-materials, water, transportation, solar systems, waste, materials, smart grids and agriculture. Due to the difficulties in measuring eco-innovative-related market trends, calculating the volumes of capital that go into financing eco-innovation is also a highly complex task. Nevertheless, using existing evidence from specific industries and/or sectors of the financing market (e.g. equity market); it is possible to shed light on some of the key issues regarding eco-innovation financing. Indicators on the cleantech industry are often used to measure the eco-industry. The term ‘cleantech companies’ is generally used to describe companies that produce technologies that are environmentally frien dly . The emphasis is often on new or established technologies. Cleantech and eco-innovation are thus closely related. However, the focus of eco-innovation is broader than only technology and also encompasses process innovation, for example.

�� Eco-innovation, on the other hand, is not limited to the development of new technologies, nor to a particular economic or industrial sector. According to the EU Eco-innovation Observatory, “eco-innovation is the introduction of any new or significantly improved product (good or service), process, organisational change or marketing solution that reduces the use of natural resources (including materials, energy, water and land) and d ecreases the release of harmful substances across the whole life-cycle”.

The following table provides a brief analysis of the different approaches/focuses developed by the projects.

Figure 8: Approaches and focuses of projects

Project acronym

Focus


FRESH FRESH defines eco-innovation as better, greener, and cheaper products. The criterion used for the good practice selection is that they contribute to green competitiveness & green growth.

The project partner regions prioritised the construction sector in the partner regions as the focus area because this sector constitutes an important part of the partners’ regional economies and combines export potential with local demand and untapped, sustainability and innovation potential.

The good practices address issues of energy, waste, resource productivity, user satisfaction and represent both, supply side measures (planning & assessment tools) and demand-led measures (standards, sustainable procurement and consumers), as well as technical innovation showcases.

RECOMMEND RECOMMEND focuses on ‘eco-management and eco-innovation’ with no thematic or sectoral/industrial focus. In identifying good practice examples, the project focuses on certain support activities including: funding (e.g. eco-voucher), networking (e.g. eco-cluster) and sustainable procurement (e.g. eco-products).

DESUR DESUR promotes a rather wider concept of sustainable development as part of corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies of SME. In their definition, sustainable development consists of three elements: (1) environmental resources or the planet (2) social environment or people and (3) economic environment or benefits.

The overall objective of the DESUR project is to improve policies, tools and methodologies to promote responsible innovation in SMEs, so they contribute to increasing sustainability in the regions of the participating partners. The good practices mainly cover the successful experiences of SMEs in pursuing sustainable business, as well as support measures for networking and exchange of experience among SMEs.

ECREIN+ ECREIN+: when ascertaining the stakeholders they were working with, they had two approaches: sector and market. They adopted a broader definition of eco-innovation, covering environmental goods and services, as well as the greening of traditional sectors (which was their main problem with their defining of eco-innovation).

In identifying the good practices, they focus on policy support measures addressing eco-innovation, covering for example: green public procurement, directories, financing of eco-innovation projects, research/enterprise collaboration, etc.

ECOREGIONS ECOREGIONS' project partners did not attempt to have a specific definition of eco-innovation. Their starting point focused on Green Growth and the Green Economy. The project aims to improve the governance of eco-innovation and green technologies in the private and the public sectors. (It is expected that they will arrive at a definition by the end of the project).

When identifying good practices, they had a wide approach which covered both the eco-innovative and green solutions, such as low impact housing, heat pumps, bio-gas installation and support schemes and tools, such as regional plans for enterprises and the environment, carbon calculator tools and grant systems.

PROSESC PROSESC's project focused on transportation and mobility. The definition of ‘sustainable transport’ is kept broad, each region is free to adapt and adopt it depending on its local context (industry, sector, service, etc.).

In the project partner regions, there are very different pre-conditions for the transferability of good practices. The regional stakeholders are trying to deal with approaches that are feasible for their region, and, of course, they have a common understanding on eco-innovation and sustainable transport. When identifying good practice examples, the project focused on knowledge-intensive services for sustainable mobility, services in/around product and


production engineering as well as logistics management (e.g. product-design, R&D, engineering and IT/software-services, specialised logistics, etc).

CIE CIE's project addresses eco-innovation using a definition by Cleantech, which is part of eco-innovation and focuses on promoting ‘start-ups and incubators’. Cleantech in their understanding includes many thematic focuses, such as energy supply/production, energy and material efficiency, ICT, etc.

The project aims at (1) providing authorities with the skills and knowledge to (further) develop their policy instruments in support of cleantech SMEs and (2) helping cities/regions to facilitate and support cleantech incubators. When identifying the good practices, CIE mostly focuses on the experiences of successful cleantech clusters and incubators in Europe.

3.2.2.3 Typology of regional eco-innovation support instruments The following section provides an overview of the good practices identified by the projects analysed. The section begins by presenting a typology of eco-innovation support instruments and then goes on to give a general overview of the good practices themselves. This analysis covers all of the good practices identified or transferred by projects and does not place any emphasis on particularly innovative good practices.

Regional authorities and stakeholders can make use of a wide range of instruments in order to promote eco-innovation. This diversity is clearly illustrated when looking at the good practices capitalised on by the projects.

In order to gain a clear understanding of the types of good practices in the field of eco-innovation, it is important to consider the criteria used to define a sound typology of instruments.

Measures supporting eco-innovation are primarily a mix of market-based and regulatory tools. However, there are several other dimensions that distinguish eco-innovation policy initiatives from each other. These include the funding mode, the specific relevance of the focus, the specific innovation chain phase and the thematic focus of the policy instrument being used. The following table presents the main criteria use to define how eco-innovation policy instruments can be classified. It is important to remember that the following criteria are not mutually exclusive, meaning that several may apply to a single policy instrument.

Figure 9: Multi-dimensional framework for the categorisation of good practices

Criteria Groups

Funding mode � Non-financial

� Financial: guarantees, loans, fiscal incentives, grants/subsidies/vouchers, venture capital

Focus of support in innovation chain (supply-side/demand-side)

� Supply-side focus: equity/business support, support for R&D: basic research, support for R&D: applied research, support for R&D: development and demonstration; education, training and mobility; networks and partnerships

� Demand-side focus: regulations and standards; public


procurement; guarantees and other support for additional risks of early buyers; export promotion activities; support for private demand

Specific relevance for eco-innovation

� Not relevant

� Relevant for eco-innovation but eco-innovation is not specifically focused

� Focused on eco-innovation (but applicable in other areas of innovation)

� Only possible in area of EI (e.g. a regulation) Thematic focus

� Generic

� Focused on an environmental issue: resource efficiency, energy efficiency

� Focused on environmental management processes: eco-management, eco-design

Other � Measurement/ benchmark instruments, eco-innovation

strategies, eco-innovative solutions (product, process, technology), co-innovation assessment tools

Source: Technopolis

�� Funding mode

Public policies can facilitate access to finance through venture capital incentivising firms to develop innovative, environmentally-friendly technologies, thereby supporting existing SMEs and a new generation of responsible entrepreneurs. These measures can be of particular importance given the greater risk associated with eco-innovations in comparison to more traditional technologies and in view of the lesser ability for creating value for the benefit of the environment.

�� Focus of support in the innovation chain

To create a successful eco-innovation policy mix requires an understanding of the interaction of supply and demand forces. Recalling Edler and Georghiou (2007)56, Kemp (2011)57 suggests eco-innovation policies can refer to two main categories: supply-side measures and demand-side measures.

“On the one hand, supply-side measures refer to measures providing incentives to the production, the commercialisation or the use of eco-innovation by providing corrections to market imperfections, which would prevent eco-innovative solutions from being autonomously pursued. On the other hand, demand-side measures act at the opposite extreme of the chain by imposing limitations and fixing requirements that organisations should accomplish by rules”.

56 Edler, J., Georghiou, L. (2007) "Public procurement and innovation—Resurrecting the demand side." Research Policy 36, no. 7(2007) : 949-963 57 Kemp, René (2011) Eco-innovation: Definition, Measurement and Open Research Issues, forthcoming in Economia politica, Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, January issue


The range of explicit eco-innovation policies being applied today is very much concerned with the supply side and even more with R&D support of various types, ranging from funding of science in public institutions to fiscal incentives for firms to increase R&D spending. Much less attention has been paid to policies, which could increase either the motivation or the likely success of innovation, by acting upon the demand side, which is the specification and purchase of innovative goods and services.

Examples of supply-side measures include support for public sector research, support for training and mobility, grants for industrial research and development, information and brokerage support, networking promotion. Demand-side measures, on the other hand, may include systemic policies (e.g. clusters), regulation (e.g. standards on sustainable manufacturing), green public procurement and subsidies or tax incentives for private consumers.

�� Thematic focus

Eco-innovation support may or may not have a particular focus on a specific environmental issue. These issues may include:

�� Climate Change �� Nature and biodiversity �� Environment and health �� Management of natural resources and waste �� Energy efficiency �� Renewable energy sources �� Raw material efficiency

In addition to this, policy instruments may also address a specific environmental management process such as eco-management or eco-design.

�� Specific relevance for eco-innovation

Certain eco-innovation support instruments are tailored to the field of eco-innovation, while others are more generic innovation/environmental support instruments that may apply to eco-innovation. As a result, instruments may be relevant for eco-innovation but not specifically focused on the field, or they may be focused on eco-innovation but applicable in other areas of innovation, or may be exclusively focused on eco-innovation.

�� Others

Finally, among the transferred good practices, we have identified instruments such as measurement/ benchmark instruments, eco-innovation strategies, eco-innovative solutions to specific environmental issues (product, process, technology) and eco-innovation assessment tools.

3.2.2.4 Typology of good practices identified and t ransferred by INTERREG IVC projects in support of eco-innovation

In total, the seven projects analysed have identified 110 good practice examples, the FRESH project accounting for 52 of them. So far, six of these good practices have been transferred. More good practices are expected to be transferred as the project progresses, allowing the time needed to adopt and implement transferred measures. When the analysis was carried out, not all projects had been completed; four of them


were in the first years of implementation and still at the stage of good practice identification.

The classification of the good practices identified in INTERREG IVC projects in the field of eco-innovation reveals that:

� The large majority of good practices are non-financial (83), despite the fact that most regions consider financial support crucial to the development of eco-innovation.

� Financial good practices are exclusively focused on grants, subsidies and vouchers. Other types of financial support measures (e.g. guarantees, loans, fiscal incentives, venture capital) have not been tackled by the projects analysed.

� A majority of good practices have a supply-side focus (68). Among these, 26 focus on the promotion of networks and partnerships, and 22 on education, training and mobility.

� Demand-side eco-innovation support good practices are relatively few. These mainly focus on setting regulations and standards.

� Most good practices have a strong focus on eco-innovation but also cover other areas of innovation (non-exclusive focus).

� Thematic coverage: there is a good representation of good practices with energy efficiency/renewable energy focus, a few focus on sustainable construction and transport. Other good practices aimed at resource efficiency improvement are less present.

In addition to this, three types of good practices can be identified:

�� Policy Good Practices related to specific policy instruments (e.g. policies, programmes, strategies, initiatives etc.)

�� Support tool Good Practices related to supporting eco-innovation analysis (e.g. benchmarking instruments, technology atlases, genuine progress indicators (GPIs), etc.)

�� Technical Good Practices related to various technological solutions to environmental issues (e.g. low energy housing, biogas plants, etc.)

In terms of transferability, the transfer of technical and support tool good practices is likely to be less complex, but the impact on real eco-innovation may be more limited.

Figure 10: Three types of Good Practices

Source: Technopolis

3.2.2.5 Generic or tailored, what instruments are b est suited to support eco-innovation?

One of the main issues policymakers are faced with when choosing or designing policy instruments to support eco-innovation is whether to make use of generic innovation/economic development tools, or to make use of instruments tailored to eco-

Policy Good Practices

Technical Good

Practices

Support Tool Good

Practices


innovation objectives. The analysis of the good practices shows that regions generally use a mix of both, meaning that the tools that have a strong focus on eco-innovation are not exclusively orientated towards it.

Eco-innovation can indeed be considered to be a branch of generic innovation. However, eco-innovation covers a range of policy objectives that are not necessarily covered by generic innovation (e.g. environment, sustainability, health, land use, etc.). Eco-innovation support initiatives are thus at the cross-roads of several policy objectives and frameworks, making it difficult for policymakers and other stakeholders to select and design the types of policy instruments needed to support it.

In addition to this, in light of its strong environmental dimension, eco-innovation can be perceived as riskier than traditional innovation projects, which are more market-orientated. This is illustrated by current over-reliance of eco-innovations on public sector financing. As a result, eco-innovators face particular barriers in comparison to traditional innovators. In terms of access to financing for example, eco-innovators might experience difficulties owing to:

�� The much longer profitability horizons, the higher amounts needed and thus the higher risks compared to investing in other sectors such as ICT;

�� The difficulties investors may have in understanding the projects presented by entrepreneurs;

�� The fact that eco-innovative start-ups are a very heterogeneous group with often very little in common - this makes it difficult for potential investors to evaluate the process and assess the risks;

�� The complexity of the legislation and regulations governing the field of eco-innovation, requiring a high degree of specialisation from investors.

As a result, when it comes to deciding whether there is a need for tailored eco-innovation support policies, rather than generic innovation support policies, the answer is rather straightforward. Eco-innovation can be supported through ‘traditional’ innovation support mechanisms. However, to render support more efficiently, it is necessary to tailor policies to more specific eco-innovation-orientated objectives. Some of the objectives mentioned include developing support infrastructure (e.g. the Evalu8 good practice mentioned below), promoting sustainability, protecting the environment and promoting more ethical behaviour.

One particularly interesting example of a tailored eco-innovation support instrument is the Innov’R scheme implemented by the Rhône Alpes Regional Council in France within the ECREIN+ project. The scheme was designed as a classic innovation funding support scheme, aimed at promoting the development of innovative projects within SMEs. The scheme is now exclusively oriented towards the development of innovative projects aimed at reducing the environmental impacts of human activity. As such, the scheme has been able to attract and support a specific population of SMEs that would have been possibly excluded by a more traditional innovation support scheme. Similar examples (e.g. green innovation voucher schemes, recycling grants and innovation fund schemes) are presented in the RECOMMEND and ECREIN+ projects.

Another prominent example of a tailored instrument is the sustainable (or green) public procurement scheme from the Kainuu region in Finland; identified in the FRESH project. Public procurement is a powerful demand creating instrument. National and regional authorities spend a substantial share (up to 20%) of their budget


on public procurement. Therefore, imposing sustainability criteria on procurement can spur a significant demand for green and sustainable products and services and thus support eco-innovators who otherwise have to compete with non-green companies.

3.2.3 Innovative good practices in support of eco-i nnovation The most interesting good practices among those identified by the projects are presented below. These good practices could potentially be interesting to other regions in Europe given their success and impact. The presentation below distinguishes good practices based on their funding mode and indicates whether they are a supply or demand side instrument.

3.2.3.1 Finance based instruments Financial innovation support instruments include guarantees, loans, fiscal incentives, grants/subsidies/vouchers and venture capital schemes.

Among the good practices identified, there were only grant programmes and voucher schemes presented. The most interesting examples are presented below.

Welsh Recycled Content Grant Scheme, United Kingdom - RECOMMEND

The Welsh Recycled Content Grant Scheme is an international good practice which is not hosted by any of the partner regions and was identified and selected jointly by the team of partners of the RECOMMEND project.

The Welsh Recycled Content Grant Scheme is a supply-side measure funded by the Welsh government. It offers capital support to assist manufacturing SMEs to incorporate, or increase, the use of local recycled materials as an input material for manufacturing products, processes or packaging. The instrument is intended to provide support for technology adoption to help Wales meet its aim of a 70% recycling rate by 2025, with 0% going into landfill by 2050.

Wales has a substantive manufacturing centre, with 99.2% of all businesses being SMEs. Of Wales’ 22 local authorities, 6 of them are classed as convergence areas by the European Regional Development Fund. It is these areas that are covered by the scheme.

Funding for the project came from the Welsh Government and the European Regional Development Fund, giving an annual budget of £150,000 (€182,000). Grants covered up to 30% of total costs (up to £50,000) and were available for capital expenditure and some initial promotional costs to raise awareness of recycle use. Capital expenditure included costs of new production and packaging plants and equipment.

Innov’R applied research grant scheme, France – ECR EIN+


The leading programme for eco-innovation support in Rhône Alpes is Innov’R58, a joint initiative implemented by the Regional Council, the National Environmental and Energy Management Agency (ADEME), the National Institute for Industrial Property (INPI), the Caisse de Dépôts, the National Innovation Agency (Oseo) and the French Agency for Normalisation (AFNOR). The programme was first implemented in 2008. The main objective behind the creation of the programme is to bring all eco-innovation support stakeholders in the region together into a one-stop-shop scheme for businesses seeking to implement eco-innovation projects.

Innov’R is designed to support the implementation of applied R&D projects in the field of eco-innovation. The tool seeks to enhance the coherence of the multiple existing regional policy tools and to simplify the process of obtaining support for businesses.

Innov’R is a supply-side measure that functions through an open call for projects targeting regional businesses or business clusters seeking to carry out an individual or collaborative eco-innovation project. It covers five fields including: energy; construction and sustainable land development; eco-innovative processes, products or services; GHG emissions management; environmental measuring and evaluation. Since June 2011, the Greater Lyon Council and the Greater Grenoble Council have joined the initiative to create Innov’R verification (Innov’R experimentation). This sub-label of Innov’R gives businesses the opportunity to test and verify the performance of recently developed technologies or products, in real-life conditions, within public administrations. This is meant to support and facilitate the entry of young products or technologies into the market.

REMake Green Innovation Vouchers, Germany - RECOMME ND

REMake Green Innovation Vouchers is an international good practice which is not hosted by any of the partner regions and was identified and selected jointly by the team of partners of the RECOMMEND project.

REMake vouchers are a two-stage voucher scheme (auditing and implementation) set up to give easy access to public funding for manufacturing SMEs looking to become more environmentally friendly and save resources. They are mostly a demand-side instrument, allowing SMEs to hire an external expert to assess resource use and waste production and then oversee the introduction of new technologies and services (technology transfer).

Voucher schemes have met with success in a number of countries, and Germany ran a trial from September 1st 2010 to March 31st 2011, before launching the scheme fully on April 1st 2011. The rationale behind the vouchers is that SMEs have many innovative ideas but cannot always implement them due to a lack of technical or business expertise. This is particularly the case in manufacturing, where resource use is intensive.

The voucher scheme has two funding rates: 67% of consulting fees up to €15,000 and 50% up to €30,000. The scheme is only open to SMEs (fewer than 250 employees and a turnover of less than €50m). REMake vouchers are administered by the German Material Efficiency Agency (demea) and have an approximate budget of €400,000 a year.

58 http://eco-innovations.rhonealpes.fr/spip.php?rubrique66


3.2.3.2 Non-financial instruments Non-financial mode-based instruments include (a) innovation supply support measures via training, capacity building, information, mobility, network/partnership building, exchange, demonstration programmes and tools, various tools/methodologies that help educating, measuring/benchmarking and (b) innovation demand support measures, such as green public procurement schemes, regulatory instruments like standards, designs and eco-labels.

(a) Supply-side instrument good practices

The West-Pannon Automotive Benchmarking Club, Hunga ry – PROSESC

The West-Pannon Automotive Benchmarking Club was proposed by Pannon Novum West-transdanubian Regional Innovation Non-profit Ltd.

The Automotive Benchmarking Club (ABMC) was founded in 2002 to help companies to develop and learn from each other. It is a new framework for business learning and functional innovation.

Companies gather data on their performance each half year, then pass this information on to an independent

service provider (cluster management), which validates and summarises the data with the help of an external expert. The results are circulated anonymously to each member (but only the same type of information as that which was provided by the member). After each semester, a visit to one of the participating companies is held to learn from best practices and to analyse the results more deeply together with the members. Primary target groups were serial manufacturers in the automotive sector, including SMEs. Implementing the ABMC took 2-3 years.

The ABMC has led to knowledge transfer, an improvement in the participating companies’ performance, the implementation of new processes and methods, as well as marketing and PR value for the award-winning companies. The benchmark processes also included new services for cluster management and have, in addition, led to new supplier partnerships among participating partners.

There are three critical success factors: the number of participating companies, agreement on measurement method and the continuity of the activities. Furthermore it is important to study and analyse the outputs using several kinds of indicators. Specific problems may rise because of the fluctuation in the number of participating companies (because of crises, owner changes, etc.) and the gap between SMEs and multinationals.

The role of the government is mainly one of initiating the practice and helping to build trust. This trust is further increased by an independent cluster manager with specific expertise in the sector. At present, all activities are financed by the participating companies themselves. Within the PROSESC project, this measure has successfully been transferred to the region around Timisoara in Romania.

TecNet Platforms for open innovation, Germany – PRO SESC

source: http://www.autocluster.hu/content_42-hu.html


The TecNet Platform good practice was proposed by the Stuttgart Region Economic Development Corporation.

Today, supply processes in the automotive sector are rather difficult to access. The final car manufacturers (Original Equipment

Manufacturers or OEMs) receive their products and modules from a certain number of specialised companies that have already been working together with the OEM in the automotive sector for a long time. The TecNet Platform59 for ideas is an open innovation approach enabling smaller suppliers and companies from outside the sector to gain entry into the group of suppliers for car manufacturers.

The innovation process starts with obtaining a brief description of the car manufacturer’s fields of interest for further development. A cluster management organisation, as a neutral body, disseminates the news about these fields of interest amongst the cluster and other participating clusters outside the region and sector, thereby enabling the entry of new companies into the group of suppliers.

In a second step, parties that are able to and interested in helping the car manufacturer send their proposals to solve a specific problem to the cluster management, which then – as a neutral party – hands the ideas onto to the OEM. This can be completely open or made anonymous through non-disclosure agreements. If the OEM finds an adequate solution among the propositions, the neutral body sets up the contact.

Primary target groups are OEMs, Tier 1 and other automotive suppliers, research institutions and companies from outside the sector.

The first car manufacturer in the Stuttgart Region used the approach through a call for four solutions for a future product and received many proposals. To date, several new co-operations have been established. Other companies have recognised the success and find the idea interesting and are currently (mid 2012) preparing a call.

Setting up the system took approximately 6 months. The good practice has not yet been transferred to other regions.

Evalu8, United Kingdom – PROSESC

The EValu8 project is aimed at securing a lead position for the East of England in the UK’s take-up of electric vehicles by installing and developing an interoperable networked recharging infrastructure which is essential for the uptake of the new technology. EValu8 will provide 600 double-headed recharging posts across the East of England, supporting an expected fleet of some 2,000 EVs and stretching over 7,500 square miles. By the end of 2013, all residents and businesses based in the East of England will be within 25 miles of a recharging post.

The project has brought together academia, some disparate industry sectors and the SMEs group, all with a common focus on innovation: shift in the transport industry from purely fossil- fuel consumption to a greater use of electricity.

59 http://www.venturecenter.co.in/technet.php


The initial part of the project was to install infrastructure. Evalu8 is supported by a Steering Group assembled from across industry, the local authorities, the energy suppliers and user groups. Now over two hundred charging points have been installed and some high profile launch events have been organised. The charging points are interoperable with neighbouring regions.

The project has raised awareness of electric vehicles and has got SMEs talking about employing electric vehicles. It has also made transport planners ask questions about electric vehicles. The initiative took 27 months and has not yet been transferred to other regions. In other regions, comparable ‘infrastructure’-driven initiatives have been introduced and experiences exchanged.

The Copenhagen cleantech cluster, Denmark – CIE

Source: www.stateofgreen.com / Climate Consortium Denmark

The Copenhagen cleantech cluster's (CCC) good practice was proposed by the Delft University of Technology.

CCC was launched by Danish cleantech companies, research institutions and public organisations with the vision to develop one of the world's leading and most renowned cleantech clusters, to create superior value for the cluster companies and research environments and to differentiate the cluster by tying cleantech technologies and communities together across sectors, value chains and borders. It is funded by the Capital Region of Denmark, the Danish region of Sjælland and EU structural funds.

The objectives of CCC are to (1) create continuous growth for existing cleantech companies, (2) support and assist new cleantech companies; and (3) to attract more foreign cleantech companies to the region.

CCC focuses on 4 major cleantech areas: wind energy, bio-energy, smart energy system integration and fuel cell use and involves the cooperation of the following actors:

� Research institutions: the Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), the Risø Danish Technical University (DTU), the University of Copenhagen, the Copenhagen Resource Institute, the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS)

� Industry: Siemens, Novozymes, Haldor Topsøe, Better Place, Vestas, Ernst & Young, Oland, Seas-NVE, Deloitte, Dong Energy

� Governmental institutions: Copenhagen Capacity, the Confederation of Danish Industry, Scion DTU, Symbion Science Park, EnergyMap.dk, Business Frederikssund, Municipality of Roskilde and Kalund-borg, Business Link

� Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

Within the CCC, there are three incubators:


� Vaeksthus/CompanyHouse (a national general incubator service to both technology and service start-ups in all industries)

� Symbion (which focuses on business support, coaching pre-seed and seed investment programmes)

� CAT Science (which plays a role in providing a seed fund to innovative start-ups)

Eco Cluster, Italy – FRESH

Eco Cluster's good practice was contributed by the Veneto Region in Italy. The Eco Cluster is a legal entity, set up to promote the quality of life with regard to sustainable development, focusing on sustainable construction. Construction projects are evaluated according to 7 parameters: external environmental quality, resource consumption, environmental weight, indoor environmental quality, service quality, management quality and transports. Construction sector players are trained and guided on how to plan and design buildings with good environmental performance. The Eco cluster was retained among the good practices because of its performance both from the environmental as well as the economic perspective (a market for sustainable construction is a reality with good growth prospects) but also for the transferability of its methodology and its complementarity with Law 4/2007 promoting the creation of sustainable construction market.

Genuine Progress Indicator, Finland – FRESH

The Genuine Progress Indicator is a good practice presented by the Regional Council of Päijät Häme of FInland. The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) tries to capture the economic, social and environmental dimensions of well-being into one single measure through the deliberate pricing of environmental degradation, resource depletion and social aspects. It accounts for non-market services and benefits that are ignored in the traditional

national accounting framework and compensates for negative externalities (types of expenditure with compensation or time loss) due to social inequality, working life and urbanisation. It is therefore a good measurement for sustainable value creation development. The GPI has been tested internationally since 1996. Two FRESH regions, the West region in Romania and the Veneto region in Italy, proceeded to test the feasibility of GPI at regional level. The testing proved challenging, but regions did succeed in adopting it. The outcomes were that the West region Romania has adopted a two-dimensional indicator and produced a report analysing its performance based on this indicator. The case of Veneto is very different to the case of Romania. Veneto has managed to introduce a 3-dimensional indicator, which has allowed them to be among the few EU regions to lead in GPI application.

Regional Planning Guidelines, Ireland – FRESH

The Regional Planning Guidelines good practice was contributed by the Mid-West Regional Authority (IE). This good practice provides a methodology for creating

Source: Mid-West regional Authority, http://www.mwra.ie/Regional_Planning/index.shtml


evidence-based policy decision-making consensus around potentially conflicting issues, such as land uses, urban infrastructures (water, electricity, etc) and so on. It has led to rationalised land use planning, ensuring the affordable cost of infrastructures, environmental protection and accessibility to services. This means it impacts positively on all three dimensions of sustainability:

- environmental, - economic and - social.

Practice based innovation sessions, Finland – FRESH

Practice-based innovation sessions was contributed by Lappeenranta University of Technology / Lahti School of Innovation (FI). This good practice provides innovation support to SMEs and the public sector. Innovation sessions are a method based on the idea of intellectual cross-fertilisation among various sectors. They

bring together different areas of expertise for creative dialogue on common problems. It has been tested in Lahti with good results (at least one bankable business idea per session, for the sectors of clean technology (eco innovation), furniture and plastics. In FRESH, this good practice was retained because it is one of the tools that can be used to involve SMEs in eco-innovation. In order to be effectively transferred, the approach needs to be adapted and should reflect the priorities of the adopting regions with regard to sustainable construction.

Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary P lanning Guidance, United Kingdom – FRESH

Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) was contributed by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, UK. The aim of SPG is to improve the overall sustainability of new developments by providing guidance and setting standards across the main elements of sustainable design and construction. The SPG seeks to promote sustainable development by looking at the sustainability of constructions during and through the construction planning system. It sets essential and preferred standards, the former based primarily on existing legal standards whilst the latter sets out a roadmap for the construction industry. The SPG good practice has been retained because of its methodological approach and emphasis on the planning stage of construction, as well as for the essential and preferred standards it promotes.

Bio-energy factory, Italy - ECOREGIONS

Source: Lahti School of Innovation/ http://www.lut.fi/web/en/lahti-

school-of-innovation


Source: Bioenergy Factory © http://www.fabbricabioenergia.polimi.it/

The Bio-energy Factory's good practice has been contributed by the Cremona Chamber of Commerce (IT).

The Bio-energy Factory fosters and optimises the use of available biomasses, thus increasing the production of green energy without being detrimental to existing productive resources in favour of green technologies. The operation is structured around three interconnected areas: research, services and the observatory. This initiative is of particular relevance due to the high involvement of civil society and other local stakeholders as well as the mobilisation of public and private capital used to set up the financing scheme. The initiative is designed to bring about:

� the improved capacity of the SMEs to deal, incorporate and make use of green technologies;

� the optimisation of the food chain within the bio-mass producing province without converting lands for the production of bio-matrices used for green energy;

� Support to the companies to be effective in the removal of nitrogen from the digested material using innovative techniques to meet the current EU requirements on contamination from nitrates;

� Creation and promotion of a more effective green technology/economy culture that encompasses a significant change of behaviour for the civil society, companies, private and public bodies;

� Creation of a mechanism to allow civil society to participate in the development of the initiative so as to guarantee long-term innovative growth (quadruple helix model) and to achieve a broad societal consensus on the use of green technologies;

� Wide-scale use of green technologies to significantly contribute to achieving long-term sustainable development;

� Assessment of potential and suitability of new and/or alternative bio-matrices (prime, combined, processed) for green energy or processing.

Energy Efficiency Network Thuringia, Germany – ECOR EGIONS

The Energy Efficiency Network (ENT) good practice was presented by the State Development Corporation of Thuringia (DE)

ENT Thuringia supports businesses in reducing their energy consumption and their CO2 emissions. Within a pilot phase, 15 businesses are monitoring their energy


consumption. Furthermore, they are receiving support in detecting and improving their energy efficiency. Since the network activities include best-practice exchange, various methods for improvement are being discussed and presented in a common catalogue of measures. Currently, the networks’ businesses are implementing the measures they chose for reducing their energy consumption. This way, less money needs to be paid for energy, and CO2 emissions are reduced.

The ENT is coordinated by the Thuringian Energy and GreenTech Agency which is part of the State Development Corporation of Thuringia.

Portaferm – Small Manure Biogas Plant, Germany – EC OREGIONS

The good practice Portaferm has been put forward by the State Development Corporation of Thuringia (DE).

Thuringia can be classified as a rural area. Rural areas have the same demand for reducing energy

costs as cities. But the options for producing energy from renewable sources are better because of the short distances involved in transporting biomass materials. The development of a decentralised energy production combined with the use of biomass material is a good opportunity for small farms, for which the construction of a conventional biogas plant is not lucrative, to convert their liquid manure to electricity and heat at low cost, while additionally improving the fertilising properties of the manure.. At the moment in Thuringia, large biogas plants are common. But they often do not meet the needs in electric power and heat of the rural areas. It was recognised that no adequate small bio-gas plants were available to buy. Therefore the association for renewable energy decided to design and develop such a plant especially for farmers owning only a few farm animals so as to better serve their needs. The operation of a small bio-gas plant becomes economically more interesting if the heat produced by the conversion of the bio-gas to electricity (combined heat and power production) can be used outside the bio-gas plant.

Competence Atlas of Environmental Technology and Re source Efficiency, Germany – ECREIN+

The Competence Atlas of Environmental Technology and Resource Efficiency good practice was proposed by the Ministry of the Environment of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg,

The competence atlas was created in response to the study carried out by McKinsey and the Institute for Applied Economic Research, based on a further survey that included 2,000 companies in Baden-Württemberg. Its main objectives are to collect and analyse data in order to

recognise the strengths and deficits within the environmental technologies sector and to offer companies a platform on which to present their products and services, at both

Source: PORTAFERM WEIMAR

Source: http://www.umwelttechnik-bw.de


a national and international level. This is also designed to act as a means to allow companies to find new partners, enter into new cooperative ventures or form bidding consortiums, all of which would prove to be far more effective in international competition as opposed to one company standing alone. In addition, the competence atlas is also designed to make the process of searching for an appropriate service provider or supplier as easy as possible for the customer, while at the same time supporting local companies and placing them at the forefront as being the best the sector has to offer. The atlas provides clearly structured company profiles of products, processes and services, the main foci of research and development, innovative successes and experiences of activities abroad, all of which create a greater level of transparency in the field of green technologies.

Energy House, Sweden – ECREIN+

The Energy House good practice was proposed by the Uppsala county council (SE).

The Energy House initiative arose due to the increased focus on and need for green solutions both from an

environmental and business perspective and the difficulty experienced in bringing new ideas from their conceptualisation to market. Rooted in a long tradition of cooperation between the universities, industry and the public

sector, the initiative responds to both growing societal and industrial needs. The Energy House seeks to (1) establish and develop demand-driven initiatives to capitalise on research findings, minimise risks for early adopters and shorten ‘conceptualisation to market’ processes for new technique and system solutions in the field of sustainable energy use and supply and (2) to establish user-driven demonstrations and field-studies which can verify new solutions in real time and assist increased market up-take in SMEs. The Energy House initiative is steered and funded by the region's foundation (STUNS) for cooperation between the universities in Uppsala, the business sector and the community.

The main idea is to keep the customer perspective and see what benefits / needs the client and their customers can see in the future. Individual projects have been completed over the past few years, and a number of products and companies have now received clear benefits.

(b) Demand-side instrument good practices

Sustainable Procurement Regulation, Finland – FRESH

The Sustainable Procurement Regulation's good practice was proposed by Kainuun Etu Ltd. and the Joint Authority of the Kainuu Region.

Source: FRESH project

Source: www.energihusetuppsala.se


The Board of Directors of the Regional Council of Kainuu approved the new sustainable procurement regulation on 21st January 2013. The new regulation also imports good practices from FRESH, namely provisions of the TC/CEN 350 regulating standards for sustainability of construction works 60 and thereby opens the door for the uptake of such advanced sustainable construction tools as the BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)61 and the Code for Sustainable Homes, as well as of implementing development actions supporting the performance of the construction sector of Kainuu in the forthcoming Construction Products Regulation (CPR).

This was also a result of cooperation with SCINET62 (Sustainable Construction & Innovation through Procurement) whose project resulted from the cross fertilisation between the two projects.

SBToolCZ, Czech Republic - RECOMMEND

The SBToolCZ good practice has been identified and proposed by Ekoportm, the Czech partner in the RECOMMEND project.

SBToolCZ is a demand-side eco-management instrument. It is a certification tool for the evaluation

of construction quality levels in accordance with sustainable construction principles. It is proposed to architects, engineers and building firms. The certification scheme acts as a marketing tool and as inspiration for new innovative solutions.

The main aims are to eliminate buildings’ environmental impacts, to provide support to improve energy efficiency (in accordance with EU directive 2010/31/EU), to improve the interior environment and ultimately to stimulate the demand for sustainable construction.

Certification costs vary between € 200-2 000, depending on the scale of the project. Certification is carried out by authorised auditors. The administering agency is the Faculty of Civil Engineering at the Czech Technical University in Prague.

SBToolCZ is being applied in Spain, Italy and Portugal and was adapted for the Czech Republic with funding from the Ministry of Education. Although its development began in 2005, the instrument was not rolled out until 2010. Two buildings were certified between 2010 and 2011 but it is hoped that more than 30 will be certified in 2012.

60 CEN/TC 350 is responsible for the development of voluntary horizontal standardised methods for the assessment of the sustainability aspects of new and existing construction works and for standards for the environmental product declaration of construction products. The standards will be generally applicable (horizontal) and relevant for the assessment of the integrated performance of buildings over their life-cycle. The standards will describe a harmonised methodology for the assessment of the environmental performance of buildings and life-cycle cost performance of buildings as well as the quantifiable performance aspects of the health and comfort of buildings. 61 BREEAM (Building Research Establishment (BRE) Environmental Assessment Method) is the world's foremost environmental assessment method and rating system for buildings. BREEAM sets the standard for best practice in sustainable building design, construction and operation and has become one of the most comprehensive and widely recognised measures of a building's environmental performance. It encourages designers, clients and others to think about low-carbon and low-impact design, minimising the energy demands created by a building before considering energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies. 62 http://www.sci-network.eu

Source: case-studies.webnode.cz


Investors in the Environment, United Kingdom - RECO MMEND

Investors in the Environment (IiE)63 was proposed by the Peterborough Environment City Trust and Opportunity Peterborough, UK.

IiE is a demand-side measure; a not-for-profit environmental accreditation scheme, designed to help businesses to

save money and reduce their impact on the environment. It is designed to fill a gap in the accreditation market, namely that ISO-14001 certification can be expensive and difficult for smaller businesses to achieve. IiE is applicable to all businesses and has its own Environmental Management System. The scheme helps to promote environmentally-friendly business through regular networking events and media exposure. Its start-up was initially supported by the Environment Capital Partnership, the Environment Agency and Peterborough City Council and other bodies, but IiE is now financially self-sustaining, as companies pay for their accreditation. The initial start-up funding was £12 500, made through initial LPSA funding. Over 700 companies have pledged to seek accreditation, with 100 having done so already.

There are three levels of accreditation: bronze, silver and green. Charges for accreditation vary (£150-800) depending on the accreditation level desired and the number of employees. Initially accreditation was for SMEs, but is now open to any business looking to apply. The scheme has been franchised in Yorkshire and is being examined by other English regions.

Code for Sustainable Homes, United Kingdom – FRESH

The Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) was contributed by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, UK. The CSH is a standard for sustainable construction and an assessment method for housing projects. It was introduced in the UK in April 2007 as a voluntary national standard to improve the overall sustainability of new homes by laying down a single framework within which the home building industry can design and construct homes to higher environmental standards. In 2010, it became the essential standard. It measures the environmental impact and potential running costs against nine design categories (Energy & CO2 emissions, Water, Materials, Surface water run-off, Waste, Pollution, Health and wellbeing, Management and Ecology), rating the ‘whole home’ as a complete package. The CSH is a tool par excellence for the public sector. It has been retained as one of the cross-cutting good practices of FRESH, and several partner regions are introducing it into their eco-innovation component.

3.2.4 Lessons in identification and transfer of goo d practices A number of lessons learnt regarding the identification and transfer of good practices have been drawn through the thematic capitalisation analysis. It is worth highlighting at this point that the ‘methodological’ dimension of good practice exchange among selected projects was not a core objective of the exercise; all the information

63 http://iie.uk.com/


regarding the exchange of experience processes are the subject of a study on the exchange of experience process undertaken by the INTERREG IVC programme64.

These lessons can be divided into two broad categories based on their specific relevance to the issue of eco-innovation:

1. The first set of lessons can be categorised as generic , as they can apply to any good practice regardless of the theme addressed:

�� Transfer of the good practice is not a direct ‘copy-paste’ procedure. Consideration of the relevance, rationale, concept and context (institutional, political, social, economic, etc.) of the good practice is very important when looking to export/import it.

�� In some cases, it is more important to improve existing policy initiatives based on the experiences of other regions, rather than to transfer new policy initiatives and start from scratch. This approach will allow regions to build on the work other regions have done and benefit from the ‘incremental’ policy development perspective.

�� When transferring good practices, the motivation level of regions is very important as there needs to be a real demand coming from the importing region.

�� It is also important for regional authorities and institutions involved in the transfer to have sufficient learning capacity and cooperation skills.

�� For the transferability of good practices, there is a need for a horizontal (policy) and vertical (technology/sectoral) perspective. In other words, the policy landscape should be favourable to the new good practice. Furthermore, the technology or the policy instrument needs to be adapted to local conditions, and there should be sufficient knowledge/expertise/skills to support and implement it.

�� It is important to have well-developed methodologies for the identification and transfer of good practices. The public sector should also be innovative in transferring good practices.

�� Technical good practices should be transferred along with the policy measures supporting them.

�� Methodological good practices (e.g. benchmarking tools and scoreboards) should complement tangible good practices (policy instruments and technologies) which facilitate speed-up and catch-up in lagging regions. 2. In the specific field of eco-innovation , it is also important to take into

account the following points when identifying and exchanging good practices:

�� It is important to consider the social responsiveness of society, green pressures and local market demand in the identification and exchange of eco-innovation good practices.

�� Commitment of the regional government to the sustainability goals (e.g. having specific green targets, or sustainability strategy) can ensure the success of the transfer and implementation of eco-innovation good practices.

�� From the analysis of the good practices within the field of eco-innovation, there are three broad types– technical, policy and support tool good practices. Technical and support tool good practices require less coordination and long-term commitment to be successfully transferred. However, the impacts in terms of eco-innovation outcomes are likely to be lower than those of a policy good practice. In

64 http://www.interreg4c.eu/


addition, when transferring a technical good practice, it is important for partner regions to also ensure a minimum transfer of the know-how necessary to ensure the successful operation of the technical solution.

�� Due to the cross-cutting nature of eco-innovation, importing eco-innovation-related good practices requires additional efforts from regional stakeholders to involve a wide range of players and audiences in the exchange process.

�� Eco-innovation can be supported via generic innovation support instruments. However, tailoring it to eco-innovation needs and objectives will ensure more efficient results.

�� Eco-innovation is riskier and generally more expensive than traditional innovation. Greener products and services are still not mainstream and in terms of cost cannot fully compete with mainstream products and services. Therefore special support measures and framework conditions need to be fostered. This should be taken into account when identifying and exchanging good practices and analysing the results of INTERREG IVC projects.

3.2.5 Key success factors in promoting regional eco -innovation policies The discussions with the project partners during the interviews and workshop and the analysis of the collected information suggest the following core pre-requisites for the successful implementation of eco-innovation policie s at regional level:

� The regional actors should build a long-term development strategy that incorporates sustainability goals and targets, which gives a basis for regional actions, measures and policies that focus on promoting eco-innovation in regional industries (manufacturing, services), public sector and other areas.

� Specific sustainability targets and long term regional strategies will secure stable economic and market signals for other actors to start investing in greener projects and businesses, shape company plans and reap economic benefit from eco-innovations.

� Regions should make more strategic choices in regional planning and selecting the priority development areas. In doing so the regions should capitalise on their uniqueness (e.g. based on the ecosystems' resources/services existing in the regions, geographical specificities or location, energy/resource potential, human capital and its specialisation, existence of local industrial clusters and unique technological knowledge/capabilities, potentially promising but not well-developed service or industry);

� Regional governments are the key facilitator in linking all the main stakeholders (research, industry/business and consumers’ organisations) together in setting and implementing eco-innovation polices/strategies/actions in the region.

� Regional authorities should show a committed leadership in promoting sustainability in the region. Regional governments and public institutions should show an example of eco-innovation adopters. By implementing sustainability measures and greening their activities, offices, administration, public organisations not only set an example, they also create a demand for eco-innovative products and services (e.g. via green public procurement) and show viability and benefits of eco-innovations/eco-innovative measures and attract green investment to the region.

� Research institutes and companies/SMEs are seen as the main sources and hosts of eco-innovation. Therefore it is important to improve their access to innovation support schemes (e.g. funding, vouchers, low interest loans, training and networking platforms) for potential eco-innovators (research institutes and


companies). At the same time it is argued that SMEs and companies should not receive monetary support, as this is likely to act as a counter-incentive. Incentives to innovate should preferably be indirect.

� Local skills development is crucial for promoting eco-innovation in regions (development, adoption and diffusion). Regional governments together with knowledge institutes and industries should support skill-development and find skills/collaborators across borders. This will help to build strong local capabilities which will help to sustain green and economically viable economies in the long run.

� In regional planning, it is important to take into account and be informed about national and supranational policies, targets and regulations. This will help to avoid any conflicting strategies, plans or decisions.

� In terms of multi-level governance for eco-innovation, it is suggested that many regional support measures require complementary assistance from the national level of support (e.g. certain projects can be launched at the regional level but require national support in order to be effectively implemented and shared).

Furthermore, there are a number of success factors relating to the specific thematic areas of the projects :

� In promoting green entrepreneurship, it is very important to provide support, such as providing capacity building support in the early stage of business development. Capacity building support could be provided through different means, such as Innovation vouchers schemes (RECOMMEND), grants/subsidies (ECREIN+, RECOMMEND) or supporting incubators and clusters (CIE, RECOMMEND).

� In promoting more sustainable transport and mobility policies, reduction of the public transport cost could motivate people to use their car less and use public transport instead. An example from Estonia65 where free public transport has been introduced is a bold experimental case in this field which could provide interesting learning for other regions or Member States.

� Transferring standards for sustainable construction appears to attract the interest of the stakeholders in regions (e.g. the FRESH project). However, the transfer of such regulatory instruments needs the involvement of national and regional regulatory bodies. Project partners therefore need to establish a close link with such bodies and actively involve them in the project.

� In construction and office space building, it is also important to maintain cooperation with the diverse regional players because this will help in more efficient planning and further use of the resources (FRESH).

� In promoting and transferring sustainable energy innovation in regions and defining specialisation in sustainable energy areas, it is important to give thorough consideration to climatic conditions, as often technologies developed in other climatic zones perform differently when they are applied in new locations (e.g. sustainable homes in FRESH projects, heat pumps and bio-gas in ECOREGIONS). Also, it is very important to assess the technical potential for renewable energy, as every region has different natural endowments in terms of sun, wind, hydro, agricultural residues/biomass, etc.

3.2.6 Actual and potential links and synergies

65 this good practice is not part of the analysed projects but it is a well-known unique pilot case in Europe.


3.2.6.1 Links and synergies among the analysed INTE RRG IVC projects As it was shown in the project overview (section 4.1) the projects analysed as part of the thematic capitalisation exercise have not planned any special activities aimed at exchanging experiences, methodologies, or developing synergies with other INTERREG IVC projects or external programmes. However, several projects' partners have established contacts allowing them to informally share knowledge on specific topics (e.g. cleantech incubators and sustainable construction). Previous INTERREG IVC events have generally served as meeting grounds for projects and project partners, where they can get to know each other and start discussing common issues.

As a result, most of the communication taking place among projects has taken place outside the planned project activities. For example, CIE team members from Delft University have been exchanging with the RECOMMEND partner from the Peterborough team, as they have identified common issues on the incubators' development topic. The RECOMMEND team has also been exchanging with the FRESH project team on issues related to eco-design under the sustainable construction theme. The FRESH team members also cooperated with the INTERREG IVC project, Cradle to Cradle (C2C) (www.c2cn.eu), which is from another thematic lot but has relevance to the eco-innovation theme.

The thematic specificity of the PROSESC project could explain its relative isolation to some extent.

Nevertheless, the potential for cross-fertilisation and learning is there because many of the identified good practices could be relevant for several projects. For instance, the experience of the development of innovation clusters, or how to organise the grants and innovation vouchers' schemes could be of interest to several projects. However the means for project cross-fertilisation to take place needs to be adopted. A measure as simple as creating an email distribution list in order to circulate important news and outputs of projects among other projects could allow them to move forward in this respect. The ECREIN+ and FRESH projects, for example, recently completed their good practice guides, which could be of interest to other projects.

3.2.6.2 Links and synergies with the initiatives un dertaken in other EU programmes

The external links of eco-innovation INTERREG IVC projects with other EU initiatives and programmes are rather weak. FRESH seems to be the only project who had cross-fertilisation with the SCINET project on sustainable procurement approaches (which is supported by the European Commission’s CIP programme under the Lead Market Initiative).

Potentially, there are many possibilities for project partners to benefit from the knowledge generated by other EU support schemes and access funding for the actual implementation of exchanged good practices.

For example, each project involves partners from research/knowledge and industry sectors, who could benefit from participating in the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7), which provides grant for research projects. Regional SMEs, knowledge organisations, as well as NGOs and public organisations can also benefit from the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme –


Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (CIP-EIP )66, which supports projects in eco-innovation through financial instruments, networking of key players and pilot and market replication projects. The Energy-efficient buildings (EeB) programme 67 has a financial envelope of €1 billion to boost the construction sector and aims to promote green technologies and the development of energy efficient systems and materials in new and renovated buildings. The programme is financed jointly by industry and the FP7 programme.

The upcoming Horizon 2020 68 programme will combine current FP7 and CIP programmes. 60% of the available €80bn of funds will be related to sustainable development (eco-innovation, resource efficiency, climate actions, smart and green transport). This can provide wider opportunities for regional stakeholders to promote eco-innovations in their regions.

Regional governments can also benefit from the LIFE+69 programme supporting the development and implementation of the EU’s environmental policy and legislation and the relevant thematic strategies. Eco-innovation and environmental technologies are part of the Environment Policy and Governance component of LIFE+.

Financial support (€1.4bn) is ensured for SMEs via the Competitiveness & SME Equity & guarantees (COSME) 70, in which sustainability and eco-innovation is an important topic.

Urban development initiatives can also benefit from The Smart Cities and Communities Initiative 71 of the EU. This initiative supports cities and regions in taking ambitious measures to progress towards a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, through the sustainable use and production of energy. The EU has allocated €365 million for 2013 under this initiative to support the demonstration of energy, transport and information and communication technologies in urban areas.

The Intelligent Energy – Europe programme (IEE) 72 funds three different types of activities: projects pioneering sustainable energy ideas in practice; products and services procured to meet the needs of the European Commission and/or the EACI and the project development assistance facilities to mobilise funds for investments in sustainable energy at local level. The majority of the programme's budget goes to funding projects across the EU that support and promote energy efficiency and renewable energy. Funds can be used to cover up to 75% of the project's costs.

66 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/cip_en.htm 67 http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/energy-efficient-buildings_en.html 68 http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/ 69 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/lifeplus.htm 70 http://ec.europa.eu/cip/cosme/ 71 http://eu-smartcities.eu 72 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/


4. Key policy messages and Conclusions

� Eco-innovations are central to the promotion of sustainable and smart growth in regions because of their wide-ranging benefits for the economy and the environment. Regional authorities are well positioned to facilitate transformative changes by supporting various eco-innovations and involving different players in development and implementation eco-innovative strategies. As a result, regions should place eco-innovation at the core of their smart specialisation strategies (RIS3) and regional operational programmes in light of the next programming period of European funding.

� When designing their strategic framework for policy intervention in support for eco-innovation, regions should take account of the fact that eco-innovation is not limited to specific industries and sectors. Eco-innovation can be introduced into any field via novel or improved products, technologies, services, management and organisational structures, institutional arrangements, lifestyles and social behaviour. In addition, eco-innovations should not be seen simply as a remedy for environmental problems in the regions but also as a boost for the economy and strengthening regions’ competitiveness in the national and international market.

� Including eco-innovation as one of the main pillars of their RIS3 is one of the key conditions to developing an integrated approach, capable of generating systemic impacts at the regional level. Doing this will also require establishing a long-term vision and the development of a model for sustainable and smart regions.

� While planning eco-innovation strategies and activities, it is recommended that regions conduct a robust analysis of the state of the art in the field of eco-innovation. This includes identifying key economic stakeholders, priority sectors and policy targets as well as measuring eco-innovation markets. This involves identifying existing and emerging drivers and barriers to eco-innovation. In order to do so, regions may rely on tools such as directories and databases, foresight and prospective studies, assessing the performance and needs of the companies and SMEs, analysing the sustainability, the environmental performance and the footprint of major industries in the region, developing a deeper understanding of the barriers and drivers to eco-innovation at the regional level.

� Effective eco-innovation policy and strategic support requires the participation of many different types of stakeholder. For a successful eco-innovation strategy, regions must involve a wide range of stakeholders including: regional and local authorities, business and industries, research organisations, cluster organisations


and universities, NGOs, citizens, Living Labs, user groups and regional or local innovation or development agencies.

� In order to achieve far-reaching results in promoting eco-innovations, regions should develop a comprehensive policy mix that includes both supply and demand side measures. In the process of doing so, it is important that regions build on good practices from other EU regions and countries, taking into account both their successes and failures. From the analysis of the INTERREG IVC eco-innovation projects, a number of policy initiatives have been identified, addressing issues such as: eco-innovation assessment and planning, regional eco-innovation strategies, demand side policies including procurement, eco-innovation incubation and clusters, eco-innovation funding, eco (innovation) management in SMEs. However, it is crucial to take into account the specific economic, regulatory, technological, innovation and climate profiles of the regions when exchanging good practices as they may respond differently to the various incentives and barriers to eco-innovation.

� In addition, regions should make innovative use of the policy instruments at their disposal. For example, they should create demand for eco-innovative products and services using the green public procurement and directly support eco-innovation in SMEs through providing subsidies, advisory and technical support.

� Finally, while planning eco-innovation focused projects and programmes, regions should apply a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework with a well-defined and measurable set of indicators that will trace progress in activities, outputs and results. The questionnaire developed in the framework of the ECREIN+ project can prove to be a reliable tool to do so. It is important to understand that the wide variety of eco-innovative solutions and the projects and programmes that promote eco-innovation each require specifically designed monitoring and evaluation systems and indicators to measure their progress.


Annexe 1: Eco-innovation Cluster factsheet

Seven Projects:

Project acronym

Project name Detailed topic

CIE Clean Tech Incubation Europe Entrepreneurs & SME's working in the field of clean technology - Clean tech incubators

DESUR Developing Sustainable Regions through Responsible SMEs

Corporate Social Responsibility and its dimensions (economic, social and environmental)

ECOREGIONS ECOREGIONS Governance of eco-innovation and green technologies in the private sector (in particular SMEs)

ECREIN + European Clusters and Regions for Eco-Innovation Network Plus

Eco-innovation, as a driving force of sustainable development

FRESH Forwarding Regional Sustainable Environmental Hierarchies

Strengthening sustainable value creation based on eco-design/eco-innovation

PROSESC Producer Services for European Sustainability and Competitiveness

Promoting innovation for green transport

RECOMMEND Regions using ECO-ManageMENt for eco-innovation Development

Eco-innovation - Eco-management systems



Annexe 2: Eco-Innovation Partnership Map


Annexe 3: Eco-Innovation Analysed Projects

3.1 Entrepreneurs & SME's working in the field of c lean technology - Cleantech incubators


CIE

Cleantech Incubation Europe

PROJECT DETAILS

Priority: Innovation and the knowledge economy

Theme: Entrepreneurship and SMEs

TYPE OF INTERVENTION

Type of intervention: Regional Initiative Project

Duration: 01/01/2012 - 31/12/2014

Website: www.cleantechincubation.eu

BUDGET

Total budget: €1 303 328

ERDF contribution: €994 691

3.2 Corporate Social Responsibility and its dimensi ons (economic, social and environmental)


DESUR

Developing Sustainable Regions through Responsible SMEs

PROJECT DETAILS





Duration: 01/01/2012 - 30/09/2014

Website: www.desur.eu

BUDGET


ERDF contribution: €1 102 583


3.3 Improving governance of eco-innovation and gree n technologies in the

private sector (in particular SMEs)

ECOREGIONS

PROJECT DETAILS


Theme: Innovation, research and technology development



Duration: 01/01/2012 - 30/09/2014

Website: www.ecoregionsproject.eu.

BUDGET




3.4 Eco-innovation, as a driving force of sustainab le development

ECREIN +

European Clusters and Regions for Eco-Innovation Network Plus

PROJECT DETAILS





Duration: 01/01/2010 - 31/12/2012

Website: www.ecreinplus.eu

BUDGET




3.5 Strengthening sustainable value creation based on eco-design/eco-innovation

FRESH

Forwarding Regional Environmental Sustainable Hierarchies

PROJECT DETAILS





Duration: 01/01/2010 - 28/02/2013

Website: freshproject.eu


BUDGET



3.6 Promoting innovation for green transport

PRoSeSC

Producer Services for European Sustainability and Competitiveness

PROJECT DETAILS






Duration: 01/01/2010 - 31/12/2012

Website: www.prosesc.org

BUDGET



3.7 Eco-innovation - Eco-management systems

rECOmmend

Regions using ECO-ManageMENt for eco-innovation Development

PROJECT DETAILS






Duration: 01/01/2012 - 31/12/2014

Website: www.recommendproject.eu/

BUDGET




Annexe 4: Eco-Innovation Thematic Workshop Report

Report on the Thematic Capitalisation

Workshop for INTERREG IVC projects

Lot 3: Eco-innovation

technopolis |group|, December 2012

Carlos Hinojosa, Geert van der Veen, Asel Doranova

Error! No text of specified style in document. i

Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3

2. Workshop design 3

2.1 Format of the workshop 3

2.2 The workshop objectives 4

2.3 The workshop structure 4

3. Workshop outcomes 6

3.1 Preliminary results of the Capitalisation exercise 6

3.2 Different approaches to common issues and key lessons learned by projects 9

3.3 The different possible approaches to eco-innovation at the regional level 11

3.4 The role of the European regions in the promotion of eco-innovation 12

4. Workshop evaluation results 14

Appendix A : Workshop Agenda 22

Appendix B List of Workshop participants 24

Appendix C : Post workshop feedback survey form 25

Table of Figures Figure 1 Approaches to eco-innovation identified in the projects ................................. li

Figure 2. Drawing based on the presentation of projectsError! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 3. Drawing based on the discussion of the approach used by the projects. .............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Error! No text of specified style in document. 3

5. Introduction

The INTERREG IVC programme aims to better exploit the knowledge generated by projects working on similar themes for the benefit of the local and regional authorities in Europe and to increase the visibility of the programme and its impact on the policy making process at local, regional, national and European levels.

‘Eco-innovation” is one of 12 themes of the thematic capitalisation analysis. The

Programmes’ Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS) has identified a group of seven projects

financed under the current programming period relating to the field of eco-innovation

and smart growth. All seven projects promote regional initiative project and belong to

the Priority 1: “Innovation and knowledge economy”. The following table presents an

overview of these projects, their priorities and sub-themes.

Project Detailed title Starting / end dates

ECREIN + Development of innovation and sustainable development 01/01/2010 -31/12/2012

FRESH Strengthening of sustainable value creation based on ecodesign/ecoinnovation

01/01/2010 -28/02/2013

ECOREGIONS Governance of ecoinnovation and green technologies private sector (in particular SMEs)

01/01/2012 -30/09/2014

RECOMMEND Eco-innovation - Eco-management systems 01/01/2012 -31/12/2014

CTIE Entrepreneurs & SME's working in the field of clean technology - Clean tech incubators

01/01/2012 -30/06/2014

DESUR Corporate Social Responsibility and its dimensions (economic, social and environmental)

01/07/2012 -30/06/2014

PROSESC Promotion of innovation for green transport 01/01/2010 -31/12/2012

The thematic workshop was one of the main activities of the thematic capitalisation exercise. It was organised by the capitalisation experts together with INTERREG IVC secretariat on 31 October 2012 in Brussels and involved in total 21 participants including the representatives of all projects, a speaker from the EC, representatives of INTERREG and Greenovate!Europe and the moderators from Technopolis Group. The list of workshop participants is provided in Annex B.

6. Workshop design

1.4 Format of the workshop

The workshop format was based on a mix of the following:


• Presentations by Technopolis and by INTERREG IVC Programme authorities (welcome and introduction)

• Interactive discussion and work in small groups moderated by Technopolis

• Feedback and reflection of the stakeholders

The discussion drew on the experience of the projects, lessons learned, existing and possible other approaches to address eco-innovation development in the regions and role of policies in this processes.

The evaluation of the results was carried out after the workshop by means of an electronic survey. The questionnaire was designed to reflect the objectives, expectations and assess the outputs of the workshop. Results are presented in section 1.9 of the present report.

1.5 The workshop objectives

The thematic capitalisation workshop for Eco-innovation projects had the following objectives:

• to present the state of play at EU level in the eco-innovation areas and role of to regional policy

• to present the approach of the capitalisation programme to the participants and the progress made by the capitalisation experts

• to complete and to gather further information about the projects’ objectives and activities

• to start an exchange process among the projects dealing with similar issues in particular through a brief presentation of each project

• to discuss the different approaches used by projects and lessons learned

• to discuss existing and possible other approaches to address eco-innovation development in the regions and suggest what policies can do in this processes

• suggest innovative approaches that could be relevant also to other regions in Europe

Furthermore, the workshop was expected to contribute to:

- Initiation of possible synergies and mutual enrichment among the INTERREG IVC projects dealing with eco-innovation

- Creation of knowledge spillovers among the projects

- Identification of possible links to related initiatives and other EU programmes

Target group of the workshop: - Regions participating in the 7 INTERREG IVC Projects in eco-innovation

- Regional and EU policy makers dealing with eco-innovation and regional development

1.6 The workshop structure

The workshop consisted of the fours sessions described below:


6.2.1 Introductory session

This session provided a background to the topic of the workshop by presenting73:

• The capitalization programme of INTERREG.

• Overview of the eco-innovation trends and challenges in the EU27

• How eco-innovation is promoted via Cohesion Policy in the current and next funding period

• The work carried out by Technopolis in the framework of the capitalisation exercise, including the methodological overview and presentation of the main findings: good practices of Lot 3 projects, issues addressed and types of policy instruments implemented, including demand side promotion, supply side, interface

6.2.2 Working session 1: Different approaches to co mmon issues: solutions implemented by INTERREG IVC project to promote eco- innovation

The session included the presentation of experiences with good practices by each

project and group discussions on the different policy approaches to common issues

and lessons learned by the project partners

6.2.3 Working session 2: The different possible app roaches to eco-innovation at the regional level

Based on the previous session, discussion addressed the following questions

o What are the different approaches to innovation among regions currently (e.g. sectoral-based vs. process-oriented)

o Is eco-innovation best supported through a generic approach (promoting eco-innovation/sustainability) or by specific approaches (e.g. support the introduction of electric vehicles in Southampton)?

o Is policy support for eco-innovation different from generic innovation support? In what way? Why is that?

o What are the lessons learned for projects?

6.2.4 Working session 3: The role of the European r egions in the promotion of eco-innovation

Group discussion addressed on the following questions

o What is the optimal role for regional policy in promoting eco-innovation? What role should regions certainly not take, and therefore leave to other levels of government(demand side/supply side/interface)?

o What policy measures are not addressed at all by regions (nor at regional, nor at national)?

o What issues are best addressed at the regional level (as opposed to the national, European or local level)?

o What stage of the innovation cycle are regions best suited to intervene in?

The workshop moderator concluded the workshop with the summary of the discussion

results.

73 All power point presentation are enclosed to the report.


7. Workshop outcomes

1.7 Preliminary results of the Capitalisation exercise

Although eco-innovation is present in all projects, the approaches to eco-innovation

vary significantly among and within them. As a result, the good practices being looked

into by projects also vary significantly. The following figure provides an overview of

the main types of focuses developed by each of the projects analysed. The figure does

not seek to provide the basis for categorisation of the projects, but instead aims to

illustrate the diversity of approaches developed by them. It must be kept in mind that

each of the points included in the figure are not mutually exclusive. As a result,

projects have often included several of these dimensions in their design.

• Technologies: Some projects are explicitly aimed at supporting the development and uptake of environmental technologies. The PROSESC project for example is aimed at supporting the development of electric-vehicle technologies.

• Sectors: Although eco-innovation is not limited to any particular economic sector (eco-innovation is a process that can take place at any point in the value chain, and any sector in the economy), certain projects have decided to focus on particular sectors. Again, the PROCESC project focuses on the road transport sector, while the FRESH project has chosen to focus on the buildings sector by introducing eco-design principles in it.

• Policies: While all projects attempt at influencing the policy framework by introducing better policy measures or shaping the regional strategies, in e.g. ECREIN+ has a stronger focus on strengthening policies and the roles of regional policy makers in the support of eco-innovation.

• Processes: Some projects have been designed on the basis of facilitating the development of certain processes, notably with regard to institutional capacity building at the regional level. The PROCESC project for example seeks to promote the “transfer of academic and expert know-how on cluster support to regional policy-makers”, while the ECREIN+ seeks to strengthen the capacities of regional policy makers to effectively design, implement and evaluate eco-innovation support policy instruments. In this sense, eco-management can also be considered as a process, which lies at the heart of the RECOMMEND project.

• Targets: Some projects explicitly target certain populations/groups. The DESUR and ECOREGIONS puts a strong emphasis on supporting the uptake of eco-innovation on behalf of SMEs.

• Issues: Projects may or may not focus on a particular innovation-related issue, such as facilitating entry of eco-innovations into the market, improving access of businesses to funding in order to carry out eco-innovation projects, improving economic exploitation of research outcomes. The CIE project for example is explicitly designed to facilitate cleantech incubation.


Figure 11 Approaches to eco-innovation identified in the projects

Sectors

Techs

Policies

Issues

Targets

Processes

Eco-innovation

Source: Technopolis

The diversity of approaches is also a result of three different factors:

• Eco-innovation is a very broad and cross-cutting concept

• Projects seldom provide a precise definition of eco-innovation (or other related concepts such as eco-management). As a result, conceptual frameworks are rather vague.

• The variety of approaches also stems from the fact that regions can play different roles in the promotion of eco-innovation, according to their competences and local institutional frameworks:

- Regions can play a role as consumer (e.g. energy and implementation of energy saving activities, green public procurement);

- Regions may be local producers and supplier of services & utilities (e.g. heating and energy solutions)

- Regions may play a role as regulators, setting standards and local laws

- Regions can play a role as a motivator and facilitator, inspiring and supporting the adoption of eco-innovative practices

Due to the variety of approaches to eco-innovation within the projects being analysed,

it was necessary to develop a multi-dimensional analysis grid in order to categorise the

different good practices identified by projects. Our team developed the following

framework to categorise the good practices collected.

Table 1 Multi-dimensional framework for the categorisation of good practices

Criteria Groups

Funding

mode

• Non financial

• Financial: guarantees, loans, fiscal incentives, grants/subsidies/vouchers, venture capital

Position of

support

in

innovati

on

chain

• Supply side focus: Equity/business support, support for R&D: basic research, support for R&D: applied research, support for R&D: development & demonstration; education, training and mobility; networks and partnerships

• Demand side focus: Regulations and standards; Public procurement; Guarantees & other support for additional risks of early buyers; Export promotion activities; Support for private demand


Specificity

for eco-

innovati

on

• Not relevant

• Relevant for EI but EI not specifically focused

• Focused on eco-innovation (but applicable in other areas of innovation)

• Only possible in area of EI (e.g. en regulation)

Thematic

focus

• Generic

• Focused one environmental issue: Resource efficiency, Energy efficiency

• Focused on environmental management processes: Eco-management, eco-design

Other • Measurement/ benchmark instrument, Eco-innovation strategies, Eco-innovative solutions (product, process, technology), co-innovation assessment tools

Source: Technopolis

After classifying the good practices according to this typology, it appeared that:

• The large majority of GPs are non-financial (83), despite the fact that most regions consider financial support crucial in the development of eco-innovation.

• 15 Financial good practices are exclusively focused on grants, subsidies and vouchers. Other financial support measures (guarantees, loans, fiscal incentives, venture capital) are completely excluded by projects

• A majority of good practices have a supply-side focus (68). Among these 26 focus on the promotion of networks and partnerships, and 22 on education, training and mobility

• Demand-side eco-innovation support GP are relatively scarce. The majority of these focus on setting regulations and standards

• Most good practices have a strong focus on eco-innovation, but also cover other areas of innovation (non-exclusive focus)

• Thematic coverage: there is an over-representation of GPs with an energy efficiency/renewable energy focus. Other resource efficiency improvement GPs are less present

The analysis of good practices also allowed to assert the following:

• Very few formal transfers have taken place due to an early stage of projects

• The Projects have focused more on ‘informal’ exchange methods

• The degree of capitalisation and methods of capitalisation vary significantly from project to project.

• The types of good practices also vary significantly which due to a broad definition of a “good practice” in the programme. Two types of good practices can be identified:

- Policy Good practices which relate to specific policy instruments (e.g. policies, programmes, strategies, initiative etc)

- Technical Good Practices including various technical solutions to an environmental issue (e.g. eco-efficient building, biogas plant, etc.)

• It terms of transferability, it most likely that the transfer of technical good practices is less complex, but the impact on real eco-innovation may be limited.


1.8 Different approaches to common issues and key lessons learned by

projects

Each project was presented by the representative or the project leader in the Power

point format. (Copies of the presentation files are enclosed to the report). The

presentations showed the approaches used by projects in thematic focus, defining,

identifying and transferring good practices (GPs) and their key lessons learned.

7.2.1 Approaches in defining thematic focus and goo d practices

In comparing, cross-fertilising and discussing the good practice examples it was

important to overview how thematic focus and especially eco-innovation is defines by

each project and what approach is used in identification of good practices.

i) FRESH defines eco-innovation as better, greener, and cheaper products. The criteria for the good practice selection are that they contribute to green competitiveness & green growth.

The project partner regions prioritised the Construction sectors as the focus

area, because this sector constitute important part of all their regional

economies and combines exports potential with local demand, and unexplored,

sustainability and innovation potential.

The good practices address issues of energy, waste, resource productivity, user

satisfaction and represent both, supply side measures (planning & assessment

tools), and Demand-led measures (standards, sustainable procurement, and

consumers), as well as technical innovation showcases.

ii) RECOMMEND focuses on “eco-management and eco-innovation” with no thematic or sectoral/industrial focus. In identifying good practice examples the project focused on some main support activities including: funding (e.g. eco-voucher), networking (e.g. eco-cluster) and sustainable procurement (e.g. eco-products)

iii) DESUR: promotes rather wider concept of sustainable development as part of corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies of SME. In their definition the sustainable development consists of three elements: (1) Environmental resources or planet (2) social environment or people and (3) Economic environment or benefit.

The overall objective of DESUR project is to improve policies, tools and

methodologies to promote responsible innovation in SMEs, so that they

contribute to increasing sustainability in the regions of the participating

partners. The good practices mainly cover the successful experiences of SMEs

in pursuing sustainable business, as well as support measures for networking

and exchange of experience among SMEs.

iv) ECREIN+: when defining who they were working with they had two approaches (sector and market). They adopted a broader definition of eco-innovation covering environmental goods and services, as well as traditional sectors and greening them (which was the main problems is defining the eco-innovation).

IN identifying the good practices they focus on policy support measures

addressing eco-innovation covering for example, green public procurement,

directories, financing of eco-innnovation projects, reserach/enterprise

collaboration, etc.


v) ECOREGION project partners did not attempt to have a specific definition of eco-innovation. Focus on the starting point was on Green Growth and Green Economy. The project aims to improve the governance of eco-innovation and green technologies in the private and the public sectors. (It is expected that the definition will come by end of project)

In identifying good practices (and following the project objective) they had a

wide approach which covers both the eco-innovative and green solutions like

low impact housing, heat pump, biogas installation, and the support schemes

and tools like regional plans for enterprise and environment, carbon calculator

tool, grants systems

vi) PROSESC project focused on transportation and mobility area. The “sustainable transport” definition is kept wide, each region to adopts it depending on their local context (industry, sector, service, etc.).

In the project partner regions there are very different pre-conditions for

transferability of good practices. They are trying within the regions to deal with

approaches which are feasible for each region and of course they have a

common understanding on eco-innovation and sustainable transport. In

identifying good practice examples, the project focused on knowledge-intensive

services for sustainable mobility, services in/around product and production

engineering as well as logistics management (e.g. product-design, R&D,

engineering and IT/software-services, specialized logistics, etc)

vii) CIE project addresses eco-innovation via definition of Cleantech, which is part of eco-innovation, and focuses promoting “startups/incubators”. Cleantech in their understanding includes many thematic focuses , such as energy, energy and material efficiency, ICT, etc.

The project aims at (1) providing authorities with skills & knowledge to

(further) develop their policy instruments for support of clean tech SME’s and

(2) help cities/regions facilitate and support cleantech incubators. In

identifying the good practices they mostly focus on the experiences of

successful cleantech clusters and incubators in Europe.

7.2.2 Key Lessons learned by the projects

The Key lessons in identification and transfer of GPs have been drawn as a result of

presentation and discussion of the project partners. They include the following:

• Methodological GPs should complement tangible GPs which facilitate speed up and catch up in lagging regions

• Readiness for “Bridging the gap” is an important consideration in planning the regional/partner involvement

• We need both, horizontal (policy) and vertical (technology) perspective. For transferability it is very important to have both

• Transfer of rational (practice based innovation, concepts), not a copy-paste. And seeing relevance is important.

• It is important to have “Tailor made” transfer, which acknowledges the context and specificities (geographic, climatic, cultural, historical) of the region. It is also important to consider the social responsiveness to the society, green pressures, and local market demand


• In transferring the GPs the motivation of regions are very important, as well as skills of regional authorities and institutions involved in transfer

• It is important to have well developed methodologies on identification and transfer f GPs

• Public sector should also be innovative in transferring GPs

• Technical GP should be transferred along with policy measures supporting it

• In some cases it is more important to improve own GP, rather than transfer a new one from other region

1.9 The different possible approaches to eco-innovation at the regional

level

The second working session of the workshop addressed the issue of the different

approaches that can be adopted by regions to support eco-innovation. Eco-innovation

can be considered to be a branch of generic innovation. However, eco-innovation

covers a broader range of policy objectives compared to generic innovation (e.g.

environment, sustainability, health, land use, etc). Eco-innovations support initiatives

are thus at the cross-roads of several policy objectives and frameworks, making it

difficult for policy-makers and other stakeholders to select and design the types of

policy instruments needed to support it.

As a result, it is important for regional stakeholders (and INTERREG IVC projects) to

begin with the establishing a clear definition of eco-innovation. This involves not only

providing a definition of the concept, but also establishing the priority sectors,

markets, technologies that are to be targeted by eco-innovation support initiatives.

This provides the basis for sound, coherent and relevant policy development. The

FRESH project for example carried out this process during the initial phases of its

existence. The project started with a very broad definition of eco-innovation, but then

narrowed it down to a specific sector and a specific market (eco-construction). The

partners of the projects agreed that this would be the sector lead sector and market

they would be targeting. The Cleantech Incubator Europe project also went through a

process of clearly defining the scope of the sectors that would be covered by the

incubators.

The ECREIN+ project on the other hand encountered significant difficulties due to the

lack of a common definition of eco-innovation. There were two, considerably different

approaches to eco-innovation within the project. The first put a stronger focus on the

promotion of the Environmental Services and Goods Sector (EGSS – sectoral

approach), while the second described eco-innovation as a process, regardless of the

sector it takes place in. The created significant difficulties when it came to identifying

the proper support policy tools.

When it comes to deciding whether there is a need for tailored eco-innovation support

policies, rather than generic innovation support policies, the answer is

straightforward. Eco-innovation can be supported through ‘traditional’ innovation

support mechanisms. However, rendering support more efficient requires tailoring

policies to more specific eco-innovation-oriented objectives. Some of the objectives


mentioned include promoting sustainability, protecting the environment, promoting

more ethical behaviour.

1.10 The role of the European regions in the promotion of eco-

innovation

The session has addressed the role of regional authorities in promoting eco-

innovations. The discussion focused on questions of what the regional actors should

and should not do to foster eco-innovation in their regions.

The session was based on a groups discussion. The workshop participants were split

into two groups and each gave a presentation of their discussion. Below are the

presentation notes of each group:

7.2.3 Discussion results of Group 1

• The Regional actors should develop long term development strategy that incorporates sustainability goals and targets, which give a basis for regional actions, measures and policies that focus on promoting eco-innovation in regional industries (manufacturing, services), public sector, and other areas

• They should invest (e.g. in cleantech), but based on

o the priorities identified under the strategy

o sustainable economically and environmentally

• They also should act responsibly, both industries and public actors. For example the regional authorities can set an example by applying green principles in the regional public administration, (e.g. apply Green Public Procurement)

• By doing above, the region can create green image and marketing to attract investment to region

• Regional government should provide a political support to good practice transfer, innovation and implementation

• Regional government together with knowledge institutes and industries should support skills development and find skills/collaborators across border. This will help to build strong local capabilities which will help to sustain green and economically viable economies in the long run

7.2.4 Discussion result of Group 2:

The discussion results of the groups 2 have been presented in form of a matrix in

which pros and cons recommendations have been provided (

Table 2: Group 2 discussion results on what regions should and should not do to promote eco-innovations

Actors What should be done What should NOT be done

Universities and

knowledge institutes

• Support development of entrepreneurship skills at the universities, and facilitates spinoffs that are especially focused on sustainability (env. management, eco-innovation) topics

• Support/fund/facilitate R&D programmes focused on eco-innovation

• Development and opening of topical study courses (e.g. cleantech engineering, sustainability management, etc)

• Provision of PhD grants that will support eco-

- // -


innovation related topics

Companies/SME • Support clusters creation and incubators focused on cleantech and sustainable innovation areas

• Create incentives to SMEs and companies so they start introducing eco-innovation and environmental management measures (e.g. tax incentives, financial incentives)

• Promote incentives by setting competitions and awards for the most eco-innovative SMEs

• Promote / support internationalisation of SMEs that will help to their export, knowledge diffusion, and learning. This will also help regions to get international recognition

• SME and companies should not receive monetary support, this will diverts their incentives.

• Incentives should be rather indirect.

Consumers • Provision of information, education and awareness raising via various campaigns, advertisement, and other channels.

• Particular attention should be on ecological education of children in school programmes.

• Launching specific incentive programmes and instruments that make consumers behaviours more sustainable (e.g. energy saving, use public transport, recycling, water saving)

• Forbidding never works, so this should not be applied in regards to consumers

NGOs and non-for

profit organisations

• They should be involved more actively in information and education campaigns.

• They should cooperate with regional authorities in developing sustainability strategies

• Citizens' or users/ consumers organisations focusing on green/ sustainable topics/ services should be promoted (E.g. association of households with PV roofs, or wind installation owners)

• Taxing of non for profit associations, NGOs (or they should have tax benefits)

Regional and local

Authorities

• Should lead the initiative on greening the regional development plans

• Should design and promote eco-innovation support measures and incentives for SMEs, NGOs, consumers

• Should apply Green public procurement in their operation and set a show case for other actors

• Should promote information campaigns to raise green awareness of all actors

• They should link all actors together

• They should show a committed leadership in promoting sustainability in the region

• avoid narrow focus in promoting regional development strategy (no focus on one industry/area/topic)

• should not support harmful subsidies

The workshop participant where invited to suggest a single activity/policy that would

improve sustainability in their region. The suggestions reflected the thematic areas of

the projects and included the following:

- reduce public transport cost, and this is a disincentive that makes people use car (in Stuttgart Germany)

- improve access to funding for potential eco-innovators (research institutes and companies)

- involve SMEs/companies in cooperation for eco-innovative projects

- making more strategic choices in regional planning


- capitalizes on uniqueness (e.g. based on the ecosystems existing in the regions)

- improve regional cooperation in planning if resources (e.g. planning of office building – too many empty offices)

- governments should become a show example by implementing sustainability measures and greening their activities, offices, administration.

In terms of multi-level governance for eco-innovation it was suggested many regional

support measures need national level support. E. g. a good example comes from

Germany in promoting hydrogen car charging stations. This can start regionally, but it

needs national strategy. Furthermore, many regional GPs needs diffusion to national

level. Regional GPs are also promoted as national GPs on international arena.

It is important to keep a perspective of national and supranational policies, to avoid

out conflicting strategies.

It was also noted that under the EU regional policy, lot of money could be wasted. In

such case the national role could be increased.

8. Workshop evaluation results

Electronic questionnaire for the thematic workshop participants was prepared to carry out a follow-up and evaluation of the thematic workshop. The objective of the questionnaire was to gather participants’ feedback regarding:

- The overall impressions of the workshop (relevance of the presentations, target group, findings of our team of experts)

- The main lessons learnt during the course of the workshop

- Ideas or suggestions on thematic capitalisation opportunities under the eco-innovation and sustainable growth theme

- Identified opportunities for collaboration among projects and project-partners

- Participants’ points of view with regard to the main conclusions drawn from the thematic workshop

The questionnaire outline is presented in Annex C.

Out of 13 participants contacted with this questionnaire nine (9) responded. Below

are the aggregated results received from the survey.

1. Satisfaction with the overall workshop

None of nine respondent was dissatisfied with the workshop, while majority (five people) assessed it as “to a good extend”, two - as “very much” and two were partly satisfied


2. Assessment of administration of the workshop

On average the administration of the workshop got high assessment (split between

“good” and “very good”)

3. Achieving the workshop objectives

The participants were asked to assess the degree of achievement of the following

objectives:

1. to inform about the state of play at EU level in the eco-innovation topic

2. to learn about the progress made by the capitalisation experts

3. to learn about other projects addressing eco-innovation

4. to start an exchange process among the projects

5. to learned about existing and possible other approaches to address eco-innovation development in the regions and suggest what policies can do

6. learn about innovative approaches that could be relevant for your region

According to the majority of the respondents the objectives of the workshop have been

achieved to “a good extent”. A fewer participants pointed at partial achievement and

high achievements. One negative answer was obtained for 2nd, 4th and 5th objectives.

4. Relevance of the content of the workshop

None of the respondents found the workshop content irrelevant for their project

activities, while higher share found it interesting, two people – very interesting, and

three partly interesting.


Furthermore, a few people left the following comments:

“Report on capitalization will be studied in depth in order to find solutions or

information for improvement in our region”

“The meeting was very interesting, maybe not as a capitalisation workshop

per se because, at least our project is still at the beginning (even if issued

from an already existing programme rur@ct). Still, it is always interesting

to exchange with people working on similar projects.”

“Unfortunately, our project is coming to an end and my contract too. For my

part there is not long-term continuity foreseen”.

5. Main lesson learned from the workshop

The respondent were invited to share on what lessons they have learned from the workshop. The following views have been provided:

“It was interesting learning about the similarities and differences

between the projects and afternoon discussions were very interesting.

Sadly I missed the morning session so didn’t get to hear the

presentations about the other projects”

“Well, we are happy we follow the narrow targeted approach in FRESH.

It was interesting to me that some projects were so general and

relaxed.”

“Eco- innovation covers a wide range of activities which are difficult to

compare”

“The received knowledge on how to mange the process of exchange best

practices”

“It seems there is a lot of expectation from the EU”

“The thematic is quite large”

“It would be good to have another workshop once all the projects are

over”.

“It was a good opportunity to meet other projects in the same field”.

“Eco-innovation is a vague concept which has to be precised. More focus

is needed in general to the INTERREG IV projects with regards to the

+2014 period.”

“Networking activities among eco-innovation projects is very

important”.


6. Relevance of the presentations delivered in the workshop

The respondents were asked to indicate usefulness of the presentations delivered during the workshop:

1. Presentation of the thematic capitalisation exercise by INTERREG IVC

Majority of the respondent found the presentations relevant and very relevant. One person indicated the irrelevance

2. Presentation on Eco-Innovation by Technopolis Group

Similar to above, the presentation was found partially and very relevant by majority and irrelevant by one participants

3. Presentation by the EC DG Regio on promoting eco-innovation via Cohesion Policy

The presentation about Cohesion Policy in eco-innovation field was very relevant for dominant majority and partially interesting for the rest.

4. Presentation of the main findings of the capitalization study implemented by Technopolis Group

Majority of the respondents found it partially relevant for their work, while two respondent found it very relevant.

5. Presentation by projects

All project found their presentation mutually relevant (partially and very)

The following comments were left in addition:

“The presentations were globally interesting but some data were not quite

updated”.

“Could we have a bit more time for the projects presentations next time”

7. Application of the knowledge acquired during the workshop

As it is seen from the results below, a few respondents are sure that theu will apply the

experience of other project in their project, while the majority guess for high

possibility and some chances. Not all experiences are relevant and applicable for other

projects, therefore a few will not be used by participants.


the following comments were left in addition:

“ it was too short to decide if any of the other GPs could be relevant as

FRESH is ending soon. But the real thing is, more time would be needed. It

was a very good initiative to invite us all there.”

“PROSESC is own project” (note by Technopolis: meaning that PROCECS

stand out by having very specific specialisation that is not very relevant for

other projects)

“It depends on the progress of the project”.

“The INTERREG IV project in general are too concentrated to the project

management as such. There is not enough flexibility for result-oriented

process.”

8. Opportunities of future collaboration among the projects

According to the results the some collaboration is possible or determined (or already

existing) basically for all projects. In addition, Greenovate! Europe was indicated to be

one of the potential partner.

Additional comments:

" We are already partners with ECOREGIONS”

“ DESUR invited us to their group in LinkedIn, it means possible exchanges

for the future”

“Greenovate network seemed an interesting partner for proejcts"

“It will also depend of the progress of the project”.


9. What would promote the transfer of successful eco-innovation policies

in the regions?

The respondents were asked an open question: “Based on the workshop discussion, in

your opinion, what would promote the transfer of successful eco-innovation policies in

the regions?”

The following answer were collected:

• It is crucial to ensure politicians and stakeholders are on board early on during the project. Funding is vital -although like in England, it is probably difficult to acquire funding for this in other parts of Europe at the moment. Politicians /stakeholders need to see the benefits of providing funding for eco-innovation policies from other countries. If there is a positive correlation between funding for these policies and boost to the local economy it would certainly make a worthy case.

• If the policy mainstreaming (resulting form the good practice transfer in the Interreg IV C projects) is not normative at all levels, i.e. EU, national and regional, then the actual policy change will always be precarious and very hard work.

• The promotion of other already proved initiative in other region with a similar context.

• Obviously the cost is highly relevant in the promotion of transfer of eco-innovation policy.

• It is also necessary to inform well and have shorter processing time."

• If we could find a way to let politicians of the regions take notion of the successful eco-innovation policies in other regions. For example, Delft is part of the MECINE network. This network for medium sized cities is a way to take care of this transfer of good practices.

• Policy change is really challenging in a one single project-lifetime. More political commitment is needed from the beginning of the project time.

• Common methodology

• Explanation of the policy context, and presentation of the transferability ability"

• More central coordination and communications to/from regions.

10. Recommendations by the workshop participants

Based on the discussion held during the workshop the participants were invited to give

recommendation to Interreg IVC programme, to the EC and to other regions. The

following recommendation were received:

• The INTERREG IVC programme

- More leverage towards regional policy change;

- Allow pilots;

- Start using also the Regions of Knowledge approach.

- Try to get best practices well structured and provide to all regions participating in the programme

- Fostering the interrelationship between other projects with other topics


- Could we start up implementation projects as well, to implement best practices of one region in another region?

- More results oriented - business-oriented, less civil servants travelling around EU regions.

- To continue networking activities

• The European commission

- To agree with member states to institutionalise the results of the territorial cooperation projects into the regional policies

- Utilize knowledge gathered

- Promoting new similar programmes in the next operative framework

- Make Brussels a best practice on eco-innovation: create more space for pedestrians, no cars anymore in the EU quarter of the city, no airco in the EU buildings, use of tapwater instead bottled water etc.

- Commission should take a leading role to change governance to a more sustainable.

- Put eco-innovation at the core of future research activities

• Other regions

- Work closely with politicians and stakeholders on early stages

- Be nice partners and co-operative lead partners.

- Invite other regions to also find out which measures could be capitalized

- Continuing in the process of exchanging knowledge

- Make sure your region gets the best practice on eco-innovation

- Political commitment is crucial.

- Peer-to-peer exchanges of experiences

11. Additional notes/complaints/suggestion for impr ovement/wishes

- All the projects were at different stages so for example, CIE and RECOMMEND were in their infancy which made it difficult for experiences to be communicated

- Nothing besides my warmest thanks to all involved in the organisation of the workshop.

- The “drawnalist” made a good job. His paintings gave a valuable “anchor” for discussions amongst participants in the break.

- Congratulations to Technopolis!

- Very interresting workshop. Maybe sometimes the direction was not so clear (clear objective of the workshop)

- Will there be more workshops where we could further work/collaborate with the other eco-innovation projects in INTERREG?

- Unfortunately, these project are still seen regionally as "fun travelling" for civil servants


9. Concluding remark

Based on the results of the feedback survey as well as the subjective judgement by the workshop organisers team, the objectives of the workshop (stated in section 2.2), have been reached to a certain extent. The participants have learned about the state of play in the area of eco-innovation in the EU and how it is addressed in the regional policy. Non of them indicated irrelevance of the presentation of the main finding of the capitalisation exercise and of the projects.

Many members of the projects have engaged in an exchanges: for a few it was not the first time they meet, but this event made them to discuss common challenges, lessons learned and even plans. It was positive that the participants were open about difficulties they face. Also it was useful to hear their recommendations for the regional authorities on promoting eco-innovation.

At the same time the challenges appeared due to the fact that most projects are too recent for any of the project leaders to have a general view of the types of good practices that exist in other partner regions. The common factor between the projects is that they are all trying to transfer good policy practices in the innovation/entrepreneurship policy area. The thematic approach does not always appear to be common (not in all projects), which may withhold the learning and experience exchange possibilities among the projects. This may also be caused because eco-innovation is a very broad topic and the projects focus on very different sub-topics.


Appendix B : Workshop Agenda

8:30 - 9:30 Registration and coffee

09:30 – 10:00 Welcome session

� Welcoming words by INTERREG IVC

� Presentation of Technopolis Group and the workshop facilitators

� Presentation of participants

10:00 – 11:15 Introduction to the thematic workshop

� Overview of the programme of the workshop

� Presentation of the thematic capitalisation exercise by INTERREG IVC

� Introductory presentation “Eco-innovation challenges in Europe: performance and policies”

� Presentation by the EC DG Regio on promoting eco-innovation via Cohesion Policy

� Presentation of the work carried out by Technopolis in the framework of the capitalisation exercise

11:15 – 11:30 Coffee break

11:30 – 12:30 Working session 1: Different approaches to common issues:

solutions implemented by INTERREG IVC project to promote eco-

innovation

� Presentation of experiences with good practices by projects

o FRESH

o CTIE

o ECOREGIONS

o PROSESC

o ECREIN +

o DESUR

� Group discussions on the different policy approaches to common issues identified by projects. Moderated by Geert

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch break

13:30 – 14:00

� Presentation of experiences with good practices by projects

o RECOMMEND

� Continuation of group discussions on the different policy approaches to common issues identified by projects.

14:00 – 15:15 Working session 2: The different possible approaches to

eco-innovation at the regional level


� Based on the previous session the group will continue discussion and address the following questions

o What are the different approaches to innovation among regions currently (e.g. sectoral-based vs. process-oriented)?

o Is eco-innovation best supported through a generic approach (promoting eco-innovation/sustainability) or by specific approaches (e.g. support the introduction of electric vehicles in Southampton)?

o Is policy support for eco-innovation different from generic innovation support? In what way? Why is that?

o What are the lessons learned for projects?

� Drafting and presentation of the discussion findings

15:15 – 15:30 Coffee break

15:30 – 16:45 Working session 3: The role of the European regions in the

promotion of eco-innovation

� Group discussion based on the following questions

o What is the optimal role for regional policy in promoting eco-innovation? What role should regions certainly not take, and therefore leave to other levels of government(demand side/supply side/interface)?

o What policy measures are not addressed at all by regions (nor at regional, nor at national)?

o What issues are best addressed at the regional level (as opposed to the national, European or local level)?

o What stage of the innovation cycle are regions best suited to intervene in?

� Drafting and presentation of the discussion findings

16:45 – 17:15 Closing sessions

Wrap-up by Technopolis Carlos

Final remarks by the participants


Appendix C List of Workshop participants

1. Magdalini Anagnostou, INTERREG IVC

2. Martina Bacova, INTERREG IVC JTS

3. Jérome Biasotto, Conseil Régional Rhone-Alpes, ECREIN+

4. Matthew Buck, Drawnalism

5. Binal Cadieu, Opportunity Peterborough, Recommend

6. Ninetta Chaniotou, Kainuun Etu Oy, FRESH

7. Francisco Diaz, FUNDECYT-Regional Office of Extremadura in Brussel, DESUR

8. Asel Doranova, Technopolis Group, capitalisation expert

9. Pallier Emmanuelle, Conseil Régional du Limousin, ECOREGIONS

10. Mathieu Fichter, EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG Regio

11. Gallardo, FUNDECYT, DESUR

12. Christoph Gelzer, WRS GmbH, PROSESC

13. Carlos Hinojosa, Technopolis

14. Ville Majala, Regional Council of Päijät-Häme FRESH

15. Anick Michon Conseil régional de Picardie ECOREGIONS

16. Kiira Noponen Joint Authority of Kainuu region FRESH

17. Norberto Patrignani I3P CIE

18. Pauline Riviere Conseil Régional Rhône-Alpes ECREIN+

19. Astrid Severin Greenovate! Europe RE Capitalisation

20. Geert van der Veen Technopolis Group

21. Pauline van der Vorm Delft University of Technology CIE


Appendix D : Post workshop feedback survey form

Thematic Programme Capitalisation

Workshop on Eco-Innovation

Wednesday 31 October 2012

Committee of Regions, room JDE 70, 101 rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels

Post workshop survey

Dear participant,

We hope you have had an interesting and valuable experience during the thematic workshop. We would appreciate it very much if you could provide us with some feedback on this workshop. The questions below will help us to evaluate various components of the programme.

1. Are you satisfied with the overall workshop?

Not at all Partly To a good extent Very much

Your comments (optional):

2. How do you assess the administration of the workshop?

Poor Average Good Very good



3. In your opinion, how much the workshop discussion have contributed to the following objectives:

Not at all

Partly To a good extent

Very much

1. to inform about the state of play at EU level in the eco-innovation topic

2. to learn about the progress made by the capitalisation experts

3. to learn about other projects addressing eco-innovation

4. to start an exchange process among the projects

5. to learned about existing and possible other approaches to address eco-innovation development in the regions and suggest what policies can do

6. learn about innovative approaches that could be relevant for your region


4. Do you find the overall content of the workshop programme relevant for your activities?

Not at all Partly interesting Interesting Very interesting


5. What are the main lesson learned from this workshop?

Please provide your description in the field below

6. Which of the following presentations were the most relevant for you?


Irrelevant

Partially relevant

Very relevant

Comments if any

Presentation of INTERREG programe

Presentation on Eco-Innovation by Technopolis Group

Presentation by the EC DG Regio on promoting eco-innovation via Cohesion Policy

Presentation of the main findings of the capitalization study implemented by Technopolis Group

Presentation by projects

7. Are you going to apply what you have learned from other projects?

No Some chance

Highly possible

Yes Comments

Experience of FRESH

Experiences of CIE

Experiences of ECOREGIONS

Experiences of PROSESC

Experiences of ECREIN+

Experiences of DESUR

Experiences of RECOMMEND

Other experiences that have been mentioned (describe it)


8. Have you identified opportunities for collaboration with other project-partners in this workshop?

No Some chance

Highly possible

Yes Comments

Collaborate with FRESH

Collaborate with CIE

Collaborate with ECOREGIONS

Collaborate with PROSESC

Collaborate with ECREIN+

Collaborate with DESUR

Collaborate with RECOMMEND

Other participants (mention them in the comments section)

9. Based on the workshop discussion, in your opinion, what specific would promote the transfer of successful eco-innovation policies in the regions?

Please describe in the field below

10. Based on the discussion held during the workshop what are the main recommendations you would make to:

Please provide recommendations in the field below:

1. The INTERREG IVC programme

2. The European commission

3. Other regions


11. In the field below feel free to leave any additional notes/complaints/suggestion for improvement/wishes

Do not delete anything after this (non printing) line

(c) INTERREG IVC, 2013 It is permitted to download extracts from this report for public use citing the source.

For more information on thematic capitalisation contact: Magdalini Anagnostou INTERREG IVC 45D rue du Tournai 59000 Lille France [email protected] / +33 328 144 128

Documents

INTERREG IVC Thematic Programme Capitalisation Analysis … · 2019-03-25 · October 2013 Credits: Experts for thematic capitalisation on eco-innovation Asel Doranova Asel Doranova