Baltic Rim Economies - Baltic Port List

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Expert article 886 Baltic Rim Economies, 21.12.2011 Quarterly Review 5�2011 Integrating national innovation strategies to leverage the potential of the Baltic Sea region By Alasdair Reid The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) is a sub-set of the diversity of innovation potential that can be found in the EU as a whole. The BSR has regions with widely varying levels of economic development and innovation potential. This diversity exists not only between countries (the three Baltic States and the northern Polish regions versus the Nordic countries) but also nationally. The two German BSR regions, for instance, are comparatively weak performers from a national perspective. Equally, not all regions in the innovation leaders are equal, for instance, while the Finnish capital region is a European ‘powerhouse’, Eastern Finland lags well down the European regional innovation scoreboard. Moreover, the Nordic countries have been able to develop and pursue jointly the concept of the Nordic research and innovation area (NORDIA. Hence, the development of a Baltic Sea research and innovation area will be a considerable challenge given the lower sophistication of policy an transnational ‘governance in the Baltic States and Polish regions. During the 2007-13 period, the Structural Funds are investing €5.5 billion in research, technological development and innovation (RTDI) in the 25 BSR regions: 40% of this total is allocated to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and 28% in the three Polish BSR regions. Some 60% of the total investment is for research centres and for developing human potential for research and innovation are allocated to the three Baltic States. Close to 50% of ERDF investment in favour of research infrastructure is concentrated in three out of 25 BSR regions (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Estonia and Lithuania). This is a massive boost to the ‘catching-up’ innovation systems of these regions. In both budgetary and strategic terms the Structural Funds are extremely significant in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Polish regions. They represent the vast-majority of public RTDI funding in these countries and are a key element for future competitiveness. However, the implementation rate is slow with limited results to date. Moreover, while in absolute terms the funding is considerable, in relative (per capita) terms the Structural Fund contribution barely influences the ‘innovation investment’ gap between the Nordic relative to the less-developed BSR regions. At best the funding will help the Polish regions and Baltic States to balance the playing field in a few selected niche’ in terms of quality and excellence of R&D and innovation activities enabling them to co-operate as ‘equals’ with Nordic partners. In the Nordic countries, the Structural Funds account for a marginal share of innovation policy funding, but are seen as a way of supporting ‘ground-breaking’ new ideas and as ‘fundamental in the early phase of new developments’. Moreover, they often leverage other public-private funds into innovative platforms. The lessons of Structural Fund programming from the more advanced BSR regions, e.g. in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, suggest that ERDF support on research infrastructure is not effective if there is not a parallel effort to develop competitive research teams. The study suggests five options for further integration of innovation policies in the BSR and confirmed the orientation of the flagship projects of the EUSBSR. However, some additional options and some issues requiring further attention are also raised. The most developed EUSBSR flagship projects under priority 7 (innovation) is the BSR Stars project. The study confirms the rationale for a more strategic programming driven approach to ‘cluster’ co-operation in the Baltic Sea region. However, there is a need to take into account the differing levels of development and the different competitive advantages of the clusters around the Baltic Sea if not there is a risk that the initiative simply reinforces existing disparities pulling resources towards the strongest clusters. The need for supporting a strong long-term structured cooperation between business-academia R&D consortia could be investigated. Most nations round the BSR now have such ‘competence centres’ and as many operate in complementary fields, greater integration of market-led R&D would be beneficial in specific key technologies. 40 Nordic studies on current early-stage and seed-funds for young innovative enterprises have are sub-critical even in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Whilst the German regions can draw on a larger national financial sector, their weaker innovation profile does not necessarily make them first priority for national funds. The Polish regions and Baltic States are experimenting with various forms of funding for early stage firms, however, the deal flow is insufficient for viable early-stage funds. Future EU support for early-stage funding should be conditional on regional/national funds not being restricted to investing in ‘local companies’ and through a BSR Fund-of-Funds. The current research infrastructures (RI) investments are made in a piecemeal manner without fully considering ESFRI priorities or BSR level synergies. The level of sophistication varies from the Nordic countries national plans and Nordic wide coordination to more ‘rudimentary’ planning in other regions. The experience of ERDF RI investments in the Baltic States is that decisions are driven first and foremost by universities’ own priorities. Open access plans aimed at ensuring optimal use of RI are seen as administrative requirements rather than as means of ensuring revenue generation or cost-sharing. There is need for a stronger ‘oversight’ by the European Commission and the EIB to avoid dispersion of funding and duplication of RI. Pre-conditions for future ERDF co-financing of RI should be a) international peer-reviews of national research infrastructure plans to ensure a synergy with ESFRI and value added compared to existing infrastructure in the BSR b) ‘open access plans’ to allow national but also other BSR researchers/businesses to buy time or share facilities. Joint programming through ERANETS and BSR networks form a basis for a new programmatic approach. Available funds (national, ERDF/ESF, EU, Nordic) could be structured into three to four strategic BSR research and innovation funding programmes. A model could be the Nordic Top-Level Research Initiative. This could include BSR doctoral schools linked to the research infrastructure and programmes. A fifth area where synergies can be exploited is access to expertise in advanced technologies and innovation management. In the BSR there is a significant range of expertise in various technology fields and in terms of innovation advisory services. However, most of the regions or smaller member states around the BSR cannot mobilise ‘locally’ all expertise required by innovative businesses. One option would be to pool expertise in S&T parks, centres and incubators, etc. though a BSR Innovation Advisory network linked to an innovation vouchers scheme. Alasdair Reid Director Technopolis Group (Brussels & Tallinn) Belgium & Estonia � Pan-European Institute � To receive a free copy please register at www.tse.fi/pei �
Expert article 887 Baltic Rim Economies, 21.12.2011 Quarterly Review 5�2011 Biocenter Finland – a novel way to restructure national research infrastructures By Eero Vuorio Biocenter Finland (BF) was established in 2006 as a joint effort of six biocenters operated by six Finnish Universities (Helsinki, Kuopio, Oulu, Tampere and Turku, and the Abo Akademi University) to restructure and develop research infrastructures and technology services for the entire scientific community of the country, but particularly for the more than 2000 life scientists working in the partner biocenters. The aim was to combine local expertise into a nation-wide knowledge base to advance biosciences and biomedicine in a coordinated fashion through investments into newest equipment, technologies and services. Four years later also the Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), previously an associated member, became a full member of BF. A real boost for BF came in 2009 when the Ministry of Education and Culture provided 45 million € for to be distributed over a three year period (2010-2012) to research infrastructures and their technology services in nine areas: bioinformatics; biological imaging; genomewide methods; model organisms; proteomics and metabolomics; stem cells and biomaterials; structural biology and biophysics; translational research technologies; and viral gene transfer and cell therapy. The basic principles of BF are to create networks of infrastructure service providers, and to support purchase of equipment and hiring of technical staff to operate the topof-the-line equipment in one location providing services to everyone. The infrastructure networks were invited to make proposals for provision of nationwide services, which were subsequently evaluated by a high-level panel of international experts. A small fraction of the funds were allocated to support emerging technologies, and to promote international researcher training, research career development and recruitment of international expertise for key technology areas. Within EU such a concept is unique for restructuring and developing research infrastructures and technology services at national level. Two generations of restructuring of life science infrastructures in Finland The BF concept outlined above represents the second generation of restructuring of life science infrastructures and technology services in Finland. During the 1990s Universities with strong research communities in biological and medical sciences established biocenters. Financial support from the Ministry of Education, local Universities and other sources made it possible to erect new buildings to house research groups representing different areas of life science research in academia and industry. Joint purchase of equipment and establishment of core facilities marked the first generation of restructuring of research infrastructures and services. This provided researchers in biocenters with an unforeseen access to modern research technologies. The biocenter concept rapidly demonstrated its strengths also by facilitating joint seminars, training courses and collaborative research projects, and by establishing doctoral training programs. By the time we entered the 21st century, unprecedented technological development had not only improved the performance of high-throughput analysis platforms but also made top-of-the-line equipment so 41 expensive and powerful that it became both unreasonable and impractical for individual biocenters to make such investments alone. Time was ripe for the second generation restructuring of Finnish biocenters, i.e. the establishment of BF in 2006. The biocenters organized their infrastructures and services into national networks with an aim to better support high-level research in participating institutions by integrating the services available and by agreeing on division of tasks according to available expertise and resources. This has led to gradual development of specific expertise profiles for Finnish biocenters. No two biocenters are alike in terms of size, scientific orientation, organization or mode of operation. After nearly two years of operation it is fair to say that all signs indicate that the BF concept has been a success. This message comes directly from the international Scientific Advisory Board and from the host universities of the biocenters. User statistics demonstrate that all biocenters now offer services using updated equipment not only for their own researchers but for those working in other biocenters and elsewhere in academia and industry. BF networks are in place to form a bridge to European research infrastructures Development of the BF concept coincided with the coordination of European research infrastructures through the ESFRI (European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures) process, one of the most exciting concrete science policy initiatives in Europe during the past ten years. ESFRI was established in April 2002 to produce a “European Roadmap on Research Infrastructures” reflecting a common mid- to long-term strategy for the European Union. The first roadmap was published in 2006, and updates in 2008 and 2010. A typical feature of most BMS research infrastructures is their distribution into different operational sites (National Nodes) through several Member States. The BF infrastructure networks and technology platforms provide ready-made national structures for Finnish scientists to participate in and benefit from the ESFRI initiatives. Active participation in the pan- European infrastructures has made it possible for Finnish scientists, often together with their Nordic/Baltic colleagues, to influence the European planning process and bring forward the expertise and needs of the Nordic research community. Some of the BF technology platforms are now getting ready to serve also international ESFRI customers and thereby bring Finland an increasingly important partner in the European Research Area (ERA). Eero Vuorio Professor, Director Biocenter Finland Finland � Pan-European Institute � To receive a free copy please register at www.tse.fi/pei �
Page 1 and 2: Baltic Rim Economies Quarterly Revi
Page 3 and 4: Baltic Rim Economies Quarterly Revi
Page 5 and 6: Expert article 853 Baltic Rim Econo
Page 43: Expert article 885 Baltic Rim Econo
Page 87: To receive a free copy, register at

Baltic Rim Economies - Baltic Port List

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?