Cios research, development and innovation framework appendices by Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation: Evidence Base Appendices

Future Economy

Conditions for Growth Conditions for Growth

Growth for Business

Future Econo

November 2015

This document was prepared by Amion Consulting Ltd in partnership with the C&IoS LEP and Cornwall Council

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices –

Contents

Appendix A – ICF Report Appendix B – List of Sector Workshop Invitees and Consultees

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices –

Appendix A – ICF Report

Research, Development and Innovation Delivery Frameworks for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

July 2015

Developing a Smart Specialisation Strategy

1.1

Research, innovation, technology and local economic growth At both European and UK governmental levels, it is recognised that technological development remains at the heart of future economic growth. In the UK, the Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth (2011)1 has been followed by identification of the ‘Eight Great Technologies2’ and their continued development through a series of industrial strategies which recognise the competitive advantage of key sectors of the UK economy (for example, aerospace, automotive, life sciences, information and communication technology, etc.)3. These strategies are acting as the framework for a series of strategic investments by Government. Most recently, Sir Andrew Witty has reported on the relationships of key intermediaries ‐ namely, universities and Local Enterprise Partnerships ‐ in bringing research and business together locally to take forward the UK’s technology and business strengths4. Overall, all these strategies contribute to the Government’s Plan for Growth5. At European level, a similar set of Key Enabling Technologies have been identified6 and, in 2012, the European Commission launched a Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations (RIS 3) to promote a strategic approach to economic development through targeted support to Research and Innovation (R&I), including the promotion of efficient and effective use of public investment in research7. Smart specialisation will form a key focus for innovation and competitiveness activity in the next round of European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds – and is a key component of investment strategies for ESI Funds currently under development and finalisation by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

1.1.1

Smart specialisation Smart specialisation involves a process of developing a vision, identifying the place-based areas of greatest strategic potential, setting strategic priorities and using smart policies to maximise the knowledge-based development potential of a region, regardless of whether it is strong or weak, high-tech or low-tech, including: ■

Supporting technological and applied research, manufacturing capabilities and first production in Key Enabling Technologies and diffusion of general purpose technologies;

■

Enhancing research and innovation infrastructure (R&I) and capacities to develop R&I excellence and promoting centres of competence; and,

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/BISCore/innovation/docs/I/11‐1387‐innovation‐and‐research‐strategy‐for‐ growth.pdf; 2 Willetts, D. (2013) Eight Great Technologies http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/eight%20great%20technologies.pdf 3 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/industrial‐strategy‐government‐and‐industry‐in‐partnership 4 Witty, A. (2013) Encouraging a British Invention Revolution: Sir Andrew Witty’s Review of Universities and Growth, BIS, October 5 HMT/BIS (2011) The Plan for Growth 6 European Commission (2012) A European Strategy for Key Enabling Technologies – A bridge to growth and jobs’ 7 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/smart_specialisation_en.pdf; http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=e50397e3‐f2b1‐4086‐8608‐ 7b86e69e8553

■

Promoting business R&I investment, product and service development, technology transfer, social innovation and public service application, demand simulation, networking, clusters and open innovation.

Smart specialisation, then, is founded upon a technology and innovation driven model of local economic development. The framework conditions for innovation have been well studied, although because their interaction and influence is place dependent it is difficult to generalise (Figure 1.1). This is explicitly recognised in the place-based assets process of smart specialisation. For an effective innovation system to be self-sustaining businesses need to be creative and entrepreneurial, assisted by innovation networks (openness) and access to public research. This in turn requires resources (especially skills and finance). Successful innovation needs a market (demand) and leads to improved competitiveness that can mobilise resources (Figure 1.1). Figure 1.1

Framework conditions for innovation8

1.2

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP and smart specialisation As place‐based development organisation, the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) can be seen to sit at the junction of European and national policy in bringing together industrial and technology policy to support sustained local economic growth.

NESTA (2009) The wider conditions for innovation in the UK

The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP has over the past couple of years generated a series of local growth strategies and plans, culminating in the Strategic Economic Plan and European Structural and Investment Fund Strategy 2014‐2020. The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP have been given an indicate allocation of ESI Funds, amounting to £505.5 million for the period 2014‐2020 (excluding EAFRD and EMFF). As specified in the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 2014‐2020 Strategy for European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds, some £57 million of funding to the Future Economy strategic priority area. The objectives of the Future Economy strategic priority is to: ■

drive growth through RD&I investment to support the local business base (existing and new) in integrating into the supply chains of key identified global markets where it can have a significant competitive advantage; and

■

support investment in activities with growth potential that develop Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly as a ‘green and marine’ region.

In particular, the following smart specialisation sectors have been identified for prioritisation: Table 1.1

Smart specialisation sectors

Smart specialisation area

Specific market opportunities identified

Links to the UK Industrial Strategy and the Eight Great Technologies

Agri-tech

■

Animal health and welfare in dairy cattle Resource efficiency in the production process Plant health

■ ■ ■ ■

Agri-science Agri-technology Big Data Robotics and autonomous systems

■ ■ Digital economy

■ ■ ■

Digital media / gaming Software development Pervasive media (content application services)

■ ■ ■

Information economy Big Data Information economy

E-health

■

E-wellbeing – using digital technologies to Improve health outcomes End to end skills programme

■ ■ ■

Information economy Big Data Education (exporting)

Offshore renewables (wave and wind) Advanced marine paint technologies Green ship technologies

■ ■

Offshore Wind Energy Advanced materials and nanotechnology Energy and its storage

Goonhilly – satellite management and applications Newquay Cornwall Airport – long runway; free airspace; unmanned vehicles

■ ■ ■

■ ■ Marine technology

■ ■ ■

Space and aerospace

■

Aerospace Space Robotics and autonomous systems Big Data

Source: Cornwall and Isles of Scilly European Structural and Investment Fund Strategy, June 2014

Notwithstanding, the above opportunities, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly is also faced with a number of challenges. Firstly, a very low proportion of local businesses have historically been involved in innovation and R&D activities, and levels of R&D expenditure are therefore

relatively low9. Recent data confirms the low levels of total intramural R&D expenditure10, equivalent to 0.24% of GDP in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in 2011. This is significantly lower than the South West (1.85% of GDP) and UK (1.8% of GDP) averages. Second, there are significant challenges in establishing a strong innovation and research infrastructure and strengthening the role of research‐intensive businesses. The low levels of R&D expenditures are largely due to both the historic lack of university and research institutions in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which has restricted opportunities to access expertise in innovation and R&D, and the historic structure of the local economy, which comprises relatively high numbers of self‐employed and micro businesses and relatively low levels of employment in business activities that invest highly in R&D. Thirdly, the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly economy is highly focused and dependent upon local markets and the distance from major centres means that local businesses are somewhat sheltered from competitive forces. This, combined with the low levels of innovation and R&D activity, is also reflected in relatively low levels of exports from businesses in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. HMRC data suggest that the South West accounted for just 6.4% of England’s total export value in the 12 months to 2014 Q2 and was the lowest of all regions in terms of export value per working age person11. Indicative findings of a recent thematic evaluation of the Convergence Programme for the period 2007‐2013 suggest that the strategic funding needs in relation to innovation and business support are as follows: ■

Designing a broad university offer that is relevant for, and engage, more local businesses.

■

Providing greater support for collaboration and cross-referrals.

■

Developing a new central ‘Growth Hub’.

■

Providing the necessary skills, encouraging an innovation culture change and providing suitable business accommodation.

■

Joining up ESI Funds and other EU and national funding sources.

■

Providing more specialist/ niche projects.

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Convergence Operational Programme 2007‐13 Total intramural R&D expenditure includes all expenditures for R&D performed in the area, regardless of whether the source of funds was within or outside the specified area. 11 HMRC (Sep 2014) UK Regional Trade in Goods Statistics, 2014 Q2 10

EU regulations and funding opportunities Within the above context, the study team has reviewed constraints and opportunities from relevant EU regulations and funding opportunities. Firstly, this section presents a broad overview of EU funding opportunities against each of the framework conditions for innovation. Secondly, it provides a brief description of each of the relevant EU funds, followed by a description and analysis of possible synergies. Finally details of the relevant state aid frameworks are set out.

2.1

The link between EU programmes/ frameworks and the wider framework conditions for innovation A 2011 NESTA report on ‘measuring wider framework conditions for successful innovation’ proposed a taxonomy of framework aspects for innovation. Table 2.1 sets out the framework conditions identified in the report and provides an overview of relevant EU programmes across these framework conditions. A number of potential EU funding sources are identified in Table 1.1. These are described further in the following sections.

R&D activities and capacity in firms, innovation activities with suppliers

Firm-level technology absorption, engagement in innovation activities with suppliers

Level of competition between businesses

Business 1213 demand

Business environment and competition

Extent to which available skills meet local skills demands

Availability of The stock of high quality accumulated human experience, skills and

ESF

ERDF, ESF

EU competition framework, SME framework

ERDF, Horizon 2020

n/a

Jacob Edler (2007), “Demand‐based Innovation Policy” , Manchester Business School Working Paper, No. 529. NESTA (2011): Measuring the nature of demand for innovation in the UK: The challenges of an indicator approach. Innovation Index Working Paper. https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/8.MeasuringthenatureofdemandforinnovationintheUKThechallengesofanindicatorapproach.pdf

Investments in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and vocational training and education

No. of start-ups, spinoffs

Entrepreneur Dynamic with which Entrepreneurial SME policy, encouragement of ship economies create new spinoffs In setup and funding for R&D businesses

Demand-side innovation policies – from public procurement of innovation, to standards and regulations, to lead markets and user-/ consumerdriven innovation initiatives, consumer receptiveness and demand to/ for innovation

Consumer demand and sophistication

Consumer demand for Consumer needs, income, preferences, habits, new technologies, price of substitutes and complements, co–creation buyer sophistication, and co-design i.e. level to which consumer demand complex products and can assess quality of these

Consumer demand

Relevant EU programmes/ frameworks

Number of peer-reviewed articles and grey literature, Horizon 2020 number of cited articles and grey literature, number of patents or co-patents held by universities and public sector research enterprises

Universities and public Gross R&D expenditure, Business Expenditure on sector research R&D enterprises (PSRE). (BERD), Higher Education Expenditure on R&D (HERD)

Outputs

Public research base

Inputs

Description

Wider framework conditions for innovation

Table 2.1

Available loans and venture capital for different start up stages and capital needs of firms

Access to finance Financial infrastructure and legal framework for investments

Source: NESTA (2011): Measuring wider Framework Conditions for successful innovation.

Infrastructure Physical infrastructure, Investment in infrastructure and growth hubs and services knowledge intensive business services (KIBS), IT services

abilities of the labour force

capital

ERDF, Horizon 2020

Better and cheaper access of firms to knowledge and ERDF physical infrastructure to build R&D capacity

Higher diversity and number of available loans and financials products for firms

2.1.2

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will provide £379.1 million in funding for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly over the period 2014‐2020. The draft operational programme for ERDF in England14 has selected a single investment priority for research and innovation: ■

Strengthening research, technological development and innovation by: –

promoting business investment in R&I;

–

developing links and synergies between enterprises, research and development centres and the Higher Education sector;

–

promoting investment in product and service development, technology transfer, social innovation, eco-innovation, public service applications, demand stimulation, networking, clusters and open innovation through smart specialisation; and

–

supporting technological and applied research, pilot lines, early product validation actions, advance manufacturing capabilities and first production, in particular in key enabling technologies and diffusion of general purpose technologies.

This means that it is unlikely that the new ERDF programme will be able to fund R&I infrastructure investment. The Cornwall and Isle of Scilly E SIF programme for Cornwall and Isles and Scilly15 budgets £295m of ERDF (78% of total funding) the following ERDF priorities:

2.1.3

■

Strengthening research, technological development and innovation;

■

Enhancing access to, and use and quality of, information and communication technologies;

■

Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises; and

■

Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors

European Social Fund (ESF) The European Social Fund will provide £126.4 million over the 2014‐2020 funding period. It is the primary European fund for investing in education training, and vocational training and therefore offers extensive complementarities with Cornwall and IoS smart specialisation programme. The draft operational programme for England 2014‐202016 highlights support for skills for economic growth in priority axis 2. This supports in particular:

See England draft operation programme for ERDF 2014‐2020: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/354912/esf‐operational‐ programme‐2014‐2020‐draft.pdf 15 16 See England draft operational programme for ESF 2014‐2020: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/342297/ERDF_Operational_Prog ramme.pdf

■

Enhancing equal access to lifelong learning: Improving the skills of individuals to meet their goal sand the needs of the local economy, primarily on training, advising or supporting individuals: and

■

Improving the labour market relevance of education and training systems. This focuses on improving employer participating and engagement in learning, to ensure it is responsive to the needs of the local economy and more individual’s progress into nor within learning, particularly by improving partnerships and educational and vocational systems.

For the 2014‐2020 funding period in Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, £38m of ESF will be allocated to ESF funding for the priority above. 2.1.4

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) Funds made available to Cornwall and IoS through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amount to £9.4 million. Further funding is available through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)17. Given the modest scale of EAFRD available to the C&IoS LEP and the importance of the agri‐ food sector, the majority of EAFRD funding will be targeted at driving productivity improvements in the agri‐food sector, whilst increasing supply chain integration. In particular, the investments will be targeted at supporting agri‐tech infrastructure, developing a renewables programme, business support, mentoring, grants and loans to create business growth as well as supporting skills development and assisting businesses to increase exports18. The E SIF strategy for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly in 2014‐2020 allocates £7.4 million of EAFRD to the following thematic objectives: ■

Strengthening research, technological development and innovation;

■

Enhancing access to, and use and quality of, information and communication technologies;

■

Enhancing the competitiveness the agricultural sector (for the EAFRD) and the fisheries and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF)

■

Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors

The strategy also includes £1 million of EAFRD investment in education, skills and lifelong learning. Further complementarities between ERDF and EAFRD are highlighted in the Rural Development Plan for England, which was approved by the European Commission on 13 February 2015.19 These include in particular the following themes: 17

The draft UK strategic priorities for the EMFF are as follows: adapting the fisheries sector to the requirements of the reformed; fostering growth potential in key areas across fisheries, aquaculture and processing CFP; supporting the increased economic, environmental and social sustainability of the sector; and fulfilling the UK’s enforcement and data collection obligations. 18 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly European Structural and Investment Fund Strategy, June 2014 19 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2015): United Kingdom – Rural Development Programme (Regional) – England, see:

2.1.5

■

Extending access to broadband in the final, hard to reach areas;

■

Support for enhancing the competitiveness of micro, small and medium-sized businesses – RDPE will complement ERDF by targeted investments to increase the productivity of farming and forestry businesses and to support the growth of businesses in rural areas; and

■

Support markets and innovations towards a shift for a low carbon economy – here RDPE funds will focus on the role that agricultural land management and forestry can play in carbon storage.

Horizon 2020 Horizon 2020 is the current EU framework programme for research and innovation. It has a budget of nearly €80 billion over the 2014‐2020 programme period. Specific instruments of relevance in Horizon 2020 include: ■

The new Teaming actions, which can help conceiving infrastructure projects;

■

The new Twinning and ERA-Chairs actions, which can help attracting leading professors and research teams; and

■

Marie Skłodowska-Curie COFUND, which can support the internationalisation of human resources in research.

SME participation is highlighted across Horizon 2020 activities and should amount to a minimum of 20% of the overall Horizon 2020 budget. A number of activities and instruments have been introduced to support SME/business innovation and are worth highlighting in the context of the Cornwall and IoS smart specialisation plan. A specific SME instrument has been introduced under the Industrial Leadership Pillar. It aims to fund SMEs with high‐growth potential with a combination of lump sum seed funding and research and innovation grants to support a combination of demonstration activities (testing, prototyping, etc), market replication across three individual stages. Furthermore, Horizon 2020 supports specific instruments to facilitate access to risk capital and equity capital which operate in conjunction with the COSME programme and are managed by the European Investment Bank. The Programme Access to Risk Finance is built around a number of financial instruments amounting to a total of EUR 622 million over 2014‐15, financing intermediaries or firms directly. The instruments are being promoted under the portfolio of InnovFin – EU Finance for Innovators.20 By 2020, InnovFin is expected to make over EUR 24bn of debt and equity financing available (Horizon 2020 and EIB funds) to support € 48bn of final R&I investments. The individual instruments include specific loans services for R&I in large firms, SMEs and midcaps21, guarantee instruments for R&I intensive SMEs and midcaps, an equity facility for R&I in early‐stage SMEs as well as a technology transfer financing facility. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/404607/rdpe‐england‐2014‐ 2020.pdf [accessed on 7 April 2015]. 20 InnovFin website at EIB (accessed on 20 October 2014) http://www.eib.org/products/innovfin/index.htm 21 Medium‐sized corporates.

The equity facility for R&I looks in particular at early‐stage SMEs. The European Investment Fund (EIF) will use this facility to invest in a range of financial intermediaries, including those cooperating with business angels. Funds supported will provide VC and quasi‐equity early‐stage investments in start‐ups and SMEs. Relevant instruments described above for enterprises’ growth, research and innovation from early stage up to expansion and growth stage are managed jointly through the single EU Equity Financial Instrument. Relevant debt and guarantee instruments described above are brought together under the Single EU Debt Financial Instrument. Furthermore, a Fast Track to Innovation pilot action (FTI) will be implemented in the form of a full scale pilot action running from 2015‐16. 100 proposals with an expected budget of around €200 million are foreseen to be funded under the new pilot action. It will support innovation actions under the specific objective "Leadership enabling and industrial technologies" and under the societal challenges, relating to any technology field, on the basis of a continuously open call.

2.2

Potential synergies between EU funds on research and innovation There are significant opportunities for creating synergies between the various EU funds for research and innovation. Horizon 2020 funding can in principle be combined with all the ESI Funds, if the following apply: ■

No crowding out of non-EU and private finance: No substitution of national/regional or private co-funding to EU projects/programmes under direct Commission management by E SIF money (and vice versa).

■

No double financing: The same costs are not financed twice by any budget or funding programme.

Synergies between Horizon 2020 funding and E SIF programmes can be achieved through: ■

Bringing together Horizon 2020 and E SIF funds in the same project. This is only possible with Horizon 2020 and no other EU programme;

■

Successive projects that build on each other;

■

Parallel projects which complement each other; and

■

E SIF programmes which are designed and implemented to take up high quality Horizon 2020 proposals for which there is not enough budget available.

Based on the JRC guidebook for synergising EU funds on research and innovation22, there are number of important recommendations for regional policy makers in charge of the Cornwall and IoS smart specialisation strategy and E SIF programme. These recommendations are summarised below: ■

Work together with authorities and bodies involved in designing SME and industry policy and research and innovation policies, e.g. Horizon 2020 actors23;

Ibid. Members of the H2020 programme committee, participants from their territory in European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), European Technology Platforms (ETP), Public‐Private Partnerships (PPP), Knowledge and 23

■

Include Horizon 2020 actors in the smart specialisation development process and in the E SIF partnerships for Partnership Agreement and programme development;

■

Consult international research and business networks in relevant industry and research sectors (not only the players from Cornwall and IoS);

■

Evaluate as part of the smart specialisation process the needs of industry and public procurers (e.g. hospitals, facility companies - water, waste, urban transport, etc. - and research for innovative solutions);

■

Focus the preparatory work for synergies on the strategic aim of the smart specialisation strategy in terms of economic transformation and the fields that emerge as smart specialisation priorities and on what the region of Cornwall and IoS can actually influence, i.e.: –

Strengthen research and innovation capacity building, including research infrastructure (e.g. in universities, competence centres, etc.), innovation infrastructure and equipment (e.g. pilot lines, LivingLabs, FabLabs, Creative Factories, advanced manufacturing capabilities, science and technology parks) and skills (including in creative thinking, design, e-commerce);

–

advisory services for potential Horizon 2020 applicants to increase chances to succeed in Horizon 2020 project proposals;

–

At the project conception stage, applicants should be advised to identify the different work packages (e.g. a test series), or types of activity (e.g. costs of training activities), or types of cost (e.g. personnel costs) as well as the geographical location where the actions will be implemented to attribute costs clearly to the different corresponding EU funds. Applicants should be reminded that they will have to monitor and record costs/expenditure accordingly;

– Strengthen the capacity to provide innovation support services to facilitate getting innovations into the market. Support services might include: Innovation management, IPR management, advice for business plan development and investor readiness, technology audits to help SMEs detect needs and technology absorption potentials, etc.

■ Establish and maintain international networks to comparator regions and business networks to support the development of multi-country proposals for Horizon 2020 and European Territorial Cooperation (INTERREG) calls for transnational cooperation; and

■ Foresee close-to-market support in the smart specialisation strategies, e.g. for – technology readiness levels (TRL) 4-7 industrial research, development (including via contract or collaborative research actions linking SMEs and universities/public research bodies), demonstration and experimentation grants.

– TRLs 8 and 9, i.e. market introduction and expansion of productive capacities, e.g. via early product validation and first production actions, certain innovation infrastructures

Innovation Communities (KIC) under the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT), National Contact Points of Horizon 2020 (NCP), research institutions with success in FP7 or EUREKA including consultation of National Roadmaps for research infrastructures linked to the ESFRI Roadmap; furthermore with COSME Supported entities (e.g. the Enterprise Europe Network consortia members, participants in cluster/innovation platforms and large scale demonstrator projects, in projects for pre‐commercial procurement and public procurement of innovative solutions, participants in the large‐scale pilot projects for interoperable e‐government solutions, etc.

(e.g. LivingLabs, FabLabs, Creative Factories), cluster facilitated projects for new industrial value chains and cross-sectorial cluster cooperation, large scale demonstrators or public procurement of innovative solutions, and support to the development of advanced manufacturing capabilities.

2.2.1

Regulatory scope for synergies between EU programmes The regulatory stock governing relevant 2014‐2020 EU programmes allow for certain synergies and combination of funds. The regulation laying down common provisions for E SIF24 provides the following framework conditions relevant for Cornwall and IoS regional strategy: ■

Article 65(11) allows the cumulation of grants from different EU funding instruments (or from one or more ESI Fund through one or more programmes and other Union instruments) for the same beneficiary or the same project, provided that the same expenditure/cost item does not receive support also from another EU fund (from the same Fund under different programmes, from another Fund or from other Union instruments).

■

Article 67(5)b and 68(1)c allows for an alignment of cost models (scales of unit costs, lump sums and flat rates) for corresponding costs and similar types of operations and beneficiaries in Horizon 2020 and other EU programmes.

■

Article 70(2) stipulates a possibility of up to 15% of the support from the ERDF, Cohesion Fund and EMFF at the level of the priority (up to 5% of the support from the EAFRD at the level of the programme), and up to 3% of the budget of a ESF operational programme (Article 13(3) ESF) to be allocated to operations located outside the programme area.

■

Article 96(6)a: E SIF programmes are to set out the mechanisms that ensure coordination between E SIF and other EU and national funding instruments, and with the EIB.

■

Regulation EU No 1290/2013 laying down the Horizon 2020 rules for participation (Article 37) and the Common Provisions Regulation on the E SIF (Article 65(11)) allow for the funding of the same project (action/operation) through several grants from different EU instruments, including from different E SIF funds and programmes, subject to the absence of double funding. To ensure the latter, Horizon 2020 and E SIF funding shall not cover the same cost / expenditure item.

■

The right to combine E SIF and Horizon 2020 does however not waive the obligation for the beneficiaries to provide national/regional/private co-funding, if required by the grant agreement.

The regulatory framework conditions set out above apply only for grants awarded.25 The regulations on Erasmus+, Creative Europe, CEF and COSME do not allow for cumulation of 24

Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, The Cohesion Fund, The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. 25 The non‐cumulative principle set out in Article 129 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 applies only to grants. Hence, the derogation can only apply to grants and must be authorised in the relevant basic acts.

funding, meaning that for these programmes a combination of funds within the same project is not possible. 2.2.1.1 Eligible costs

Eligible costs/expenditures are costs actually incurred by the beneficiary of a grant and which meet the criteria of the EU financial rules regulation. The nature of eligible costs (including indirect cost, and depreciation costs, etc.) and thus the cost/expenditure items differ under Horizon 2020 depending on the project formats with their different grant agreement types. A cost/ expenditure item is defined as the amount declared as eligible for Union funding. Depending on the budgeting approach, the cost or expenditure item might be under the budget category per activity (e.g. costs of training activities, work package), per nature (e.g. personnel costs, costs for durable equipment or for consumables, etc.) or by a combination of the nature and activity (e.g. costs of personnel assigned to the training activities). In addition, cost and expenditure items are only eligible to the extent that they have ‘actually incurred’, i.e. the extent actually consumed for the activity or project in question. A project co‐funded by E SIF and other EU funds can consist of several actions, contracts or grant agreements which are managed in a coherent manner. Figure 2.1 illustrates the interplay between Horizon 2020 funding and E SIF programmes. Figure 2.1

Combining Horizon 2020 and E SIF funding

Source: Joint Research Centre (2014): Enabling synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020 and other research, innovation and competitiveness-related Union programmes.

Considering the practical implementation of the above in Cornwall and IoS, it should be noted that:

2.3

■

Authorities concerned by Horizon 2020 and other EU programmes in Cornwall and IoS need to be associated in the Smart Specialisation programme and selection process; and

■

A dedicated support offer to plan and execute the combination of different funding sources/grants in one project would be of strong added value.

Relevant state aid frameworks In principle, any public funding spent from E SIF funding can be assumed to be compliant with state aid rules, once the relevant Operational Programmes for England have been approved by the European Commission. However, if no block exemptions or explicit state aid approval can be assumed, the standard EU state aid rules apply and impose a framework on the amount of support single firms can receive. Regarding research, development and innovation activities in particular, the European Commission adopted a new set of state aid rules in 2014.26 The first part of the new rules is covered by the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER)27, which includes a list of eligible aid objectives, including all research and innovation objectives for which state aid may be granted without prior notification and approval by the European Commission. The new GBER also includes a number of exemptions which apply specifically to SMEs. Table 2.2 presents an overview of the new GBER provisions relevant to research and innovation activities. Table 2.2

General Block Exemption Regulation provisions for RD&I activities

Type of activity

Previous GBER

New GBER

Fundamental research

20 million

40 million

Industrial research

10 million

20 million

Experimental development

7.5 million

15 million

Specific provisions

Doube R&D project thresholds 28 for EUREKA projects

Doube R&D-project thresholds for EUREKA and Article 18529 and 187 Joint Undertakings30

European Commission (2014): Supporting R&D and innovation in Europe: new State Aid rules. Competition policy brief issue 5. 27 Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty Text with EEA relevance. 28 EUREKA is an intergovernmental organisation for market‐driven industrial R&D. It is a decentralised network facilitating the coordination of national funding on innovation aiming to boost the productivity & competitiveness of European industries. The network integrates over 40 pan‐European economies, but also includes Israel, South Korea, and Canada. 29 Article 185 measures (P2P) include joint programmes such as Eurostars, a transnational programme to support research‐intensive SMEs in the development/commercialisation of new services and products. 30 Article 187 TFEU include Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs), which are long‐term Public‐Private Partnerships. JTIs support large‐scale multinational research activities in areas of major interest to European industrial competitiveness as well as issues of high societal relevance, contractual public‐private partnerships and public‐ public partnerships. Ten such partnerships with the industry and Member States were proposed as part of the

50% increase for repayable advances Feasibility studies

7.5 – 20 million depending on subsequent research category

7.5 million

Research infrastructure

no aid objective

20 million

Innovation clusters

not block-exemptible

7.5 million per cluster

Process and organisational innovation

not block-exemptible

7.5 million per undertaking/project

SME innovation aid

Different provisions

5 million per undertaking/project

Source: European Commission (2014): Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty Text with EEA relevance

The second part of the new set of rules is a revised framework on state aid in research, development and innovation, which applies to activities not eligible for block exemptions under the GBER. The Commission will assess measures notified by Member States according to these criteria individually.31 Under the new RD&I Framework, the allowed aid intensities have been increased in particular for close‐to‐the market aid categories. This means that support for applied research, including demonstrators and pilots, can range from 60‐90 per cent of direct costs, and innovation aid in general is set at 50 per cent of direct costs. Table 2.3 summarises the allowed aid intensities under the new RD&I framework and the GBER regulation. Differences between the block exemptions and activities outside of the block exemptions are highlighted where applicable. Table 2.3

Aid intensity ‐ European Commission Framework for state aid for RD&I and GBER

Large enterprise

Aid objective

Range of allowed aid intensities from basic to maximum

Fundamental research

100 per cent

GBER

60-65 per cent

60-75 per cent

70-80 per cent

Other activities (Framework)

60-70 per cent

70-80 per cent

80-90 per cent

Medium‐sized enterprise

Small enterprise

Industrial research

Experimental development GBER

25-40 per cent

35-50 per cent

45-60 per cent

Other activities

60-70 per cent

70-80 per cent

80-90 per cent

Innovation Investment Package, and one more followed. The EU's contribution of €9 billion stems from Horizon 2020 and is expected to be matched with a €10 billion investment from the private sector and €4 billion from Member States. See European Commission (2013): Commission Communication (COM/2013/0494) on Public‐ private partnerships in Horizon 2020: a powerful tool to deliver on innovation and growth in Europe. 31 Commission Communication on Framework for state aid for research and development and innovation. COM (2014) 3282.

(Framework) Feasibility studies

50 per cent

60 per cent

70 per cent

Innovation aid for SMEs32

not eligible

50 per cent

Process and organisational innovation

15 per cent

50 per cent

Innovation clusters

50-65 per cent

GBER

50 per cent

Other activities (Framework)

60 per cent

Research infrastructure

Source: European Commission (2014): Communication COM(2014)3282 on a Framework for state aid for research and development and innovation and Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty Text with EEA relevance

As regards the cumulation of aid, the new RD&I framework stipulates that: ■

Aid may be awarded concurrently under several aid schemes or cumulated with ad hoc aid, provided that the total amount of state aid for an activity or project does not exceed the maximum aid intensities described in table 2.3;

■

Funding centrally managed by the institutions, agencies, joint undertakings or other bodies of the European Union (‘Union funding’) that is not directly or indirectly under the control of Member States does not constitute state aid and should not be taken into account;33

■

Where such Union funding is combined with state aid, the total amount of public funding awarded in relation to the same eligible costs cannot exceed the most favourable funding rate laid down in the applicable rules;

■

Where such Union funding is combined with state aid, only the latter will be considered for determining whether notification thresholds and maximum aid intensities are respected; and

■

Aid for RD&I may not be cumulated with de minimis support in respect of the same eligible costs if that would result in an aid intensity exceeding the maximum aid intensities described in table 2.3.

Furthermore, the structure and compatibility criteria of the RD&I Framework include the following: 32

(a) Costs for obtaining, validating and defending patents and other intangible assets. (b) Costs for secondment of highly qualified personnel from a research and knowledge dissemination organisation or a large enterprise, working on RD&I activities in a newly created function within the beneficiary and not replacing other personnel. (c) Costs for innovation advisory and support services. In the particular case of aid for innovation advisory and support services the aid intensity can be increased up to 100 % of the eligible costs provided that the total amount of aid for innovation advisory and support services does not exceed EUR 200 000 per undertaking within any three year period. 33 Such as funding provided under Horizon 2020 or the EU programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium‐sized Enterprises (COSME).

■

The aid must promote an objective of common interest, and address a market failure. The extent of a market failure could be confirmed on the basis of comparing the situations of specific sectors or lines of business;

■

The appropriateness of aid compared to alternative (aid and non-aid) measures must be shown;

■

Member States must demonstrate that the aid actually changes the behaviour of the beneficiary (i.e. that it has an incentive effect);

■

It will be verified that the aid amount does not exceed the minimum necessary for the aided project to be sufficiently profitable;

■

The Framework identifies cases of manifest negative effects that can never be found compatible (e.g. where an aid measure is contrary to internal market rules on the free movement of goods and services), whilst providing criteria to determine whether competition distortions are limited or not;

■

There is now a legal presumption of the necessity of aid for projects that are also EU cofinanced.

An additional set of state aid regulations will need to be considered for projects funded through EAFRD and EMFF. Similar principles of cumulation apply under these funds as set out above under the GBER and RD&I framework. Furthermore, it will need to be set out clearly that any additional public funding will need to respect aid intensity thresholds are permissible in the respective regulations. For EAFRD funding, aid for research and development in the agricultural and forestry sectors are limited to €7,5 million per project with a maximum aid intensity of 100 per cent of the eligible costs.34 Regarding EMFF funding, aid for innovation in fisheries and aquacultures, for partnership between scientists and fishermen, innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological resources, is exempt from state aid notification requirements, given that it fulfils requirements set out in the relevant implementing acts.3536 The maximum aid intensity can range from 50 per cent to 100 per cent. 2.3.2

De minimis caps The de minimis rules of the European Commission stipulate that both non SME’s and SME’s can receive up to €200,000 in public funding over a rolling three year period, without being subject to state‐aid approval. De minimis aid is often not granted for or attributable to specific

Article 8 and 31 of Commission Regulation (EU) 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 35 Article 95 Regulation (EU) 508/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and relevant implementing acts. 36 Article 8 and of Commission Regulation (EU) 1388/2014 of 16 December 2014 declaring certain categories of aid to undertakings active in the production, processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

identifiable eligible costs. In such a case it should be possible to freely cumulate de minimis aid with State aid exempted under the GBER regulation. Where de minimis aid is granted for the same identifiable eligible costs as State aid exempted under GBER, cumulation should only be allowed up to the maximum aid intensity and provisions set out in tables 2.2 and 2.3.

EU best practice and comparators The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has published a number of relevant guidance documents, which include a wide collection of best practice advice on the programming and management of smart specialisation programmes. These guidance documents include in particular: ■

Guide on research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3 Guide). Including a number of practical tools for policy makers in Annexes, http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/s3pguide;

■

An ‘assessment wheel for policy makers, which serves as a self-assessment tool of the progress made in drafting and designing a smart specialisation strategy, http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ris3-assessment-wheel;

■

A guide on Enabling synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020 and other research, innovation and competitiveness-related Union programmes , http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10157/267027/Guide%20on%20synergies_en. pdf ; and

■

Policy brief on smart specialisation and innovation in rural areas, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/smartspecialisation-and-innovation-rural-areas-s3-policy-brief-series-no-092014.

Further guidance is provided on the JRC’s website.37 Policy makers and managing authorities can also identify the smart specialisation intentions of other Member States and regions via the S3Platform38 their sectorial and cross‐sectorial regional industrial strength via the European Cluster Observatory39 and cluster organisations and other SME intermediaries active in or interested in the building of European Strategic Cluster Partnerships via the European Cluster Collaboration Platform40. The above sources are used below to provide a review of best practice and to identify comparator areas.

http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guides;jsessionid=ZJ7VVkFNJGJs5lgrgWB0czdTKpv17MgrdVly2g0Xdwh1NKxMp 6WY!2491139!1428424013548 38 http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities 39 http://www.clusterobservatory.eu/index.html 40 http://www.clustercollaboration.eu/

3.1

Saxony ‐ Best practice in programme preparation and management In terms of preparing and implementing a Smart Specialisation Strategy, the approach taken by the state of Saxony in Germany has been highlighted as a best practice example by the Joint Research Centre. Figure 3.1 summarises Saxony’s approach to programming and programme management. Figure 3.1

Overview of programming approach – Smart Specialisation strategy Saxony

Source: Saechsisches Staatsministerium fuer Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Verkehr (2013): Innovationsstrategie des Freistaates Sachsen.

Saxony’s strategy focussed specifically on four key areas, which address cross‐cutting issues rather than support for specific sectors:41 ■

Support for a modern and innovative economy, including support for innovation capacity in companies, strengthening value chain oriented business and science parks as well as support for technology driven start-ups;

■

Strengthening scientific outputs and efficient public-private cooperation, including the formulation and strengthening of value propositions for universities, support for highpotential scientists and an improved commercialisation of research outputs by industry;

Saechsisches Staatsministerium fuer Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Verkehr (2013): Innovationsstrategie des Freistaates Sachsen.

■

Human Capital and society, focussing on improving the regional skill base and immigration of highly-skilled personnel, as well as societal acceptance of technological innovation and aligning technological innovation to societal needs of the region;

■

Cross innovation, which looks specifically at linking up key enabling technologies and strong innovation drivers which have an established industrial base in the region and can fertilise other sectors and diverse products across the value chain.

In addition to these aspects, the programme specifically targets high‐growth sectors with specific support such as environmental technologies and resource management, renewable energies, mobility and logistics, health and nutritional science.

3.2

Smart specialisation in rural areas A Joint Research Centre publication on Smart Specialisation42 in rural areas highlighted a number of aspects which are of key importance to rural areas, similar to Cornwall and IoS. First, it emphasises the need to look beyond agricultural technology support. Second, it emphasises a different notion of rural innovation which has emerged, contrary to past policies for specialisation in rural areas which mainly introduced new technologies for the agriculture sector. Recent experience shows that innovation in rural areas mainly came from diversification into other activities than agriculture.43 Innovation programmes in rural areas might need to adopt a broader definition of innovation which goes beyond patents, R&D spending and high‐ profit activities, allowing a stronger focus on social innovation, organisational and marketing strategies. A recent OECD publication44 also questioned the role of universities in rural innovation and looked specifically at the cases of south west and north east England. It is assumed that innovation and added value is generated in close spatial proximity to universities as a natural incubator, providing support structures for discovery, intellectual and commercial ventures. However, places such as the north east of England have attempted to spread the benefits of universities beyond an urban centre to rural areas. Emphasis in Newcastle’s Science City initiative is therefore placed on establishing connections and linking the wider region’s knowledge infrastructure with designated “innovation connectors”, which are locations that have been identified as having the greatest potential for using innovation to stimulate economic development, effectively business clusters with a clear geographical and sectoral focus. The major challenge of this setup seems to be to establish strong awareness in businesses, e.g. by linking “innovation connectors” into established business networks and forums.

3.3

Potential EU comparator areas The purpose of this section is to identify EU regions that share similar characteristics and/ or that focus on the same priority sectors – e.g. ‘leading’ regions in the priority sectors. These comparator regions will be used to compare performance as well as identify potential areas for

Joint Research Centre (2014): Smart Specialisation and Innovation in Rural Areas. S3 Policy Brief Series No 09/2014. 43 OECD (2014). Innovation and Modernising the Rural Economy. 44 Ibid.

collaboration (in terms of the latter it is not necessary for the regions to share similar characteristics). International comparators can be identified using a number of different approaches. A convenient metric can be drawn from the Regional Innovation Scoreboard annual reports, which groups regions into four groups: innovation leaders, innovation followers, modest innovators and moderate innovators. The Innovation Union Scoreboard does not include the region of Cornwall and IoS, but rather the South West region (NUTS level 3). The annual report of the Innovation Union scoreboard 2014 groups the South West region with innovation followers, ie. regions performing between 90% and 120% of the EU average. Intuitively, this seems to contradict the system analysis conducted as part of the thematic evaluation of the Cornwall and IoS 2007‐2013 programme. Therefore, the Innovation Union Scoreboard does not seem to offer viable tools to identify comparator regions. Another approach would be to filter manually by similar key sectors and related smart specialisation areas (via Eurostat, macro‐regional strategies and the above‐mentioned types of platforms and networks) or have related public procurement needs, similar levels of R&D investment compared to overall GDP. A quick analysis of regions with an initially low share of R&D investment compared to overall GDP which have experiences a steep climb in Eurostat data is presented in Error! Reference source not found.. Table 3.1

Best practice regions ‐ by growth in relative R&D investments

Region

Total intramural R&D expenditure as % of GDP(Eurostat)

Key industries

Characteristics of regional R&I system

2009

2010

2012

Podkarpackie, Poland

0.37

0.97

0.95

Forestry, agriculture and tourism

No research universities, no large industry

North Eastern Scotland, United Kingdom

1.7

1.49

2.9

Agriculture, fisheries, oil

Large cities (Aberdeen and Dundee) and a number of research universities. Large structural differences to Cornwall and IoS.

Jihovýchod, Czech republic

1.62

1.69

2.16

Agriculture, mechanical engineering

Large cities and a number of research universities. Large structural differences to Cornwall and IoS.

Cumbria, United Kingdom

0.47

0.77

1.12

Hi-tech industries, large industrial companies such as nuclear processing , and aerospace

One university and strong industry base. Large structural differences to Cornwall and IoS.

Drenthe, Netherlands

0.4

1.28

Agriculture, tourism

No research universities but a number of universities of applied sciences, no large industry

Midtjylland,

1.19

2.52

2.72

Environmental and energy Strong industrial and research

Denmark

Cornwall and IoS

0.19

0.18

0.24

technologies, tourism

base, multiple universities. Large structural differences to Cornwall and IoS.

Agriculture, marine technology, digital economy, space and aerospace, e-health, tourism

No research universities, no large industry

Source: Eurostat, total intramural R&D expenditure (GERD) by sectors of performance and NUTS 2 regions [rd_e_gerdreg]. Further possible lines of comparison include: ■

the type and size of business and key industries;

■

a lack of high profile Higher Education Institutions (HEI);

■

a relatively closed regional market and low levels of export;

■

comparable geographical features (peninsula, no large urban areas); and

■

specific innovations with regards to programming E SIF funds and designing funding instruments under the E SIF priority on innovation, research and technological development.

Eurostat’s structural business statistics (SBS) aggregate data on national level and exclude important comparator sectors, such as fisheries and agriculture, therefore it is not possible to conduct a comprehensive comparison along the type and size of key industries using primary quantitative data from Eurostat. The European Cluster Observatory assigns a star rating to clusters across NACE 2.0 sectors in Nuts 2 regions. The Observatory has also published a report highlighting strong clusters in innovative regions.45 Similar challenges concerning the lack of HEI provide a good further comparator. The UNICREDS project, in which Cornwall Council and the Combined Universities of Cornwall were a lead partner, looked at how different models of higher education can benefit regional economic development. The project involved a number of potentially relevant comparator46 regions, with which established contacts can be assumed.47 3.3.2

S3 platform specialisation mapping The S3 platform is a tool that assists EU countries and regions to develop, implement and review their Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3). The S3 platform also provides an integrated dataset of specialisation areas in 176 EU regions. Based on the smart

Stockholm School of Economics (2011): Strong Clusters in Innovative Regions. http://www.clusterobservatory.eu/common/galleries/downloads/Strong_Clusters_in_Innovative_Regions_Report. pdf 46 Project partners included South Bohemia (Czech Republic), Västerbotten (Sweden), the Bulgarian Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works and the Jajdu‐Bihar County (Hungary). 47 http://www.unicreds.eu/general/partners.html

specialisation areas identified in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, the following EU and non‐EU regions have been identified as potential comparators. Table 3.2

S3 platform ‐ comparator regions by area of specialisation

Smart specialisation area

EU priority

Research & Innovation Capabilities

EU and non‐EU regions

Agri-tech

■ ■ ■

■

■ ■ ■

Sustainable innovation Public health & security Nature & biodiversity

Agriculture, forestry & fishing

■ ■ ■ ■ Digital economy

■

Digital Agenda

■

■ ■

Information & communication technologies (ICT) Services Tourism, restaurants & recreation

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ E-health

Digital Agenda – e-health

■ ■

■ Marine technology

Blue growth

■ ■

Manufacturing & industry Information & communication technologies (ICT) Human health & social work activities

■ ■ ■

Manufacturing & industry Energy production & distribution

■ ■ ■

Ipeiros Galicia Pays de la Loire Corse Guadeloupe Western Netherlands Lubelskie Flemish Region Praha Moravskoslezs ko RheinlandPfalz SchleswigHolstein Castilla y León Centre Alsace FrancheComté LanguedocRoussillon Martinique Lubelskie Centro (PT) Região Autónoma dos Açores Vojvodina Uppsala län Östergötlands län Midtjylland Alsace LanguedocRoussillon Martinique Lubelskie Wales Hamburg Weser-Ems SchleswigHolstein

Space and aerospace

Aeronautics & space

■ ■ ■

Manufacturing & industry Public administration, security & defence Services

■

Møre og Romsdal

■ ■

Praha BadenWürttemberg Bremen Cantabria Castilla-La Mancha Andalucía HauteNormandie Midi-Pyrénées Piemonte Lombardia Campania Puglia Sardegna Umbria Lazio Podkarpackie

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Source: Eye@RIS3 http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eye-ris3

3.3.3

Relevant Joint Research Centre peer reviews A further qualitative approach to identify international comparators along characteristics outlined in Error! Reference source not found. are the peer reviews published on the Joint Research Centre’s website.48 These are conducted using a common methodology and have covered around 70 regions since 2012. Relevant peer reviews from possible comparator regions include: ■

Kujawsko-Pomorskie, Poland, 4-5 July 2013 (comparably low R&D investment as share of GDP, different industries and different HEI infrastructure), http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/9th-peer-review-4-5-july-2013

■

Pomorskie (Zachodniopomorskie), Poland, 7-8 February 2013 (comparable geographic features, some overlap in key sectors, comparable low R&D investment as share of GDP) http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10157/62973/Pomorskie_3S_280113_final_wit h_comments.pdf

■

South Ostrobothnia, Finland, 6-7 November 2014 (comparable focus sector agricultural technology, comparable HEI infrastructure), http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/baionanovember-2014

■

Friesland, Netherlands, 31 January 2012 (comparable sectors agriculture and marine, comparable HEI infrastructure), http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/peer-review-310112

■

North East, Romania, 10-11 April 2014(comparable sectors and R&D investments), http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10157/385414/Presentation%20NE%20RDA% 20for%20per%20review%20Novi%20Sad%20%2004%2004%202014_FINAL.pdf

http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/peer‐review

3.3.4

■

Puglia, Italy, 3 May 2012 (key sector agriculture and tourism, similar geographical feature and R&D investments ), http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=a86c2df9-7c3f-49e7b0c0-03e14017d4e2&groupId=11362

■

Algarve, Portugal, 5 July 2013 (key sectors tourism and related services, low R&D investments, similar geographical features), http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10157/187136/Presentation_Algarve.pdf

Comparator regions – shortlisted candidates A triangulation of the above lines of comparison results in three candidates for closer inspection, which are presented below:

3.3.4.1

■

Podkarpackie, Poland

■

Drenthe/Northern Netherlands, Netherlands

■

South Ostrobothnia, Finland

Podkarpackie, Poland The region is dominated by the following industries: aerospace, electrical machines, chemistry and food. Almost 70% of industrial production of the region comes from these branches together. The formulation of a smart specialisation strategy built strongly on existing clusters and the Podkarpacka Innovation Council, which brings together business, research and government representatives. Among the clusters in the region are: an Association of Polish Aerospace Industry Entrepreneurs Group “AVIATION VALLEY” ‐ a unique high‐tech cluster, associating over 110 companies (www.dolinalotnicza.pl ), the Eastern Poland IT Companies Cluster, the Eastern Casting Cluster KOM‐CAST, the Podkarpackie Renewable Energy Cluster. The Smart Specialisation and ERDF Operational Programme are embedded in a more long term regional development strategy, which is available online in English.49 The total amount ass part of the Regional Operation Programme of the Podkarpackie Region 2014‐2020 and the Operational Programme for Eastern Poland 2014‐2020 is €1.182 billion from ERDF and €473.85 million from ESF funding. Priority actions for funding include ■

Mobility: Technologies and products of the aerospace industry. Multimodal, sustainable transport.

■

Climate and energy: Renewable energy sources and technologies associated with them. Balanced and intelligent construction (buildings, neighborhoods, cities). Biodegradable plastics. Electrical machinery industry.

■

Sustainable tourism: Cognitive tourism. Leisure tourism, eco-tourism, rural tourism. Adventure tourism. Health tourism. Business tourism. Culinary Tourism Religious tourism.

http://monitoruj.podkarpackie.pl/Grafika/Menu%20boczne/Dokumenty%20strategiczne/Region%20Developmen t%20Strategy.pdf [accessed 3rd July 2015].

■

Health, food, nutrition: Organic, regional and traditional food. Healthy, optimized, non-GMO diet. Preventive medicine. Care for the elderly.

■

ICT: High speed Internet access

The regional government has also developed a detailed monitoring system, to measure progress in the chosen priority areas. These include e.g. domestic and international sales in sectors related to the aviation and ICT, ndustry, the percentage of passive, zero‐energy and energy plus house; the share of renewable energy in total energy production; overall life expectancy. The Operation Programme 2014‐2020 can be found online, but is at the moment only available in Polish.50 However, a detailed ex‐ante evaluation of the RIS3 has been commissioned and conducted my Metis in 2013 and has been made available to the study team. Contact for further enquiries Marcin Galak, Regional Innovation Strategy, Marshall’s office, Regional Government Podkarpackie, Tel.: +48 17 747 64 52, email : m.garlak@podkarpackie.pl 3.3.4.2 Drenthe (Northern Netherlands), Netherlands

The province of Drenthe is the fourth smallest province of the Netherlands with 2,680 km2. As of 2012, it had 490,807 inhabitants (2.9 per cent of total Dutch population). Its regional GDP of €12.72b is 2.2 per cent of Dutch GDP (2010). The annual growth rate of regional GDP was 1.2 per cent between 2005‐2010, which is below Dutch average for the same period (2.3 per cent) and shows a decrease between 2008‐2010.51 At 0.4 per cent of GDP in 2009, Drenthe had the lowest research and development (R&D) intensity of all of the Dutch provinces (national average 1.82 per cent) together with Friesland (0.8 per cent) and Zeeland (0.63 per cent).52 Private contributions of 86.8 per cent of gross expenditures on R&D (GERD) were extremely high compared to the Dutch average (57 per cent of GERD). This can be explained by the fact that the province has no research universities. According to recent Eurostat figures, the regional GERD rose to 1.28 per cent in 2012. In drafting a smart specialisation strategy, Drenthe has joined forces with the neighbouring regions of Friesland and Groningen and developed a joint Smart Specialisation strategy for Northern Netherlands.53 The strategy has embedded sectoral specialisation in a number of societal challenges relevant for the region. These societal challenging include; ■

Health, Demography and Welfare;

■

Food Securit, Sustainable Agriculture and bio-economy;

■

Reliable, clean and efficient energy; and

http://www.rsi.podkarpackie.pl/Aktualnosci/Documents/RSI_woj.%2520podkarpackiego_2014‐ 2020%2520_Konsultacje%2520spoeczne.pdf [accessed on 3rd July 2015] 51 DG Research Regional Key Figures Database, 2010. 52 DG Research Regional Key Figures Database, 2010. 53 Northern Netherland Provinces (2013), Northern Netherlands Research and Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialisations (RIS3) http://www.snn.eu/upload/documenten/europa/ris3/draft‐ris3.pdf [accessed 3rd July 2015].

■

Clean and safe water.

The implementation of the strategy is built on five main strands: ■

A results-oriented approach: in the inception phase of the new funding period, the three regions involved will define societal effects the strategy aims to achieve along key societal challenges tackled and specific growth and employment targets;

■

Diligent monitoring and evaluation: A combination of quantitative and qualitative monitoring and evaluation tools are being used, built on bundling and coordination of regional surveys already conducted, including labour market surveys, regional disaggregation of national statistics on high growth sectors, qualitative monitoring on the regional scale, project-level monitoring, as required for European programmes;

■

Regional collaboration: aiming at creating synergies between the high number of SMEs and large enterprises, specific support for universities of applied sciences and vocational education institutions ; and

■

National and international collaboration, including partnership with Northern German regions implementing the new Interreg programme and participation in the RIS3 network, managed by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre.

The Operational Programme itself focuses mainly on SME support and improving their uptake of innovation.54 This is based on a needs assessment conducted by Panteia, which established that the percentage of SMEs who are developers and leaders is significantly smaller than on national average (see table 3.4). Table 3.3

SME Innovation Pyramid, Northern Netherlands

Netherlands

Provinces of Northern Netherlands

Innovation leaders

Innovation developers

17%

12%

Innovation adopters

19%

13%

Innovation followers

34%

43%

Non-innovators

25%

31%

Panteia (2013, Innovatie in het MKB in Noord-Nederland [Innovation in the SME Sector in the Northern Netherlands].

The Operational Programme seeks to address this by tackling two main perceived obstacles to innovation: ■

Small businesses appear to be insufficiently capable of exploiting existing knowledge and/or generating knowledge, and

■

Small businesses are insufficiently successful when it comes to valorising knowledge, which involves converting knowledge into new products and services.

Northern Netherland Provinces (2014), Operational Programme. European Development Regional Fund 2014‐ 2020. Prioritising innovation and a low‐carbon economy. http://www.snn.eu/upload/documenten/subsidies/subsidieprogrammas/op‐efro_summary_web.pdf [accessed 3rd July 2015].]

Three main priorities have been set by the Operational Programme to address these shortcomings. ■

■

Strengthening of human capital – including actions to include: – support clusters of businesses and education institutions to develop demand-driven curricula that facilitate the alignment of demand for and supply of highly skilled workers (in the form of business training programmes and work placement programmes for tutors, for example). –

to develop structures that allow corporate R&D facilities to be used by education institutions.

–

To support E-portfolio systems that provide an overview of and enable the exchange of knowledge and experience within and between clusters (digital curriculum vitae with additional information about skills, references, feedback, etc.).

–

setting up of structures that are analogous to Centres of Expertise, or additional activities undertaken by existing Centres of Expertise and research groups.

Fostering knowledge development – including actions to – Knowledge development and research by businesses working in partnership with knowledge institutions or other businesses. –

assist small businesses with the acquisition of new knowledge.

–

Enable staff exchange among small businesses, or between small businesses and large businesses or small businesses and knowledge institutions for the purpose

Promoting valorisation – including – Innovation processes aimed at the development of new products, concepts, technologies and services. – Testing of innovative applications in a practical environment with a view to valorisation of new technologies provided that the testing is a logical part of the innovation process. – Valorisation of products and services that involves the creation or improvement of testing ground facilities designed to support innovation processes conducted by or involving the corporate sector.

Contact for further enquiries ■

Danny Kerstholt, T +31(0)50 5224 964, M +31(0)6 4129 2847, E-mail kerstholt@snn.eu , www.snn.eu

3.3.4.3 South Ostrobothnia, Finland

The region of South Ostrobothnia (Etela‐Pohjanmaa in Finnish) covers an area of 13,444 km2 with a population of 193,977. The region has a highly educated population, with 85.6 per cent of the 20‐59 olds having completed post secondary school qualification.55 The intramural R&D expenditure of the region was 0,66 per cent in 2014.56

Presentation at the Peer Review Workshop of the Joint Research Centre’s Smart Specialisation Platform 6‐7 November 2014. http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/baiona‐november‐2014 [accessed on 29 April 2015]. 56 Ibid.

The region invests in a series of ‘skill and service entities’ which will support company growth and internationalisation. These are: ■

Start up and grow up! – International cooperation with other regions to support creation and growth of start-ups;

■

Go global! – International cooperation in smart specialisation sectors

■

Get talent! – Investments in education to improve the region’s skill level

Similar to Cornwall and IoS, South Ostrobothnia has a large proportion of SMEs. However only a small number of regional companies show significant growth or internationalisation trends. Export as a proportion of production was under 10% in 2012. In the preparation of South Ostrobothnia’s Strategy for Smart Specialisation, different skill sectors and their aligned operations were identified, combining the views of business concerning sectors with development potential and that are growth seeking, and the development possibilities identified by education and training organisations.57 This mapping exercise resulted in the following smart specialisation sectors: ■

Sustainable food systems and new solutions for the bioeconomy: New systems and solutions for agrotechnology, new solutions in the field of bioeconomy and high added value, food systems and expert services, consumer oriented and unique products for the food stuff sector, food safety in the foodstuff production chain;

■

Smart and energy efficient systems: User friendly and smart machines and instruments, new health technology applications, thermal management, smart and efficient logistical systems, new solutions of metal and wooden construction; and

■

Regeneration of service and experience production: Welfare and event tourism, event production, networked welfare services.

Contact for further enquiries Jaako Hallila, Manager of International Affairs, Tel. +358 40 3565 630, jaakko.hallila@etela‐ pohjanmaa.fi , Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia, Finland.

Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia (2014), South Ostrobothnia. Smart Outstanding. Strategy for Smart Specialisation. http://www.epliitto.fi/images/B_64_South_Ostrobothnia_Smart_and_Outstanding_Strategy_for_Smart_Specialisa tion.pdf [accessed 3rd July 2015].

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Appendix B – List of Sector Workshop Invitees and Consultees58

Not all invitees to the workshop events attended.

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Event Names Workshop Date

E‐digital Workshop and Consultations 20th May 2015

Name: Invited

Company

Miriam Venner

Cornwall College Group

Toby Parkins

Uknetweb/Headforwards

Paul Clark

CEO of Packet Ship Technologies

Mike Barritt

MD at Sullivan Cuff Software Ltd

Ben Coleman

Design director @ fffunction

Brenda Graham

AMION Consulting

Cindy Dalgleish

Affiliatespace

Jo Pyrah

MD of Green Light PBS Ltd

Liz Brooks

Product Management and Marketing Consultant

Belinda Waldock

Agile on the Beach and Software Cornwall

Steve Jan Hawker

Director & Technical Specialist Kernow Business Intelligence Solutions Ltd

Roger Isaacson

MD at Data‐Frame Solutions Ltd

Angelo Spencer‐Smith

Positioning and differentiation strategist

Eleanor Jubb

AIR, Falmouth University‐Interface of digital research

Wo King

Digital Solutions Company

Mark Jennings

N‐coders ‐ Bespoke software/server management

Elliot Walker

Coast 360 Digital Marketing

Jean Taylor

Head of Strategic Economic Dev, University of Exeter

Dr Andrew Jupe

Altcom Ltd

Ian Baker

Catalys

Professor Anne Carlisle Professor Phil Moore

Falmouth University Falmouth University

Graham Russell

AMION Consulting

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Event Names

Future Economy – General Innovation Workshop & Consultations

Workshop Date

1st June 2015

Name: Invited Eleanor Jubb

Company

Mel Colton‐Dyer

Falmouth University Head, Strategic Economic Development, Cornwall Research & Knowledge Transfer Exeter University Business Connections Manager ‐ Cornwall Chamber of Commerce

Lindsey Hall

CEO Real Ideas Organisation

Professor Philip Moore

Pro Vice Chancellor (R&I), Director of AIR, Falmouth University

Andrew Brewer

FG Brewer and Sons Farms Ltd

Colin Roberts

Health and Wellbeing Innovation Centre Strategy Board

Karen Murray

Manager, Health and Wellbeing Innovation Centre

Matt Borne

Cornwall College (representing)

Jean Taylor

Deborah Bennets

Cornwall College

Alex Lake

Cornwall Marine

Richard Scutt

Manager, Pool Innovation Centre

Ian Jones

CEO Goonhilly Earth Station Ltd

Professor Ann Carlisle

FE Board Chair, Falmouth University

Jo Hancock Toby Parkins

Truro Penwith University HeadForwards

Adrian Dawson

Plymouth University

Matthew Thomson

Cornwall Food Foundation

Matt Hodson

Mojo Maritime

Jo Banks

Cornwall Council Cornwall Manufacturing Forum

Ken Martin Edward Chapman

Regional Secretary ‐ Federation of Small Businesses

Graham Russell

AMION Consulting

Brenda Graham

AMION Consulting

Thelma Sorenson Eleanor Jubb

Cornwall Business Partnership AIR, Falmouth University

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Event Names

Agri‐tech Workshop & Consultations

Workshop Date Name: Invited

30th April 2015

David Rodda

CDC

Andrew Brewer

Dairy farmer; member of the DairyCo research panel

Dr Phil LeGrice

Duchy College

Andrew Williams

LEP

David Simmons

Riveria Produce

Dr Steve Tones

Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board or AHDB

Mark Oliver

Dairy farmer

Richard Jones

Dairy Crest

Mike Hambly

Arable Grower

Organisation

Catherine Mead

Lynher Dairies

Mel Squires MBE

National Farmers Union

Stephen Bone

Dairy Crest Direct/Mole Valley Farmers

Jeremy Oatey

Haye Farm Produce

Prof Michael Winter

University of Exeter

Prof Kevin Gaston

University of Exeter

Rachel Brice

Cornwall Council ‐ natural capital concept

Sir Tim Smit

Eden Project

Dan James Charlotte Russell Andrew Ormerod

Development Director EDEN Project Head of Learning Partnerships EDEN Project Alchemy_360 & Eden Project

Prof Robbie McDonald

University of Exeter

Ian Richmond

Arla

Mike Houghton

Andersons Consulting

Lily Hiscock

Andersons Consulting

Richard Thomas

Farmer

Andrew Richards

Farmer

Jo Button

Farmer

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Bill Clarke

Trewithen Dairy

Martin Whell

Farmer

Matt borne

Duchy College

Jonathan Jones

Tregothnan

Martin Stanbury

Farmer

Phil Ugalde

Proper Cornish Food

Peter Hardaker

Cornwall Grain

Andrew May

Farmer

Elisia Bott

Cornwall Council

Anthony Wills

Farmer

Darren Croft

UoE

Kevin Sales

UoE

John Mortimer

CLA

Rob Poole

RCC

Edward Richardson

Cllr Jim Candy

Farm Cornwall, Penwith, Cornwall Cornwall Council

Paul Ward

Rural Business School

Wayne Simmons

Rural Business School

Ian Baker

Catalys

Jo Talbot

JOHT

Matthew Thomson

Cornwall Food Foundation

Richard Soffe

Director – Rural Business School

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Adrian Rundle

Barclays

Patrick Aubrey‐Fletcher

NFU

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Event Namea Workshop Date

E‐health and E‐Well‐being Workshop & Consultations 1st May 2015

Name: Invited

Organisation

Jackie Andrade

Plymouth University

Anthony Ball

Cornwall Council Public Health

Michael Barritt

INR Star/Sullivan Cuff

Emma Bland

University of Exeter

Elisia Bott

Cornwall Council

William Box

Carnego Systems

Chris Cannaby

Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust

Caroline Court

Cornwall Clinical Commissioning Group/Public Health

Denbigh Cowley

Cornwall Council

Trevor Drage

BT Cornwall Telehealthcare

Lora Fleming

University of Exeter

Stephen Frankell

Wadebridge Renewal Energy

Steven Graham

University of Exeter

Tamsyn Harris

Truro‐Penwith College

Aisling Hick

Council of the Isles of Scilly

Charlotte Hill

Cornwall Council/Health and Wellbeing Board

Ian Jones

Volunteer Cornwall

Ray Jones

Plymouth University

Eleanor Jubb

Falmouth University

Lorraine Long

NHS Kernow CCG

Ethna McCarthy

Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust

Philip Moore

Falmouth University

Simon Nichols

Microtest

Ulrike Richards

Plymouth University

Colin Roberts

Health and Wellbeing Innovation Centre Board

Sandra Rothwell Natalie Russell Angela Shore Jon Sidall Edward Trewhella Paul Upton

Cornwall & Isles of Scilly LEP Cornwall Development Company University of Exeter South West Academic Health and Science Network Mobility Centre Ultramed Ltd

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Douglas Webb Robert Woolf Andrew Abbott Mike Thomas Dan Goodwin Toby Parkin Jonathan and Sarah Trethowan Dan Williams Tom Gillibrand Paul Axten Emma Thomas Lisa Clark

Cornwall Care Made Open (was Sea Communications) Kernow Clinical Commissioning Group Cornwall Sports Partnership fffunction (Headforwards and) Cornwall Chamber of Commerce TRAC Services My Clinical Outcomes Headforwards Buzz Interactive Sprint Digital Cornwall College

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Event Names

Marine Tech Workshop & Consultations

Workshop Date

22nd May 2015 Organisation

Name: Invited Andy Bristow

Seatricity

Tim Sawyer

Carnegie

Rebecca Cutter

Carnegie

Rob Misslebrook

DWE

Aki Luukkainen

Wello

Sam Roch‐Perks

Simply Blue

Ronan Costello

Wave Venture

Rob Eavis

Polygen

Paul Weston

A&P

Jezz Littlejohns

A&P

Nikki Meek

Gobe Consultants

Steve Jermy

Mojo Maritime

Ben Gowers

BG Renewables

Tim Salmon

Reflex Marine

Laura Hamilton

Reflex Marine

David Rubie‐Todd

Wave Power (Private investors based in Glastonbury)

Robert Rawlinson Smith

DNV GL

Michael Bullock

Renewable Risk Advisers

Lars Johanning

Exeter University

Deborah Greaves

Plymouth University

Peter Holland

Plymouth University

Matt Borne

Cornwall College and Falmouth Marine School

Claire Gibson

Wave Hub

Helen Wilson Prowse

Wave Hub

Alex Whatley

FaB Test

John Pollard

Cornwall Council

Paul Holmes

CMN & MOR

Johnny Gowdy

SWMEP

Councillor Richard Macarthy

Isles of Scilly

Paul Wickes

Cornwall Marine Network

Simon Cheeseman

ORE Catapult

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Amanda Pound

Invest in Cornwall

Lucy Hunt

Invest in Cornwall

Stuart Farmer

ORDP

Brenda Graham

Amion

Graham Russell

(Director at AMION

Jo Talbot

JOHT Resources

Capt. Mark Sansom

CEO and Harbour Master at Falmouth Harbour Commissioners

Robert Keeling

Local Economic Growth Team

Jason Clark

LDDrill

Peter Mitchell

Seatricity

Adrian Jones

Rustler Yachts

Nick Offord

Rustler Yachts

Mike Reynolds

CMN Board Member

Jim Grant

Exeter University

Ian Godfrey

SWMEP

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Event Names

Aerospace Workshop & Consultations

Workshop Date:

19th May

Name: Invited

Organisation

Graham Russell

AMION Consulting

Maria Salcedo

AMION Consulting

Richard Trevail

DP Engineering

Andrew Hosking

WES Ltd

Alison Parker

Smiths Advanced Metals

Kevin Glenister

Apple Aviation

Michael Gibbs

European Springs

Derek Pollitt

Teddington Electronics Ltd

Christopher Savage

Pall Redruth

John Hicks

RAM Gaskets

Gary Hicks

Preci Spark

James Watt

Flann Microwave

David Ashford

Bristol Spaceplane Operations

Andrew Cameron

Lowley Engineering

Suzanne Bennett

R & R Bassett

Andy Gauler

Righton Aerospace

Al Titterington

Newquay Cornwall Airport

Lucy Hunt

Invest in Cornwall

Yvonne Elsorougi

BIS

Rob Emony

UKTI

Simon Young

WEAF

Ken Martin

Cornwall Manufacturing Forum

Miles Cardin

Aerohub

Paul Readfern

Aerospace Consultant

Tim Rice

GMX

Edward Hornagold

Cornwall College

Jean Taylor

Exeter University

Simon Dawes

Aerospace Advisory Panel

Elisia Bott

Cornwall Council

Phil Woods Dr Paul Gilmore Professor Philip Moore

Cornwall Council Plymouth University Falmouth University

Cornwall Council Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Research, Development and Innovation Evidence Base Appendices ‐ APPENDICES to Evidence Report October 2015

Event Name Event Date Name: Invited

Isles of Scilly Workshop 22nd June 2015 Organisation

Diana Mompoloki

Council of the Isle of Scilly – Strategic Development

Doug Holt Luke Humphries

Marine Tech Duchy Land Steward‐ Agri Tech / Strategic overview

Theo Lejester

CIOS – Chief Executive

Joel Williams

CIOS – Senior Manager‐ Services to the community

John Peacock

Marine Tech

Daisy Kelly Fletcher

Marine Tech interest

Andrew May

Chairman Cornwall Agri‐food Council

Sophie Hughes

CIOS

Penny Penn‐Howard

Health and Well Being

Trish Peacock

Council of Isles of Scilly‐Skills

David Jackson

Island Partnership

Jo Evans

Lifelong Learning

Brenda Graham

AMION Consulting

Maria Salcedo

AMION Consulting

Consultations with Space Sector contacts Name Organisation Andrew Fry

Avanti Communications

Ian Jones

GES Ltd

James Watts

Flann Microwave

Samantha Lavender

Pixalytics

Colin Baldwin

UK Space Agency

Iain Mackleworth

Cornwall Council

Jean Taylor

Exeter University

Phil Moore

Falmouth University