Sectoral and regional innovation systems IP INNONATOUR 2010

Sectoral and regional innovation systems IP INNO-NATOUR 2010, Suceava Gerhard Weiss

New Income from New Products and Services u Innovation and entrepreneurship is THE engine behind economic growth and job opportunities. u Modern economic policy becomes more and more innovation policy (see „Lisbon Strategy“ of the EU) u Societal changes mean new challenges for the forestry sector but also new opportunities!

New Challenges -

– new opportunities

– new opportunities … o Growing demand for timber o Renewables (biomass) o New „Services“: v Recreation v Biodiversity v Spirituality v. . . .

Product Mix of Forest Holdings in CE

Income of Forest Holdings in CE

Innovations of Forest Holdings in CE organisational products services technological

Sectoral Innovation System „System of firms active in developing and making a sector‘s products and in generating and utilizing a sector‘s technologies“ (Breschi and Malerba 1997) u Particular combinations of opportunity and appropriability conditions u Particular degrees of cumulativeness of technological knowledge u Common knowledge base

Sectoral Innovation Systems u SIS comprise of actors of one specific sector and the majority of functions are fulfilled by these actors. u SIS in traditional, mature sectors support more process than product innovations and are strongly oriented at traditional business areas.

Example: Forestry SIS in Austria

Forestry SIS in Austria: Actor network on national level

Forestry SIS in Austria: Actor network on national level u SIS consists of a „traditional coalition“. u Is not in contact with NIS actors. u Lacks of intersectoral relations.

Actor network on provincial and district levels

Actor network on provincial and district levels u Cross-sectoral interaction happens ad-hoc on the ground … u without strategic planning on higher administational levels.

Regional Innovation System „geographical distinctive, interlinked [institutions and] organizations supporting innovation and those conducting it, mainly firms“ (Cooke et al. 1996) u Spatial and social proximity are important conditions for the realisation of innovation u Facilitate exchange of knowledge, create learning processes

Regional Innovation Systems u RIS are mainly characterized by actors located in a specific region rather than by a specific sector. u. Cross-sectoral. u Majority of functions of the innovation system are fulfilled by regional actors. u. Suitable for „territorial“services of forests.

The LEADER approach u EU funding programme: Community initiative (LEADER , LEADER II, LEADER +). Mainstreaming in Rural Development Programme since 2007 -2013. u National programmes and LEADER regions for programming period: Region is submitted by LAG with a regional development strategy. LAG manages and implements projects in the frame of the strategy.

The LEADER approach u EU funding programme: Community initiative (LEADER , LEADER II, LEADER +). Mainstreaming in Rural Development Programme since 2007 -2013. u National programmes and LEADER regions for programming period: Region is submitted by LAG with a regional development strategy. LAG manages and implements projects in the frame of the strategy.

The LEADER approach u Territorial: Regional development concept for a specific deliniated region. u Partnership: Public and private actors in LAG. u Bottom-up: Regional development strategy and projects are developed independently by the region.

The LEADER approach u Multi-sectoral: Projects should span different sectors. u Innovative: New ideas should specifically encouraged and supported. u Cooperation and networking: Cooperation of the regions – Europeanwide networking.

Regional development: AT example u Regional management agencies: Exist in most provinces in different organisational forms. u Have often been triggered by the LEADER programme. u LEADER management: u. Independent; work for LAG. Both provide information, coordination, and financing functions.

Case Study Analyses 1. 2. 3. Recreational Services: Forest Cottages - Almliesl u Enthusiasm alone doesn‘t make an innovation 4.

Forest Cottages „Almliesl“

Forest Cottages „Almliesl“ Content of the innovation: • Rents 12 forest cottages for tourists in co-operation with a tourist agency • 1998: “Hüttenerlebnis Tirol” • 2001: Re-organisation - “Almliesl“ Carrier: • Österreichische Bundesforste AG Austrian Federal Forest Company • Regional Forest Enterprise „Hopfgarten“

Forest Cottages „Almliesl“ Company characterisation: • Österreichische Bundesforste AG (ÖBf AG) Austrian Federal Forest Company area: 850 000 ha staff: 1350 employees • yields: 2 Mio m 3/year sales: 150 Mio Euro/year Regional Forest Enterprise „Hopfgarten“ area: 35 000 ha staff: 46 employees yields: 80 000 m 3/year sales: 7 Mio Euro/year 150 000 euro returns from tourism = 2%

Forest Cottages „Almliesl“ Chronology: 1998: Idea of a staff member “Hüttenerlebnis Tirol” Enthusiastic realisation by regional enterprise manager Renovation and improvement of 12 cottages Advertising activities (Adv. Agency/HMS) 1999/2000: crisis legal and financial problems 2001: Re-organisation • Re-evaluation by head office • New regional enterprise manager • Cooperation with tourist agency/brand „Almliesl“

Forest Cottages „Almliesl“ Actors: Regional forest enterprise: Project carrier Company head office: Re-organisation Staff: Idea, partly in favour/partly critical Authorities: Mayor; land use authority Neighbours: Watch/may complain Advertising agency: Concept I “Hüttenerlebnis” Cottage rent service (HMS): “Hüttenerlebnis” Tourist agency (MTS): Brand “Almliesl”

Forest Cottages „Almliesl“ Innovation: Idea: Rent complete house for tourists in rural landscape. New to forest sector, not to rural area/agricultural sector; moderately developed market (e. g. “farm holidays”); well developed e. g. in Toskana/Italy • • • No support by institutional system (not asked for) No co-operation between regional/head office at start No co-operation with tourist agency at start, later yes Communication failures with staff Decentral: idea and project management/ Central: re-organisation (calculation and concept)

Forest Cottages „Almliesl“ Potential: Demand: ü growing demand for holiday apartments; ü enduring trend for nature/wellness holidays Supply: ü cottages exist in forest companies ! need for renovation/improvements % potential conflicts with hunting business Ø find consensus/locate at borders of hunting districts % limited acceptance by foresters/forest owners ü preference for families (supply meets demand)

Forest Cottages „Almliesl“ Conclusions: Foresee the 4 C‘s! Concept: PM, business plan, financial calculation, legal assessment Communication: internal: * head office * staff external: * authorities * neighbours Consultation: use of in-house resources or professional consultants or extension services of the institutional system Cooperation: with professional partners (know-how and network)

Forest Cottages „Almliesl“ Conclusions: Foresee the 4 C‘s!

A Case

A Case: The TANNO house u Problem

A Case: The TANNO house u Problem u Idea u First financing attempt: Rural Development Funds u Second financing attempt: Regional Development F. (Leader+ Region „Kraftspendedörfer Joglland“)

A Case: The TANNO house u Actors: u ARGE Tanno: regional forest associations, saw-mill, furniture manufactorer, wellness facilities (sauna), pre-fab company, architect (Gemini). u Chamber of agriculture (regional office). u pro. Holz (timber marketing) – finding an architect u Rural and regional development funds coordination offices (ILE; EU regional mngtmt) u Designer (on contractual basis for furniture design)

A Case: The TANNO house u Results: u A number of products (pre-fab, furniture, sauna) u Modern design (house, furniture) u Modern technology (low energy house) u Sales have started u Several awards u Follow-up project: TANNO + Gemini technology (plus energy house)

A Case: The TANNO house u Conclusions: u Considerable time investments are necessary and frustrations in the starting phase have to be calculated! u Cross-sectoral cooperation takes a lot of time but pays the effort! u Look out for „non-sectoral“ subsidies!

Conclusions u Results from INNOFORCE studies prove the importance of institutional level interactions and public and private institutional actors: Even in the case of very simple innovations that are mainly developed by one single company there already many actors to be considered (e. g. authorities), or business cooperations that are recommended! Even more important in complex cases!

Recommendations – Institutional Level u Develop a comprehensive innovation policy for the forestry sector u Provide Information on New Markets and Improve Information Flows u Facilitate Cross-sectoral Co-ordination u Provide Incentives that Systematically Foster Innovation

Thank you www. efi-innoforce. org