Valorial AGFORISE Report

Introductory note

A report by TASO economic and business development

Valorial - pôle de compétitivité

Benchmarking report in the frame of AGFORISE - agrofood clusters platform

Introductory note

From creative industries to the creative place

Refreshing the local development agenda in smalland medium-sized towns

Introduction

In the last two years, the recognition of Grupo TASO’s expertise in cluster development issues, especially applied to agriculture and food industry, has resulted in related demand at European level, a significant achievement for a modest firm in terms of size.

TASO’s participation in the Agforise project is one result of this process. Funded under the “Regions of Knowledge” initiative of the European Union’s 7th Framework Programme, Agforise is a concrete initiative towards cluster-to-cluster cooperation, which aims at building a strong cooperation strategy between the agrofood clusters of the regions of Mersin (Turkey), Emilia Romagna (Italy) and Murcia (Spain), through the establishment of a common sustainable dialogue platform. 13 entities are actively involved in the project, each one – company, research entity, public administration or intermediary body – bringing added value from a different perspective but with complementary properties regarding their expertise or function.

In this perspective, Grupo TASO endeavours to put its expertise in cluster development at the service of the project. After supporting the Murcia partners in the elaboration of strategic diagnosis documents, a first step of the Agforiseproject, TASO was entrusted with the organization of the benchmarking activity for the Murcia partnership and the elaboration of the related report. This activity basically aimed at providing a complementary input in the debates regarding cooperation opportunities between the partner clusters of Agforise, which are mainly determined on the basis of a comparison study between the three clusters. In the same time, the benchmarking study was a good opportunity to identify good practices of cluster management and to get inspiration for the improvement of internal cluster development issues.

Further to this task, the challenge for Grupo TASO in the Agforise project will be to fruitfully contribute to the reflexions on the building a functional inter-cluster cooperation strategy, and more specifically to the Joint Action Plan.

Content

01 Criteria for benchmark selection. Page 3

02 The choice of the Valorial cluster. Page 5

03 Organisation of the study visit. Page 8

04 Diagnosis of the Valorial cluster. Page 12

05 Potentially transferable practices to the Murcia agrofood cluster. Page 45

Valorial - Pôle de Compétitivité. A report in the frame of AGFORISE - 7FP 2

01 Criteria for benchmark selection


For this exercise of benchmarking, and in the frame of AGFORISE, the Murcia partners of the project

agreed to base their search of a cluster on a set of criteria which partly result from key elements

highlighted during the previous activities of strategic diagnosis (SWOT analysis and definition of

strategic orientations). The benchmark had to be characterized by similarities with the Murcia cluster

regarding initial conditions and key stakes in the perspective of cluster development. The following

items were the most relevant:

• Strong agricultural tradition;

• A food industry facing the challenge to increase the added value of its productions;

• The presence of companies along the whole value chain, in core and related activities

(including auxiliary industries such as packaging and equipment);

• A combination of excellence research centres and technology transfer structures;

• A recent move towards a comprehensive cluster development;

• Low private R+D investments and human resources, especially from SMEs.

The basic idea was to find a cluster that had successfully engaged itself in a trend of implication of

SMEs in collaborative R+D projects. Other important element for the benchmark is the current

context, in the Murcia Region, of pending development of an operational structure for the cluster

management and governance and of effective intervention to foment collaborative projects. We

were interested in finding a cluster whose development was not “spontaneous” or driven by

companies – like in the case of Italian districts – but the result of public initiative. We acknowledged

the importance of public incentives to launch the process of cluster development.

We should also mention secondary criteria for our search:

• Food cluster based on vegetables and fruit;

• Innovation focused on packaging and processes.

We were also interested in taking some distance with famous “success stories” – which have already

generated studies – and finding a cluster with good results but still learning, and especially learning

from its first steps in the development process. In addition to bring new material in the benchmark

literature, we thought we had more to learn from people who acknowledge difficulties and are facing

well‐identified challenges in the management of the cluster.


02 The choice of the “Valorial”cluster


Building on our search criteria and as a first step, the case of French food clusters was pointed out as a pertinent option, without excluding other possibilities which could emerge from the analysis of

existing reports.

First, the French policy of “pôles de compétitivité” (competitiveness poles, PC) presented several

advantages. Appointed as a national strategic policy framework, it has generated literature. The

existence of a specific website guaranteed the availability of useful information for a benchmark.

Drawing a parallel with Murcia, where cluster development has entered recently the public agenda

of industrial development, this policy represents an interesting case of strong public initiative to

trigger processes of cluster development, a relatively emergent concept in France – the PC policy

actually started in 2006 – in opposition to pioneer countries such as Scandinavian countries. Among

the 71 clusters supported by the PC policy were to be found several agro‐food clusters.

Eventually, with a French‐speaking person among TASO staff, it was possible to extend the

investigation of the cluster to documents written in the native language of the cluster and its

partners.

Among the information to be found on the “Pôles de compétitivité” website, we have been able to

get a synthesis of the intermediate evaluation of the first 5‐year programming period of the PC

policy. The evaluation was carried out between November 2007 and June 2008, by Boston Consulting

Group and CM International consultancy firms, for the Governmental Delegation for Regional

Planning and Territorial Competitiveness (DIACT), the executive agency for the policy. This

represented a valuable piece of information for the benchmark selection and the following study.

The synthesis included general considerations regarding the implementation of the policy, some

policy recommendations and a basic ranking of poles. A distinction was done between poles which

had reached all or part of the policy objectives and others which needed a reconfiguration. The

“Valorial” and the “Agrimip Innovation” poles – also approached as a potential benchmark – were

the two agro‐food clusters among the 39 poles judged as “having reached the policy objectives”.

The availability of websites was a key point for a preliminary investigation on our potential

benchmark

As a second step, Valorial and its regional context (the Brittany region) were investigated through the

information available on the cluster’s website, but also on the website of national and regional

authorities dealing with agriculture and the food industry.

Regarding the regional context, elements from different diagnosis highlighted Brittany as a region

with a traditionally strong and diversified agriculture, which gave way to a significant industrial

development from the 1950s. A significant orientation of the food industry towards exportation, but


highly vulnerable to international competition echoed to characteristics of the food industry in the

Murcia Region and the whole Western agro‐food industries.

Eventually, some concrete facts confirmed our interest for the Valorial pole:

• The existence of a cluster manager and the involvement of stakeholders for the cluster

governance;

• A concrete dynamics of cluster development: at the end of 2009, about a hundred and fifty

collaborative projects had been “labelled” by Valorial, 42% of them were led by SMEs;

• Valorial’s strategic orientations:

o Improving the industry’s international visibility and credibility;

o Developing added value to products and reactivity to market evolutions;

o Offensive innovation strategy based on the needs of companies;

o Transversal priorities such as packaging and processes, functional ingredients and

food microbiology, nutrition and health.


03 Organisation of the study visit


ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY VISIT

Once the managers of Valorial enthusiastically agreed to host a delegation of the Agforise partners,

the first challenge was to set the dates of the visit, taking into account the availability of the different

stakeholders and the French and Spanish calendars of festivities. The basic idea was to arrange a

short visit of one day and a half. The 24 and 25th of June resulted as the best option. Another

consequence of such a short format was the necessity to concentrate the activities (meetings and

visits) in Rennes, the capital of the Brittany region and home of Valorial’s headquarters.

Thanks to the total availability of Cécile Vauchez, head of projects for Western Bretagne and our

contact for the organization of the visit, we were able to collect a significant amount of information

before the visit and also to have an open dialogue to define the visit agenda.

In this context, our ambition was to make the most of the information that had been provided and to

arrange a visit that should allow to concentrate on exchanges and to obtain qualitative information

from different stakeholders of the cluster.

Three visit items were defined:

• Meeting with the managers of Valorial, including with the director of Valorial

Obviously meeting with the managers of Valorial first aimed at a reciprocal presentation. The

purpose was also to get a better understanding of the cluster features and challenges, the

interventions of the management entity, the policy framework and the project funding

schemes.

• Meeting with collaborative project holders

This session, intended to focus on the issue of collaborative projects within the cluster, has

been the most difficult to organize. Our first wish was to set up a reunion about two or three

collaborative projects with, for each project, the presence of a representative from a partner

company and a representative from a partner research entity. Unfortunately and not

surprisingly, our interlocutor was not successful in having companies participate in the

meeting.

Then, we opted for a more pragmatic approach, which consisted of inviting to the meeting

representatives from some technical centres involved in Valorial. The advantage was that

these technical centres, whose one of initial functions is to foment technology transfers, are

involved in the cluster governance (technical support to project holders and organization of

thematic commissions) and also participate in collaborative projects.


• Visit to a technology centre or a research facility

Visiting a research‐driven facility focused on fruit and vegetables was our first wish, but no

such facility was to be found in Rennes. However, Cécile Vauchez suggested an alternative,

the STLO Platform (Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs), an academic research facility

that is opened to private R+D activities. This aspect totally corresponded to our expectations,

even though the platform specialized in other types of products than the core products of

Murcia food industry.

With Cécile Vauchez before the visit of the STLO Platform


Visit agenda to Valorial, June, 2010

June 24

10 AM – 1 PM Meeting with the managers of Valorial

Michel PINEL, Director of Valorial

Cécile VAUCHEZ, Head of projects for Western Bretagne

Meeting agenda:

o Presentation of the Agforise project and the Murcia cluster;

o Presentation of Valorial and the cluster’s organization and functioning;

o Questions and exchanges.

2.30 PM – 5 PM Meeting with Valorial’s thematic officers


Hélène LE POCHER, Technology Adviser on Nutrition and Health, CRITT Santé

Bretagne (regional centre for innovation and technology transfer in health

issues)

Dominique THUAULT, Director of Research and Innovation, ADRIA

Développement (technical centre for R+D, training and technology transfer in

nutrition, technical food process, microbiology and food safety)

Anne‐Blandine HELIAS, Végénov (technical centre for R+D, training and

technology transfer in plant breeding and health, quality and traceability)

Meeting agenda:

o Presentation of the technical centres;

o Presentation of the thematic commissions and working groups;

o Presentation of projects, with a special focus on their emergence and

partnerships;

o Questions

June 25

9 AM – 10 AM Visit of the STLO Platform (Science and Technology of Milk and Eggs)

Visit agenda:

o Meeting with Sylvie LORTAL, director of the STLO Platform: presentation of

the platform and the services to companies, discussion on cooperative

research projects and market‐oriented research

o Visit of the platform’s facilities

10 AM – 12 AM Benchmark complements and conclusions



04 Diagnosis of the “Valorial” cluster


DIAGNOSIS OF THE “VALORIAL” CLUSTER

1.1. Brittany, the leading region of French food industry

1.1.1. Basic geographic and demographic data

+ reg ional map with cities

Brittany is one of the 22 administrative regions of Metropolitan France, located in the north‐west of

the country, on the Atlantic front, with the city of Rennes as regional capital (around 200,000

inhabitants).

According to data from the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies1, Brittany

occupies 27,208 km, 4.3% of the national territory.

With a legal population of 3,120,288 in 2007 (5% of metropolitan population), it ranks seventh

among the French most populated regions.

1 Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE), http://www.insee.fr.


http://www.insee.fr/

1.1.2. Agriculture and food industry, pillars of Brittany’s economy

Agriculture, along with fishing, can be considered as historic sectors of Brittany’s economy, which

have allowed the development of a strong food industry from the 1950s.

In 2007, the primary sector and food industries employed about 138,000 persons, 12% of regional

employment, and made up 8% of the regional Gross Domestic Product, twice as much as the national

metropolitan average2.

The following map demonstrates the importance of these activities in the local economies of the

major part of the regional territory, which involves some degree of vulnerability of these local

economies. The blank areas can also count with the presence of farms and food companies (like in

the metropolitan area of regional capital Rennes), but the weight of these activities in the whole local

economy is more marginal. In total, 83.5% of regional territory is occupied by farming lands3.

Economic profile of sub‐regional areas

Source : Original map from Direction Régionale de l’Equipement de Bretagne, 2004

2 Tableaux de l’agriculture bretonne 2009, Agreste Bretagne – Regional Delegation of the French Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing. 3 Schéma Régional de Développement Economique Bretagne (SRDE), Regional Council of Brittany, 2006.


Brittany stands out as the first French region regarding fishing activities (40% of national

employment in this sector) and agricultural production (13% of national output)4. Over the last

decades, Brittany’s agriculture has undergone a process of intensification of its production.

Restructuring and professionalization – which have been implying a significant decrease in the

number of farms and of the workforce and an increase of the average farm size – and urban pressure

on agricultural land are also two heavy current trends.

Farms and Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA), 2007

Source: Enquêtes structure, Agreste, French Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing

Note: The category “Other farming orientations” includes polyculture, mixed livestock farming and unclassified

farms

Brittany’s agriculture is dominated by diversified livestock farming – 62% of the 37,658 farms and

65.1% of regional UAA in 2007 – with however a significant orientation towards cattle and dairy

production. Nationally, the region ranks first in livestock production. In 2008, it amounted 57% of

national pigmeat production, 42% of egg production, a third of poultrymeat production, 25% of veal

production and 21% of milk production5.

Although « only » some 4,800 farms are dedicated to vegetable crops6 – 13% of total farms –

Brittany’s vegetable production has a first‐range importance in the national scenario regarding

cauliflowers, artichokes and shallots (more than 80% of national production in 2008), smooth and

green peas (respectively 35% and a third) and tomatoes (26%, and 50% of the revenue generated by

regional vegetable production). 5% of vegetable production is based on greenhouse growing.

4 SRDE Bretagne), Regional Council of Brittany, 2006. 5 Tableaux de l’agriculture bretonne 2009, Agreste Bretagne – Regional Delegation of the French Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing. 6 La filière légumes en Bretagne, Regional Delegation of the French Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing, December 2008.


Food industry, the first regional industrial sector

Brittany’s industry, which represents around 20% of regional economic activities and is ranked sixth

at national level, is characterized by a high degree of specialization in a limited number of sectors.

Food industry is one of the 4 main industrial sectors in the region (along with the automotive

industry, ICTs and naval construction), and actually the first industrial sector. In 2007, it concentrated

a third of regional industrial employment, about 68,000 employees.

Food industry establishments according to their employment size, 2005

Source: National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE)

This chart reveals the specific characteristics of the employment structure of Brittany’s food industry

regarding the national scenario. The most significant of them is to be found among large

establishments. Establishments with a minimum of 250 employees made up in 2005 5.4% of regional

establishments, twice as much as the national average, and 42.4% of employment in the industry.

Built upon a powerful agriculture and the structuring presence of large prime manufacturers,

Brittany’s food industry is made of a diversified panel of sectors and economic agents on the whole

processing chain. Besides, auxiliary industries such as chemistry, packaging, and process engineering

and machinery, represent around 5% of regional industrial establishments.

“A network of small production units and very large SMEs which however cannot be considered as

major industrial groups (for example cooperatives are obviously deeply tied to their local

environment). Among these SMEs, there are also a high number of subsidiaries of large firms” 7.

7 Evaluation de la politique régionale des Pôles de Compétitivité – Rapport final, IDT Eu – Technopolis, October 2008.


Companies and establishments with main economic activity in the food industry, 2007

Source: Tableaux de l’agriculture bretonne 2009, Agreste Bretagne – Regional Delegation of the

French Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing

Note: These data include regional companies with 20 employees or more and regional establishments

depending from such firms from the region or outside.

With these data we can observe the diversification of Brittany’s food industry, which includes

companies oriented towards animal feeding.

Among the various sectors, the meat‐packing sector – as an echo to the importance of livestock

farming in the regional agricultural production – is the main sector in terms of revenue and

employment, with almost 50% of numbers employed in regional establishments, the rest of regional

employment being more or less equally distributed between the other sectors. The meat‐packing

and dairy sectors are the leading exporting forces, with the greatest share of exports in the total net

revenue – respectively 17.5% and 20%. According to the Regional Council of Brittany, the progression

of activities related with animal proteins processing, vegetable processing and animal feeding is

considered as a success in the regional industry diversification over the last decades 8.

The innovation issue among food SMEs

Although it is acknowledged that the regional food industry includes large companies with significant

R&D activities and a number of innovative SMEs, a large part of the industry is based on standard

products (butter, raw meat, butcher’s meat), increasingly vulnerable to international competition.

Less than 5% of foodstuffs are exported as elaborated products9. Lack of innovation is a weakness

8 Les cartes de la Bretagne agroalimentaire, Regional Council of Brittany, 2008 9 Brittany’s Operational Programme of the ERDF for the “Regional Competitiveness and Employment” Objective, 2007-2013.


shared by the major part of SMEs10. A survey on innovation carried out in 200811 pointed out that

regional SMEs failed to include specific staff and were unable to invest in R&D equipment, basically

because of insufficient resources. Another issue is the difficulty to identify innovation opportunities

that can be translated into market opportunities. A focus on agro‐food companies revealed that their

principal needs concerned information on norms and regulations, and the access to funding and to

research equipment.

1.1.3. Agri‐food issues, one of Brittany’s research specializations

With a globally good position in France research landscape12, Brittany developed a singular agri‐food

research system. It consists schematically of a set of public higher education and research

establishments focused on agricultural and food issues, and a strong and diversified network of

technical centres, which emerged as a way to compensate the weaknesses of its large and

disseminated food industry. All these entities, with more or less intensity, have connections with

counterparts at regional, national and international levels.

Brittany’s research and technology transfer assets in agri‐food issues

Source: Les cartes de la Bretagne agroalimentaire, Regional Council of Brittany, 2008.

10 Other stakes are mentioned in the different regional strategic documents: improvement of the industry’s image (pollution, work conditions), development and consolidation of professional organizations in order to face distribution chains, improvements in the fields of marketing, branding, logistics. 11 This survey was conducted within an exercise of diagnosis of the regional innovation system: L’Innovation en Bretagne – Etat des lieux, Regional Council of Brittany, 2008. 12 According to the diagnosis included in Brittany’s Operational Programme of the ERDF for the 2007-2013 period, regional strengths in term of research are: telecommunications (second French region in terms of scientific publications), optics and imaging, electronic components, informatics, animal and plant biology, environmental sciences and techniques, earth sciences and techniques. As for the production of patents, the document also mentions off-shore building and agricultural and food products processing. Valorial - Pôle de Compétitivité. A report in the frame of AGFORISE - 7FP 18

Higher education establishments and national research centres

As a significant source of scientific excellence, several research centres of the main national agri‐food

research organisms are located in Brittany. In addition to their own resources, these centres have

close relations with the rest of the centres of the organism they belong to.

• One of the 21 regional centres of the prestigious National Institute for Agricultural Research

(Institut National de Recherche Agronomique, INRA), the first research institution in Europe

and the second in the world in terms of publications in agricultural sciences and plant and

animal sciences.

The Rennes INRA Centre has more than 200 researchers in its several units in the Brittany

and Lower‐Normandy regions, who focus on 4 fields: quality of dairy products and food

innovations, evaluation of livestock productions, quality of water and aquatic ecosystems,

and plant health and environment.

• In Brest is to be found the main centre of the French Research Institute for Exploitation of

the Sea (IFREMER), a world‐level research institute in marine sciences. Within the 13

departments which cover all the institute’s research areas, IFREMER specific research on the

knowledge of marine products and their processing has a direct interest for the food

industry.

• ANSES, the Agency for food, environmental and occupational health safety, is active in

research, knowledge and expertise production in different fields including animal and plant

health and nutrition, and functional characteristics of food.

In Brittany, the agency specializes its activities in the diseases of poultry, pigs and cultivated

fish and in the quality of poultry and pig food products (centre of Brest‐Ploufragan), and in

residues of veterinary drugs and disinfectants in foods (centre of Fougères).

In parallel, a number of pluridisciplinary public universities and other specialized public higher

education establishments comprise agri‐food research units, some of them being “Mixed Research

Units” (UMR) 13 developed in collaboration with national research institutes:

• Agrocampus Ouest, the Superior Scientific Institute of agriculture, food, horticulture and

landscape, with a centre in Rennes – and another one in Angers (in the neighbour “Pays de la

Loire” region) – represents the main regional concentration of higher education

13 The system of Mixed Research Units was developed in France from the mid-90s as a concrete tool for cooperation between higher education establishments and research institutes.


establishments and research centres in agro‐biosciences.150 scientists work in the pole

within 18 research units, 15 of them being UMRs developed jointly with national institutes,

mainly with the INRA.

• Rennes 1 University includes a « Biology, Medecine and Health » research sector made up of

14 units.

The National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS) and the National Institute of Health and

Medical Research (INSERM) are the partners of the University for several of these research

units.

• Western Brittany University (Université de Bretagne Occidentale) includes two specialized

schools which host five research laboratories: the ESMISAB Microbiology and Food Safety

Engineer School in Brest and the Institute of Agri‐food Sciences and the Rural World in

Quimper, whose research units principally deal with microbiology, food and environmental

toxicology.

• Southern Brittany University (Université de Bretagne Sud) contributes to the regional agri‐

food research potential with a marine biotechnology and chemistry laboratory and

another unit of material engineering (Laboratoire d’Ingénierie des Matériaux de Bretagne).


The Dairy Platform, a public technology facility opened to companies

The Platform for Research on Dairy Technologies is an 800 square‐meter heavy‐equipped facility located in

Agrocampus Ouest. It is permanently occupied by the staff of the UMR “Sciences and Technologies of Milk

and Eggs” (74 scientists, engineers and technicians and about 20 students). It performs pilot technology

operations on milk and other dairy products, the regional sector with the highest export orientation within

the food sector.

What makes the Dairy Platform singular is the endeavour to include in its activities industry‐oriented

research (“to translate industrial concerns into scientific issues” according to one of the managers of the

platform) and the constant dialogue with interlocutors of the dairy industry, a highly structured sector in

Brittany and in the whole country – a favourable aspect for such a dialogue. A scientific committee, which

includes representatives of the National Inter‐professional Centre of Dairy Economy (CNEIL, national

business organization) and Bretagne Food Biotechnologies (regional dairy business organization), meets 4

times a year. Usually, these representatives are being proposed investigation issues (in line with the

research strategy of the UMR, which carefully conserves fundamental research activities) they can decide to

support financially in exchange of the capacity to contribute in the activity orientation and to have access to

research outcomes. 1 euro invested by companies implies a contribution of 1 euro from the Regional

Council.

In parallel, the Dairy Platform can sign bilateral research contracts with companies. Currently, the platform

works with 25 different dairy companies, including foreign ones. The platform managers take great care to

avoid working simultaneously with direct competitors and to guarantee optimal confidentiality conditions.

The platform offers the rental of R&D cells (the facility includes 6 cells, with a total capacity of 15 people)

with the possibility to use of the platform’s equipment and technical assistance from the permanent staff.

The platform attracts SMEs that cannot afford to build internal R&D departments (or choose not to for

flexibility purposes), sometimes for large periods of time, including several years. It also attracts large

companies, with significant R+D resources. According to the platform’s managers, the longer‐term research

environment and the ability to interact with the extensive network of laboratories and research centres of

the INRA and its partners both act as incentives. As a sign of success of the platform’s formula, the facility

will be enlarged in 3 years.

A strong regional network of technical and technology transfer centres

Originally created from the 1980s to bring a remedy to the low level of R&D among SMEs – especially

in the food sector in the case of Brittany – and to promote innovation, technical and technology

transfer centres represent today a significant strength in the regional R&D system and in the cluster

development potential.


While Regional Centres of Innovation and Technology Transfer (CRITT), which model was adopted in

a large number of French regions, are funded by public authorities in order to act as interfaces

between research and industry (scientific and technology watch, technological advice, project

engineering, collective initiatives), Technical Centres (TC) have a more mixed profile. They usually

combine CRITT‐type interventions of general interest towards SMEs (based on contracts with public

authorities), in‐house R&D activities (including in a collaborative approach with companies) and

charged services (R&D, scientific watch, project engineering, training). This last category of activities,

provided to regional companies but also to national and foreign firms, usually forms the main source

of revenue of the TCs.

About the two‐thirds of Brittany’s TCs and CRITTs are partly or completely oriented towards the food

industry.

There is quite a high diversity among the different TCs regarding the importance of the various

aforementioned functions, but also in terms of legal statute (always private however), staff size

(grossly from 5 to 50) and budget14. Some of these technical centres (see following chart), such as

BBV, IDMER and ITFF, were created and are still managed by corporate organizations.

Brittany’s main technical centres involved in agro‐food issues

14 L’Innovation en Bretagne – Etat des lieux, Regional Council of Brittany, 2008.


1.2. The “Pôles de compétitivité” policy in Brittany, joining forces for the impulse of cluster

development

Institutional and political context

In order to understand the public interventions in the field of support to industry/research

collaboration in the Brittany region, it is first necessary to acknowledge the complexity of the French

institutional system.

Traditionally a centralised state, France has opened a process of decentralization from the beginning

of the 1960s onwards, which has resulted in the delegation of “competence blocks” to the three

levels of autonomous public government (each one based on an elected council and a

correspondent administration): municipalities and departments (equivalent to provinces or districts),

which are governed respectively by municipal councils and general councils, to which were added the

regions, governed by regional councils.

In parallel, a fourth level of public administration emerged and developed dramatically in the second

part of the 1990s. The rise of “intercommunalities” (comprehensive inter‐municipal cooperation

institutions) was fostered by the central government to make up for the fragmentation of the local

political systems, basically caused by a high number of municipalities. In an intercommunality, the

member municipalities transfer a range of competences to the inter‐municipality level, which is

governed by a council made of elected officials from the different member municipalities. In the

beginning of 2010, 95% of French municipalities were part of an integrated intercommunality15.

“France is now widely known for having moved quite quickly away from being one of Europe's most

centralised States to one in which regional but above all metropolitan political levels have acquired

significant new strength and capacity.”

State restructuring and decentralization dynamics in France: politics is the driving force, Pinson G. &

Le Galès 16.

The choices in terms of allocation of prerogatives between the different levels of government have

resulted in a situation of many shared competences. One of them is the competence on economic

development, the legitimate one for the development of innovation support schemes. Currently and

increasingly in the global context of competition between territories to attract capital, enterprise and

talents, support to economic development is performed by the central government, regions,

15 General Direction of Regional and Local Authorities (DGCL), French Ministry of Internal Affairs, http://www.dgcl.interieur.gouv.fr/. 16 In Cahier Européen numéro 07/05 du pôle Ville/métropolis/cosmopolis, August 2005, Centre d’Etudes Européennes de Sciences po (Paris).


http://www.dgcl.interieur.gouv.fr/

departments and intercommunalities. Legally still, the regional level is being considered the most

pertinent for the definition of economic development policies, and regional councils usually act as

coordinators – and the main interlocutors of the central government17.

Regarding public support to R&D&I issues at regional level and the specific case of Brittany, in the

complex institutional system we just described, the main public stakeholders in terms of budget

capacity are the following:

• OSEO is a national public agency with regional delegations whose missions are to manage

national innovation funding schemes and loan and investment guarantees for business

growth, essentially focused on SMEs. In 2009, OSEO Brittany programmed a budget of nearly

15 million euros for the support of R&D&I projects by companies18.

• The Regional Council of Brittany has been one of the first French regional councils to invest

heavily in the support to research and innovation, considering as early as the beginning of

the 1980s these two issues as essential for regional economic development. In accordance

with the strategic orientations of its Regional Plan for Economic Development (SRDE), the

Regional Council carries out an active policy of support to economic development in which

research and innovation hold a significant position. In its primitive budget for 2010, these

issues concentrate 45% of the total budget for economic development, which reaches 120

million euros19.

• EU Structural Funds also intervene in the support of the regional innovation policy. For the

2007‐2013 period, over a hundred million euros from the European Regional Development

Fund (ERDF) are to be dedicated to research, innovation and ICT infrastructures20.

In a sophisticated and cross‐subsidized system of public support to R&D&I, which includes a wide

range of interventions, such as funding schemes to R+D collaborative projects, financial support to

technology transfer centres and other innovation networks, the current “Pôles de compétitivité”

policy can be considered as the main policy which coordinates specific funding schemes for

collaborative company/research R+D projects in the perspective of industrial cluster development.

17 Since 1984, the central government and each Regional Council work on the coordination of their shared policies, especially regarding infrastructure projects, within the framework of multi-annual contracts (CPER) that include budgetary compromises from both parts. 18 Annual Report 2009, Oseo Innovation. 19 2010 Primitive Budget, Regional Council of Brittany. 20 Brittany’s Operational Programme of the ERDF for the “Regional Competitiveness and Employment” Objective, 2007-2013.


A policy promoted by the central government

The “Pôles de compétitivité” policy (Competitiveness poles, PC) is to be considered as a national

public initiative to foment cluster development in French industries.

The origin of the policy dates back to 2004 when a political debate was opened on industrial policy

with a report from the French Governmental Delegation for Regional Planning and Territorial

Competitiveness (DIACT), the French governmental agency dedicated to spatial planning.

Such reflexion recognized the importance of industry as an element of global economic

competitiveness and attractiveness, and as an engine for the rest of French economy. It

acknowledged that in a context of fierce international competition, innovation had to play a central

role in industrial competitiveness – especially in the new paradigm of knowledge economy and the

need for industry to globally increase its technology content – and the need of French industry to

increase and consolidate its high‐technology content and help high‐profile emerging sectors. The

DIACT, along with a couple of parliamentary working groups, advocated building a voluntary

industrial policy based on the combination of innovation, research and industry on a territorial and

participatory basis.

Four main goals of the so‐called PC policy provided the conceptual framework:

• Developing economic competitiveness by increasing innovation in industrial sectors;

• Consolidating high‐technology industrial activities at regional level;

• Improving France’s attractiveness through international visibility;

• Promoting employment and growth.

Such an innovative policy at national level confirmed a growing approach of French government’s

spatial planning policy, which associates territorial competitiveness and excellence to the traditional

aim of reducing inequalities between territories. It has also involved a shift in both industrial and

research public policies. In the policy‐making context we described before, the execution of the

policy intervened in a sophisticated system of existing innovation schemes. The concrete

implementation of the PC policy was based on the voluntary constitution of research/companies

associations – the so‐called poles – whose accreditation by the central government would involve

financial contribution for the funding of their governance system and access to specific sources of

funding for collaborative projects that would have been validated by the poles’ managing

authorities.


At the end of 2004, the French government published the first call for proposals. This call defined

what was understood as a competitive pole and set general conditions for accreditation21:

• The definition: “A competitiveness pole is defined by the combination, on a given

geographical area, of companies, training centres and public or private research units,

involved in a partnership process which aims at creating synergies around common

innovative projects. Such a partnership will be based on a market and its related scientific

and technology fields and will have to reach the necessary critical mass for competitiveness

and international visibility”.

• A range of main criteria for accreditation:

o A development strategy coherent with the general economic strategic orientations

of its territorial basis;

o Sufficient international visibility or potential on industrial and/or technology levels;

o Capacity to generate synergies in the field of R+D activities;

o The establishment of a partnership between targeted actors for a structured and

operational governance of the pole.

The first call for proposals was followed by several others. After successive decisions of accreditation

between 2005 and 2010, the PC policy currently consists of 71 competitiveness poles, active in a

wide range of industrial sectors: transports, aeronautics, biotecnologies and health, food industry,

ICTs, energy, etc.

The French government distinguished between world‐level competitiveness poles and national‐level

poles, the first category somehow being given priority in the access to project funding from the

national level (through the definition of criteria regarding size and excellence). Meanwhile, the

central government expected to lever implication of regional and local authorities, which were

already integrating in their strategies the shaping of their respective territories’ competitiveness.

Achieving a collective implication of public authorities in the PC policy would complete the triple‐

helix model.

The PC policy is currently being carried out within the framework of a first pluri‐annual programme

(2005‐2011). The first phase of this programme (2005‐2008) was granted a budget of 500 million

euros from the central government, basically for the co‐funding of the poles’ governance structures

and of collaborative R&D projects, through a set of subsidy schemes. After the positive evaluation of

the policy in 2008, the government decided to go on with the second phase (2009‐2011), with a

budget of 1.5 billion euros. A novelty in the current phase is the additional objective to support the

21 Appel à Projets – Pôles de compétitivité (November 2004), http://competitivite.gouv.fr/documents/commun/Rubriques_transversales/Actualites/Appels_a_projet/cahier_des_charges_poles.pdf


http://competitivite.gouv.fr/documents/commun/Rubriques_transversales/Actualites/Appels_a_projet/cahier_des_charges_poles.pdf

establishment of “innovation platforms” within the poles. The so‐called innovation platforms consist

of technology facilities opened to companies for pilot operations and tests in the perspective of

validating marketable innovations.

Within the contracts between the national government and the poles’ management entities for this

second period, a set of dispositions for the assessment of projects was included, in order to provide

material for the evaluation of the PC policy and each pole’s performances in 2012. Indeed, one of the

objectives of this evaluation will be to determine the concrete impacts of the policy in terms of

innovation, economic activity and employment.

The 71 French Competitiveness Poles

Source: DIACT


An opportunity seized at regional level for Brittany’s strategic industrial sectors

In the case of Brittany, four competitiveness poles, based on the four main regional industrial

sectors, were constituted and accredited by the French government:

• Valorial (national‐level PC);

• IDforCar (national‐level PC, in association with the Pays de la Loire region): automotive

industry ;

• Mer Bretagne (world‐level PC) : naval construction ;

• Images et réseaux (word‐level PC): ICTs.

The Regional Council played a key role in the impulse of three of these poles (the “IDforCar” PC was

initiated by the French automobile PSA Group).

Support to regional PCs has become one of the three pillars of the regional innovation and research

policy, along with strengthening research and higher education and encouraging innovation through

the support of technology transfer structures. In its primitive budget for 2010, the support to PCs

amounted to 12 million euros, 22% of the resources allocated to the regional innovation and

research policy.

Besides, the PC policy in Brittany originated an initiative of coordination between the Regional

council and other public authorities for the funding of the collaborative projects labelled by the

poles, a unique initiative at national level. The B15, a political forum gathering the Regional council,

the 4 General councils of the region and the 10 main urban intercommunalities, agreed on a

coordinated funding scheme.

The members of the B15

Source: adapted from the

original map Communautés

urbaines et Communautés

d’agglomération au 1er janvier

2010, General Direction of

Regional and Local Authorities

(DGCL) – French Ministry of

Internal Affairs.


According to this agreement, the Regional council is responsible for the examination of project

applications submitted by the poles and for their financial engineering. After the negotiation with the

concerned local authorities, the Regional council is the unique interlocutor of the project partners for

the subsidy agreement – although each local authority has to confirm its support by a vote by its

elected assembly – payment and reporting. The support of each B15 partner is guided by a territorial

principle. Subsidies are granted to the project partners whose location (or expenditure within the

project) is located within their administrative boundaries. As part of the agreement, the Regional

council is committed to equal the amount of subsidies brought by local authorities at project‐level.


Main features of subsidy schemes for collaborative projects labelled by Brittany’s competitiveness poles

Some findings of the national mid‐term evaluation of the PC policy 22

• Key elements of satisfaction: a promising dynamics of the poles and a globally satisfying implication

of targeted stakeholders, a shared effort for policy‐funding between the different public authorities.

• A positive flexibility within the nationally‐established criteria for the configuration of the poles,

especially regarding the building of partnerships and the definition of strategies. It has allowed the

appropriation of the policy objectives at regional level by stakeholders and the progression of R&D&I

issues in economic agendas, even though this approach is synonym of complexity in terms of

coordination between the different levels of public authorities.

• The degree of maturity of the poles is deeply determined by their initial situation, principally in terms

of relationships between stakeholders and the existence of a strategic vision in the industry.

• Although the evaluation of projects was not part of the intermediate evaluation’s objectives, some

experts estimated that the FUI has meant a decisive financial support to projects, which otherwise

would not have be carried out in a collaborative framework or would not have taken place at all. It

was also pointed out that these collaborations have generally not taken place in the core activities of

partners, a strategic dimension that is still source of difficulties.

• The evaluation highlighted the need of increased strategic management at national level, especially

for the coherence between funding schemes and greater integration of the PC policy within general

innovation and research policies. For instance, it was recommended to take into account the strategic

lines of the poles in the definition of scientific orientations and resources allocation of national

research organisms.

• Some pending challenges such as the participation of private finance in project funding or the

establishment of a structured strategy for internationalization.

• As part of the accreditation of the competitiveness poles, the French government defined within the

perimeter of each pole so‐called “R&D areas”. Member companies of collaborative projects located

in these areas are eligible to bonuses in the attribution of grants, as well as tax exemptions. The

purpose of this measure is to foster the geographical concentration of R&D&I activities.

22 Evaluation des Pôles de compétitivité – Synthèse du rapport d’évaluation, Boston Consulting Group and CM International, June 2008


1.3. The “Valorial” competitiveness pole

The constitution of the « Valorial » competitiveness pole, accredited by the French government in

2006, is the main result of the Regional council of Brittany’s will to further cluster development in all

the sectors of its food industry, with some solid assets to build on such as the critical mass of the

industry, a high‐profile research and an established system of technology transfer. The national

policy framework was seized as an opportunity to consolidate the regional industry and an

opportunity to tackle the innovation issue of its dispersed SMEs.

1.3.1. Members of the cluster’s associaton

In December 2009, 250 entities were members of the Valorial association. Since its creation, the

number of members has been constantly increasing (169 members in 2006). Other significant fact is

that about a third are these members are from other regions than Brittany, including some foreign

companies.

Towards a multi‐regional cluster

In May 2010, the French central government officially validated the multi‐regional perimeter of Valorial, as

the recognition of increasing cooperation with the Pays de la Loire and Basse‐Normandie regions (see map

p.8).

Currently 60 members of Valorial association are located in both regions and 24 projects accredited by the

pole were promoted by entities from these areas. Since 2008, the Regional councils of Basse‐Normandie and

Pays‐de‐la Loire are getting increasingly involved in the funding of the cluster’s association and its

collaborative projects. This extension is the result of the objective to enlarge Valorial’s industrial and

scientific bases.

Valorial’s members are classified in 3 categories: companies, research and training centres (including

higher education establishments) and regional and local development promoters (local

development agencies, chambers of commerce and agriculture, technology transfer entities, etc).


Members of Valorial’s association, December 2009

Source: Valorial

147 SMEs are part of the 172 company members of Valorial. The “research and training centres”

category includes all the key research actors (INRA, ANSES, IFREMER, CNRS, Agrocampus Ouest,

Brittany universities), the technical centres, but also University Hospitals and business schools.

Regarding the policy objectives and structural regional data, these figures suggest a satisfactory level

of “enrollment” and a promising trend in the implication of the legitimate stakeholders in a process

of cluster development. Membership is not mandatory to have access to the services offered by the

pole or to participate in the bodies set up to encourage the dialogue between the cluster

stakeholders (see 4.3.3). However, entities whose project is given the Valorial label are asked to join

the association. On the contrary, membership is not synonym of having participated to a

collaborative project promoted by the pole.

Membership involves a range of rights and benefits, such as the capacity to participate in the

appointment of their representatives in the governing bodies of the cluster, the support in several

aspects of project management and the access to the documents issued by the poles. Companies pay

a membership fee in proportion of their size: from 300 euros for companies with less than 50

employees to 2,400 euros for companies with a staff exceeding 1,000.

1.3.2. Fields of intervention and types of labeled projects

Valorial has been certified by the central government for the labeling of collaborative R&D projects

around 4 thematics:

• Functional ingredients;

• Food microbiology;

• Human and animal health;


• Innovating food technologies.

This thematic approach allowed to include all the regional food industry sectors in the process of

cluster development, as well as machinery and other auxiliary sectors, through the “food

technologies” axis.

According to Valorial, four types of collaborative projects are supported by the pole:

• Private R&D pre‐competitive projects and industrial projects;

An example of pre‐competitive project. Source: document elaborated by Valorial

An example of industrial project. Source: document elaborated by Valorial


• Research projects, usually led by public research entities;

• Structuring projects, which have a collective interest for the food industry or one of its

sectors and involve impacts on scientific knowledge or R&D capacities (including soft

infrastructures).

An example of structuring project. Source: document elaborated by Valorial

At the end of 2009, 141 projects had been granted the Valorial label. At that time, 98 of them had

been granted public support (the other projects were pending of application or decision). With a

total budget of 77 million euros, these 98 projects had obtained 36 million euros of subsidies,

reaching a global public funding rate of 46%. Such figures highlight that Valorial and its stakeholders

have been rather successful in mobilizing or establishing collaborations which led to projects. It also

reveals that they have been able to take advantage of favourable conditions regarding the support of

the process by public authorities.

Labelled projects, 2006‐2009

Source: Valorial


Regarding the initial stakes of the regional food industry, one key success is the participation of

SMEs. According to Valorial, more than 40% of projects accredited by the pole are led by SMEs, and

much more SMEs are included in project partnerships. Another aspect is the active participation of

research centres (especially entities from Agrocampus Ouest) and technical centres.

According to the analysis of the projects accredited and funded between 2006 and May 2008 (which

was part of the evaluation of the regional policy towards the competitive poles23), among the 4

regional poles, Valorial was the one with the highest share of public funding, and also the one with

the lowest average budget by project. This was mainly interpreted as the result of the prominence of

SMEs in projects. Combined with the status of the food industry as the first regional industry, this

aspect also explained that in the distribution between the various sources of public funding, Valorial

received the highest share of funding by the B15 (in terms of proportion of total public funding). The

“size factor” is also central in explaining that the FUI only made up 7% of total public funding of

Valorial projects, against from 30 to 50% for the 3 other poles.

1.3.3. Cluster management and governance

Politically set as a central aspect defining competitiveness poles, French clusters built a system of

governance, which includes the figure of cluster manager. All of them used the structure of

associations, the French legal statute which corresponds to non‐profit organisations.

Entities classified as members of the pole are members of these registered associations. They

appoint representatives to form the board of trustees, the central body for the strategic

management of the poles.

Management and governance at strategic level

In Valorial, each category of members appoints their representatives to the board of trustees.

Valorial’s board of trustees is made up of 32 members, with the number of representatives from

companies equaling the number of representatives from the two other categories. It is entrusted

with the decision‐making regarding the pole’s strategic issues, including the definition of scientific

and technical orientations, the annual action plan and budget or the authorization of cooperation

initiatives with other poles. The board of trustees appoints Valorial’s director and the members of

the executive committee.

In addition, Valorial includes at strategic level two consultative bodies made up of experts: a steering

and prospecting committee, whose two main functions are the evaluation of the pole’s activities

regarding strategic objectives and the contribution to the debate about future developments, and a

23 Evaluation de la politique régionale des Pôles de Compétitivité – Rapport final, IDT Eu – Technopolis, October 2008


marketing commission, focused on the proper orientation of the pole’s positioning regarding market

trends.

The resources and functions at operational level

At operational level, cluster management is based on three main functions: information and

dialogue between the cluster stakeholders, support to the emergence and building of collaborative

projects, and communication and dissemination.

A singular feature of Valorial is that these functions are carried out thanks to the combination of the

pole’s own resources and the implication of regional technical centres.

The operational team of Valorial consists of:

• A core team made up of Valorial’s director, a director assistant, a secretary and a project

officer;

The core team deals with the general management, coordination and promotion of activities

at operational level. The project officer is in charge of the financial engineering of accredited

projects, including their orientation towards the adequate funding schemes and the relations

with the public authorities participating in the funding of accredited projects.

• 3 territorial officers, one for each of the regions involved in Valorial (Brittany, Basse‐

Normandie and Pays‐de‐la Loire).

Territorial officers are key interlocutors of project holders, whom they assist in the building

of their proposals, especially for the structuring of activities and the identification of

potential partners. Their support to projects can extend to technical assistance in the writing

of applications to funding schemes once the project is accredited by the pole, to the

participation to the consortium meetings of projects (writing meeting reports) and in the

reporting tasks involved by the granting of public subsidies.

They also have an important mission of company prospecting, in order to promote Valorial,

its services and the funding opportunities of the policy on competitiveness poles. In many

cases, it involves demonstrating that concrete ideas of projects can apply to funding

schemes. In the meantime, this activity of prospecting allows to improve the mapping of skills

and specializations within the industry. Territorial officers also participate in the promotion

of Valorial’s achievements and success stories.

• 11 thematic officers play an active part in the support to the emergence of collaborative

projects.


These officers are part of the staff of various technical centres and CRITTs (see p.16), involved

on the basis on their expertise. The participation of the technical centres to the pole’s

activities is included in the convention signed between the centres and the Regional Council

of Brittany, as part of their missions of general interest.

9 issues have been selected, as a combination of the 4 main fields of intervention of Valorial

(food microbiology, functional ingredients, human and animal health and

innovating food technologies processes, with one specific focus on packaging) and the key

sectors of regional food industry (meat, milk and dairy products, egg products and fruits and

vegetables).

Each officer is the interlocutor of project holders regarding the scientific and technological

aspects of the projects, as a complement of the assistance provided by the territorial officers.

In addition, the thematic officers are entrusted with the management of thematic

commissions.

Valorial’s thematic issues and involved

technical centres

Source: own elaboration form

information provided by Valorial

Valorial’s thematic commissions, key governance bodies for dialogue and the emergence of

projects

The thematic commissions can be considered as central bodies of the cluster’s organization. They

allow Valorial’s members to be informed, meet and exchange on industrial problematics, innovation

opportunities and R&D stakes. The purpose is to detect potential project ideas or holders and to

foment the constitution of partnerships.


These commissions meet 4 times a year during half a day. They are opened to Valorial’s members

(when they register to the association, they are able to select the issues they are interested in) but

also to other entities, as thematic officers invite to these commissions actors they consider as

relevant stakeholders. In this perspective, the commission is also to act as a means to enrol more

members. Chaired by a representative from companies – a way to guarantee the adequate

orientation of the commission activities – these commissions usually gather between 30 and 60

participants. Each meeting is held in a different city so as to cover the 3 regions involved in the

cluster (Valorial is also using videoconference tools to enlarge the meeting audience).

The agendas of commission meetings usually include a presentation of Valorial’s latest news,

information of forthcoming calls for proposals and specific presentations on particular issues (market

trends, scientific watch, norms and legal aspects), which are performed by the thematic officer or

one member of the commission on a voluntary basis. Thematic commissions are also able to create

temporary working groups to explore possibilities of collaborative projects. Commission or working

group members can also decide to entrust a laboratory or a consult to carry out a “focus” on a

specific issue, which basically consists in a state‐of‐the art review. These reports are funded on

Valorial’s own budget.

Another important purpose of the thematic commissions is to inform members of Valorial‐

accredited project outcomes, especially when these projects emerged from the commission.

Aupalesens, an example of project fostered by thematic commissions

In April 2008, the “Nutrition and health” commission decided the establishment of a working group on

nutrition and senior health. After a couple of meetings of the group, in October, a researcher came up

with a project idea. This idea was submitted to debate and the discussion allowed companies to

formulate remarks and expectations, which enriched the initial idea. In the meantime, the researcher

included in the reflexion collaborators of a research unit located in the Burgundy region, which had

applied to a call from the National Research Agency (ANR) with a project on a similar issue but failed to be

selected.

These exchanges resulted in the presentation in March 2009 of a research project to Valorial’s labelling

committee. The goal of the project, which involves 15 partners, is to investigate how to increase the

notion of pleasure in senior diet maximising the sensorial properties of food products adapted to the

nutritional needs of seniors. After its accreditation by the labelling committee, the project was

successfully submitted to a ANR call for proposals in April 2009. The Aupalesens project, with a total

budget of 2 million euros over 4 years, started in January 2010.


The decision‐making bodies for project accreditation and funding

As every competitiveness poles, the organization of Valorial’s governance has included the

establishment of a labelling committee, whose mission is to validate project proposals. The

committee has two possible compositions: when the project deals with structuring impacts and

collective issues, it consists of the members of the board of trustees; in the case of more market‐

oriented projects, it consists of a pool of experts without any company representative. The

committee achieves a first‐level evaluation of proposals, whose accreditation acts as a passport to

the application to one of the public funding schemes. The committee usually meets every month.

The second stage of project selection, its orientation towards the adequate public funding scheme, is

formally performed by the funding committee of Valorial, which includes representatives of all the

funding authorities (see p.24). The decisions taken in this committee are usually the confirmation of

funding orientations prepared by Valorial’s project officer, who is in constant contact with

interlocutors from the involved regional authorities (including the regional representations of central

government authorities). The following diagram highlights the intervention of the various mentioned

actors and bodies, from the emergence of projects to the dissemination of their outcomes.

An

operational

system

focused on

projects

Source: own

elabo

from

inform

provided by

Valorial

ration

ation


This system implies the transmission of information about project between applicants and Valorial’s

staff and between Valorial’s staff and the governance bodies. In order to generate trust between

issemination and communication

commissions for the promotion of the poles activities

and achievements and for the dissemination of project outcomes. In addition, Valorial’s staff

regional innovation‐support system.

applicants and ensure sufficient confidentiality levels, Valorial pays particular attention to the

selection of the pieces of information transmitted to decision‐making committees. In addition, a

secured digital platform has been set up for the safe circulation of working document between

applicants, territorial and thematic officers, Valorial’s core team and the project potential funders.

D

We already mentioned the role of thematic

publishes each month to its members a general newsletter. Specific issues also deal with information

about key thematic axes of the pole: nutrition and health, science and technology, food trends.

These documents are sent to Valorial’s members and are made available on the website of the pole.

More globally, the promotion of Valorial is also performed by the different structures involved in the

Structuring an internationalization strategy

Until recently, Valorial had based the international promotion of the pole and its members in the

participation to international fairs or in the organization of specific commercial missions. Recognizing the

limits of its resources to carry out more ambitious activities, Valorial agreed in 2009 on an inter‐cluster

cooperation initiative with Agrimip Innovation and Vitagora, two French agro‐food competitiveness poles.

This initiative, called French Food Clusters (F²C), intends to pool the poles’ resources in order to increase

their capacity of international promotion and prospecting. More specifically, the challenges are to promote

the poles’ expertise and excellence through the joint participation in international events and to identify

potential partner clusters in the perspective of collaborations to overcome market or technology obstacles

(including within the 7th Framework Programme). F²C is currently working on the establishment of a

worldwide network. In parallel, the 3 poles recently applied together to a call for proposals by the central

government for the consolidation of services to accompany entities in the development of applications to

the 7th FP.


1.3.4. The funding of Valorial’s association

Valorial’s resources in 2009

ource: Valorial

In 2009, Valorial’s budget amounted to

order to cover personal

g

l i y

pending challenge. The Central government

requested Valorial to raise this share up to 50% by 2012. Valorial is currently investigating different

1.3.5. Learning from the first development stages

Meetin rational team has allowed us to discuss the

pole’s first achievements and to get qualitative appreciations about its organization and the general

aluation of the first projects accredited by Valorial

g 35 project holders.

volved the

registering of a patent or a brand;

• thirds of them had already given way to the marketing of

a new product;

• of the projects have resulted in the creation of a permanent job:

engineers involved R&D activities, salespersons hired for the marketing of new products.

S

923,000 euros, in

expenditure and the funding of its

activities (studies, promotion and

communication iniatives, etc). The bud et

of Valoria s currentl heavily supported

by public funds, in a mix of subsidies from

the Central state, Regional councils, the

ERDF and local authorities.

The increasing of the share of private funding is a

options, the possibility to charge companies for its “post‐labelling” services (elaboration of funding

application documents, reporting, evaluation) appearing as the most probable solution.

g with members of Valorial’s management and ope

issue of collaboration.

Main findings of the ev

Between December 2009 and April 2010, Valorial carried out a survey amon

Regarding the scientific and economic impacts, these projects showed interesting figures:

• Half of the projects have resulted in a scientific publication, 40% of them have in

For market‐oriented projects, two‐

More than of third


In more

the mai the

experience had improved their ability to operate in a partnership and had brought a sustainable shift

e

time necessary to participate in project meetings and to the elaboration of reporting and evaluation

ative projects, especially in terms of intellectual and industrial

property in the case of projects focused on marketable innovations (patent and royalties). After a

ough company visits to SMEs and the organization of thematic commissions;

The limits of thematic commissions

With no doubt, the setting up of thematic commissions has played a crucial part in encouraging the

the emergence of collaborative projects, especially regarding

pre‐competitive projects or structuring projects. However, these forums don’t look adapted to the

qualitative terms, project holders acknowledged the collaborative dimension of projects as

n added value, a novelty for a significant share of them. They were convinced that

in their internal organizations. Other positive impact is the acquisition of new knowledge and skills.

In terms of project management, a tendency to underestimate the budget of the projects has been

underlined. Applicants usually underestimate the personnel efforts as they often fail to include th

reports. Learning from this, Valorial personnel usually intervene to reassess this category of

expenditure. Moreover, R&D projects usually experience in their development phase the need to re‐

orientate some activities or to add complementary steps. Taking this into account, it is now advised

to applicants that they had better overstate their budget, as it is possible to adjust the final payment

of subsidies regarding actual costs.

The experience of Valorial in its technical assistance to projects confirms the importance of

partnership agreements in collabor

few cases of dispute among project partners, the establishment of partnership agreements has been

made an obligation, and the costs for a legal aid for these agreements are now eligible to public

support. Globally, these issues are still motives of reluctance for companies.

Eventually, interlocutors of Valorial from the industry usually point out 3 positive aspects of the

competitiveness policy and the intervention of Valorial:

• The granting of a brand which guarantees visibility and recognition within the business

community;

• The effort to lever SMEs participation in the dialogue company/research and in R&D

activities, thr

• The availability of funding schemes for projects of different sizes.

dialogue between stakeholders and

building of market‐oriented projects, as companies are generally reluctant to share an idea that

involves tangible market opportunities. For this type of projects, companies adopt a more

confidential approach in their search for complementary skills.


Another aspect is that reaching high participation figures to the commissions is not an easy task. Not

surprisingly, the challenge is to mobilize companies which are usually concentrated on production

and sales and still have to integrate a strategic approach regarding innovation. In addition,

The competitiveness poles and the regional innovation system

The 2008 evaluation of the regional policy regarding competitive poles stressed the need for greater

ulate the competitiveness poles, a

relatively‐new policy, in the system of innovation‐support actors.

cal centres and CRITTs, first‐

range stakeholders in the regional landscape and crucial contributors to Valorial’s good results.

end.

However still, Valorial managers mention the need to clearly define each stakeholder field of

collaboration at the level of R&D activities supposes a cultural shift which is still not completely

achieved. With this regard, the job of company prospecting performed by territorial and thematic

officers also intends to contribute to a change of perspectives.

coherence of regional innovation policies and to better artic

Among Brittany’s competitiveness poles, Valorial appears as the most successful in integrating in the

existing “innovation environment”, through the implication of techni

While the emergence of the pole may have been considered by these structures as a factor of loss of

visibility or of questioning of their legitimacy, Valorial has been able to trigger a cooperation tr

interventions. The establishment of direct conventions between Valorial’s association and each one

of the technical centres involved is mentioned as a potential instrument.


The perception of Brittany competitive poles by the cluster stakeholders

The following elements are extracted from the evaluation of the regional policy on competitiveness poles24,

whose inputs included a survey among the different cluster stakeholders of the 4 regional competitiveness

poles. 50% of respondents (about 60 people) were linked to Valorial.

• Global effects.

o Positive impacts of the poles in the impulse of greater connections between companies and

regional research centres, and between companies;

o Increased visibility and attractiveness of local resources in the fields of competence promoted

by the poles.

o The recognition of an effort to impulse new collaborative trends and to involve SMEs;

o In some extent, a contradictory perception of the pole as first‐level interlocutor for public

funding: an effective technical assistance and orientation vs. an additional step in the access to

funds;

o Progress to be made in the evaluation and dissemination of projects.

• Effects on research centres:

o Opportunities to increase research budgets and human resources on a project basis and an

improved context for cooperation with companies;

o Risks of concentration of activities on short‐term applied research projects, at the expense of

fundamental research;

o Risks of saturation of collaborative projects, at the expense of applications to the 7th FP

(tensions between the objectives of international cooperation and of regional cluster

development);

o Evolutions in the work of researchers, who increasingly need to acquire skills in managing

multilateral collaborations.

• Effects on companies:

o Increased capacity of innovation (which does not systematically mean increased R&D

resources)and access to market opportunities;

o Positive feedback on the services performed by the poles’ management structures: support to

project building and orientation towards funding schemes, forums favouring exchanges,

networking and a bottom‐up approach in the definition of R+D activities (from companies to

research centres)

o The label impacts in terms of recognition of excellence, of the innovative dimension of the

companies.

Evaluation de la politique régionale des Pôles de Compétitivité – Rapport final, IDT Eu – Technopolis, October 2008 24


05 Potentially transferable practices to the

Murcia agrofood cluster


POTENTIALLY TRANSFERABLE PRACTICES TO THE MURCIA AGROFOOD CLUSTER

Within the identification of practices which could inspire the further development of the Murcia

agrofood cluster, the experience of Valorial offers various interesting elements.

In this analysis of transferability potential, we have excluded aspects directly linked to the national

level as a policy framework, even though the implementation of a comprehensive cluster

development policy at national level would provide more than favourable conditions for regional

initiatives. We focused on what we considered as effective and realistic measures to foster cluster

development.

The following considerations are based on what we have considered as good practices, but also on

aspects which, according to the experience of Valorial, need special attention and on some policy‐

recommendations formulated by the national and regional evaluations of the competitiveness poles

policy.

Cluster governance and management

One obvious good practice observed in the study of Valorial is the figure of cluster manager.

Currently, such entity does not exist in Murcia, although it is essential, especially at operational level.

The added‐value of an autonomous collective entity – which implies a legal personality – consists of

various dimensions: capacity to define strategic orientations (including within a policy framework

which justifies public funding of the entity) on a participatory basis, capacity to take initiatives

(through an own budget and the capacity to pass contracts) and offer services to cluster members,

creation of a visible protagonist of the cluster development process. In the Spanish context, the best

formula may be the foundation.

The development of advanced services to cluster members is crucial, as part of the set of incentives

which are liable to encourage the implication of actors in a new collective development framework.

Information on market trends, scientific watch, technical assistance in the building of collaborative

projects and the organization of forums are highly pertinent.

The function of technical assistance to project building, in a combined support on the scientific or

technological contents of projects and on more general aspects of project engineering (including the

preparation of application to regional, national and even European public funding schemes), is

apparently an attracting service for SMEs.

Valorial’s system of thematic commissions is definitely a benchmark, as a tool to bring targeted

information to their members, to foster dialogue between the different stakeholders and the


emergence of collaborative projects (in spite of the limits of such forums). On the longer term, these

forums should also act as drivers of a common culture and sense of belonging.

Another important function of the cluster manager is the prospecting of companies in order to try

and enroll more members and to map the competences within the cluster.

The experience of Valorial underlines the importance of the recognition and implication of existing

structures which are active in technology transfer and in the dialogue between research and

companies. Such structures – in the case of Murcia, the technology centres and the network of

Offices for the Transfer of Research Results (OTRI) – have to be considered as key stakeholders of

cluster development.

In this perspective, the challenge is to determine the contribution of these structures to the process

of cluster development and to define the proper coordination – and possibly cooperation – of the

cluster manager with these entities. The role of the regional government, as the funder of part of

these structure’s activities, should be important in the organizational effort.

In terms of funding of the cluster management and governance, public support is especially crucial

for the first stages of cluster development.

Cluster development as a major stake in industrial policies

The experience of the French policy of competitiveness poles shows that the political impulse for the

launching of cluster development has a first‐range importance. It also shows that cluster

development appointed as the priority or one of the priorities of innovation policies involves

examining the integration of clusters within the system of public support schemes or the

development of specific schemes. As a step further, it is also important to take into account the

comprehensive dimension of cluster development and its impacts on research and education

policies.

These aspects are in some extent still pending issues in the French context but more concretely, the

policy of competitiveness poles has given way to a significant allocation of resources for the projects

promoted by the poles. Without recommending such a financial public effort, we consider than the

availability of specific funding schemes to research/industry collaborative projects, or the

establishment of “bonuses” within existing schemes would provide a decisive incentive for effective

cluster development, at least in its first stages.

In the current context of limited capacity of public action, specific support could for example focus on

pre‐competitive projects, which according to Valorial’s experience offer favorable ground for open

dialogue and collaborations.


Another interesting practice in the case of Valorial is the coordination of regional and local

authorities regarding their respective support to the poles’ projects (B15). This could be an inspiring

initiative for the Murcia Region.

The experience of Valorial confirms the complexity of the management of intellectual and industrial

property issues, which deserve special attention in the building of collaborative projects. The

obligation of related dispositions in consortium agreements and public support for legal aid appear

as a minimum hypothesis.

A brand for the cluster

In the French policy of competitiveness poles, the label acts basically as a passport to public funding.

It involves the establishment of an evaluation body, made up of a pool of experts. Such a disposition

could be transferred to Murcia in the case of the establishment of specific funding schemes.

More globally, a brand, as an element of identity, is highly recommendable for the Murcia agro‐food

cluster and its members.

Public research facilities opened to private collaborations

In parallel of Brittany’s technical and technology transfer centres, the case of the Dairy platform

showed us an interesting experience of a public research facility, principally used by a public research

unit, opened to companies.

The more interesting aspect in the case of the Dairy Platform is the dialogue with industry

representatives inside the scientific committee of the research unit and the possibility of a win‐win

agreement (financial contribution against access to investigation results).

The case of the Dairy Platform also highlights the added‐value of structured industrial sectors and the

existence of legitimate interlocutors for an efficient dialogue with research.

International intercluster cooperation

Regarding international cooperation, the case of Valorial does not provide the teachings of a long‐

term experience. However, the strategy for the development of international inter‐cluster

cooperation of Valorial is useful information in the perspective of the central issue which is being

addressed by the Agforise partners. Here, for the discussion on the building of a shared long‐term

strategy, we could take into account the strategic focus of F²C, which consists of identifying key

research skills or facilities needed by each cluster for further or new developments.


Introductory note

From creative industries to the creative place

Refreshing the local development agenda in smalland medium-sized towns

Co-ordinator: Boris Lefebvre Grupo TASO economic & business development

[email protected]

Sevilla officeTorneo Parque Empresarial, C/Astronomía, 1-1, planta 6, 41015 Sevilla

Tel +34 95 4958485

Murcia officeC/ Madre Paula Gil Cano, nº2, Torre Jemeca, Piso 8, Local 2, 30100 Murcia

Tel +34 968 355502

www.grupotaso.com

Cover image: VALORIAL

2010

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.grupotaso.com/

Documents

Valorial AGFORISE Report