INnovation among
EURopean Subregions

Minutes Malta meeting - September 2012

Download PDF version of this document

06th - 07th September 2012

Day 1 – Thursday 06th September
Venue: Dolmen Room, Dolmen Resort Hotel, Qawra, St. Paul’s Bay, SPB 2402 Malta

C1 - Management and Coordination/ Steering Committee

0900       Welcome Coffee and Opening

Jimmy Magro, Local Councils’ Association Project Manager, welcomes partners to Malta and opens the 2nd project meeting, leaving the floor to the Lead Partner.

0915       Introduction of the Agenda / Overview of project development

Luminita Mihailov, SE RDA – Lead Partner, thanks everyone for participating and reminds partners of the agenda for the 2 days, which is approved by all partners. Having attended the reporting meeting organised by Interreg IVC, the LP also take the chance to inform partners that, the JTS insists on keeping up with deadlines and respecting minimum percentage of reported expenditures for each project report. The LP encourages all partners to maintain a good rhythm of activities as well as expenses. In order to avoid delays, partners are reminded to send their certificates as soon as possible, as LP’s FLC needs to check all partnership certificates.

Adriana Vaida, SE RDA – Lead Partner, presents the overview of activities undertaken and outputs achieved in the first semester of the project. The presentation with full details is available on the project intranet and can be requested from the Lead Partner.

Almost all activities foreseen for the first semester have been completed, as well as almost all outputs achieved. A brief review of each component is presented although details are discussed during ad hoc sessions of the meeting (see details per Components below).

The Lead Partner also shares an overview of the feedback gathered from partners regarding some difficulties in carrying out project activities, mainly regarding involvement of local stakeholders and holding of 1st Regional Discussion Table meeting:

  • Province of Lucca: internal changes of representatives at organisation level have been a problem, as their procedures for contracting external experts for C3 activities have also been delayed. Experts are expected to start working soon. They already have well established contacts with their local stakeholders, so they do not see any problem in setting up their RDT.
  • Lithuanian Innovation Centre: 1) There seems to be tension between relevant stakeholders at local level (local policy makers and the science 'valley'). As a solution, individual talks with the relevant stakeholders were held. 2) Relevant policy makers at local level were not informed about what is local innovation policy or the need for instruments for measuring local innovation. As a solution an overview of what is local innovation policy and instruments was created to educate and inform local policy makers and create new demand for local innovation policy and instruments for measuring local innovation.
  • Bautzen Innovation Centre: the RDT workshop was organised soon after the end of the 1st semester and will be reported in the next PR. This was because the partner selected a date that was most suitable for all the stakeholders that they wished to involve and preferred to wait until all could attend.
  • CCIMP: organised individual meetings with stakeholders throughout June 2012. It was difficult to organise a RDT with many actors, but they met the major stakeholders involved in innovation. They will meet other major stakeholders in September and held the first RDT.
  • Roscommon County / WESTBIC: difficulty in sourcing local statistical data for measuring local innovation (NUTS III/NUTS IV). In Ireland, in many cases this information is not collected or broken down according to the local level. They are trying to overcome this and in some cases they may extrapolate from regional (NUTS II) information.

0945       Presentation of activities undertaken

All Partners present the reports on activities developed during previous months. A summary of the key points is provided below. Also, partners are expected to complete the 6 monthly self-evaluation report with overview of activities by 14/09/2012 and will be provided with the template by the LP.

  • Province of Lucca: project team was set up at the beginning of the semester, while some delays have been faced in the identification of external experts for technical activities. These have now been solved:  the profile and tasks of the expert has been identified and the internal administrative procedures requested by national law for awarding the contract have also been started. P2 is keen to improve their coordination of component 3, and undertake fully and successfully the activities foreseen. P2 also reports some delays in the selection of the First Level Controller. As a partner with a decentralised system, they are waiting for the Approbation Certificate from their national authority. Expenses are ready to be sent to the FLC, therefore once the certificate is received, they will start the certification process straight away. For the time being there is no certainty that expenses will be included in the first project report.
  • Lithuanian Innovation Centre: all activities foreseen for first semester have been undertaken. No major problems are reported for Component 1 – Management and 2 – Communication. Partner’s expenses have already been certified and the certificate is handed to the LP during the meeting.

The main difficulties faced by P3 are related to technical activities (C3 and C4) and involvement of stakeholders to initiate discussions on Innovation at NUTS 3 level.
P3 has started to identify stakeholders (local science parks, local council - economic department and spatial development department) at local level to exchange ideas and debates. They are working on the common understanding of Innovation. Policy makers seem interested in the project and its outcomes, but they lack initiatives and are not proactive. This results in a general lack of strategic views for their territory.

Next steps will be to: bring different stakeholders round the table; organise seminars with attractive speakers and talk about innovation and role of stakeholders in order to create awareness, initiate talks and dialogue with local policy makers; organise joint existing initiatives (for instance: Smart specialisation - talks at regional level around Europe to understand and compare the roles of municipalities within the regional level; BSR stars; Interreg IVC Cross-Innovation project – collaboration among different sectors from traditional to innovative ones).

  • Local Councils’ Association: all activities foreseen for first semester have been undertaken. No major problems are reported. The partner’s expenses have already been certified and the certificate is handed to the LP during the meeting. As Component 2 coordinator they have participated in Communication Seminar organised by Interreg IVC and encouraged active participation of all partners in dissemination activities.
  • Development Centre of Litija: all activities foreseen for first semester have been undertaken. No major problems are reported. Partner’s expenses have already been sent to their FLC. Moreover, P5 has undertaken some additional activities: draft of an internal plan of activities and costs for 2012, periodic meetings with National Contact Point, presentation of IN-EUR to other new Interreg IVC projects. Involvement of local stakeholders has implied the organisation of several meetings with experts on innovation and coordinators from local councils, as well as meetings with the Board for management of the brand of Heart of Slovenia for supporting activities within project and implementation in the following months.
  • Bautzen Innovation Centre: all activities foreseen for first semester have been undertaken. No major problems are reported. Partner’s expenses have already been certified and the certificate is handed to the LP during the meeting. P6 has held the first RDT with actors responsible for regional economic development of 5 big towns. The second meeting is to be held on 16th of November, P6 plans to invite also regional networks of associations and citizens.
  • CCIMP: there have been some delays in selecting First Level Controller. As partner with a decentralised system, the Approbation Certificate from their national authority has just been received. They will send expenses to the FLC. For the time being there is no certainty that expenses will be included in the first project report. P7 reports also some delays in involving local stakeholders and setting up the first RDT. The meeting was held in August with participants from major structures involved in regional innovation strategy, who showed general interest in the IN-EUR project.
  • Roscommon County / WESTBIC: partners have integrated the project into other activities at regional level in order to insert the idea of innovation into the vision of the region. The local structure used to integrate the project is the County Development Board, involving 20 agencies representing the territory. Their RDT is made up of the EIG (Economic Implementation Group) who has proposed some specific outputs at local level: benchmarking report based on inter-regional methodology; opportunities for territorial development; engagement with relevant stakeholders (including 3rd level sector). They also propose the Local report as a promotional tool, allowing to “translate” technical indicators in order to raise general interest by more simple and attractive language.

P8 and 9 have already experienced some difficulties in gathering local data, they started with what is available at the moment and they might consider having external experts for data collection.
Their Certification process for first semester expenditures is underway.

1100       Project reporting: overview of expenditures of Report 1

Miriam Siciliano, Resolvo Srl, presents issues related to financial management. The presentation is available on the project intranet.
Specific issues to be highlighted are as follows:

  • Partners are requested to send their certificate for 1st progress report as soon as possible and no later than 14th of September. Any major issue and/ or delay related to the first certificate has to be reported to the LP / Resolvo by the 11th of September, in order to try to overcome problems and find feasible solutions. Partners are also reminded to send the 6th monthly self-evaluation report, which should be sent by each partner together with the input to the 6th Monthly Progress Report every semester.
  • Specific clarifications are requested regarding Indicators - Brochure / Final Publication: Each partner (except for P8), under External experts budget line, has budget for:

    - Printing 1 brochure (partner language 100 copies)
    - Printing final publication (partner language 100 copies)

The output indicators foreseen for dissemination are also intended for electronic dissemination.
C2 coordinator should print English versions (150 for brochure and 500 for publication). The final number has to be confirmed, as they have printed leaflets which were not foreseen in the AF and they might be short in budget for this activity. Each partner can print more copies than foreseen and also in English version in accordance with their own budget limits.

  • Some clarifications are requested on budget changes: Resolvo reminds partners of programme rules:

                - EUR 20.000/ 10% flexibility rule: Partners can exceed budget lines and component (with LP approval) for maximum 20.000 or up to the 10% of their total original budget. Changes must be justified in the progress reports.

                - 20% flexibility rule: ONLY ONCE / JTS generally does not allow before the last year! Projects are entitled to reallocations between budget lines, components and partners for an amount up to the 20% of the total budget.

P4 puts forward the need for a budget change for moving some costs from human resources to external experts. P3 may also have trouble respecting the approved budget and might require a shift from external expertise to human resources. No other partners report needs for budget changes at this stage.

LP has contact the JTS on this issue, who has confirmed that they are against the idea of requesting a budget change early in the project. Indeed, they will not consider it until a certain amount of spending has been reached (i.e. as a minimum partners need to have reached their foreseen spending levels and surpassed them). Moreover, an early budget modification means no changes can be made later on.

Partners agree to collect information on the levels of spending and expected modifications requires before the next meeting. A template will be sent by LP / Resolvo. Outcomes will be evaluated by the LP and presented during the next project meeting (March, Slovenia). This does not mean that a budget modification will definitely be presented at this stage. It means that the necessary information will be gathered to make an informed decision and discuss options with the JTS.

C2 – Communication    

1145       Planning for the international seminar – M16: agenda, communication strategy

Lili Vasileva, Local Councils’ Association, presents a first draft of the organisation plan for the International Seminar. Details are provided in the presentation, which is available on the project intranet.
Specific issues are highlighted as follows:

  • The International Seminar should be held together with 4th project meeting and 3rd C3 Workshop (Lithuania). The event was foreseen for Month 16 of project activities, however partners propose to postpone next meetings date of up to two months (M18 - June 2013). C2 will coordinate the organisation of the event with support from P3 (event’s host) and LP. All partners will provide inputs, ideas, suggestions and contact relevant stakeholders at local level.
  • P3 will evaluate the possibility of holding the seminar with other events, in order to promote its impact and a level of participation.
  • A first draft of the agenda will be prepared by P4, P3 and LP, and shared with all partners by November 2012. Soon after partners start contact relevant stakeholders to be invited according to the agenda and the topics of the event.

1220       Overview of communication tools: web site functionalities, content of Newsletter 2, brochure

Lili Vasileva, Local Councils’ Association, presents an overview of the Communication activities carried out during first semester and those foreseen for the coming months. Details are provided in the presentation which is available on the project intranet and.

Relevant aspects to be stressed are as follows:

  • Website and intranet: the complete Website will be available by the end of September at P4 shows some features already online. Contacts for each partner should be included, P4 will ask for specific fields of contact to be inserted online for each PP. Partners should use the intranet more and upload all presentations, minutes of local meetings, etc. Intranet should also be improved with a Forum with the following characteristics: each member should be able to open discussions, while email alerts should be sent only when a new discussion has been opened. P4 will check the possibility of having such settings as default of the forum or of allowing each partner to select their preferred alert system.

Also skype call conferences should be organised in between meetings to discuss important issues.

  • Newsletters: all partners should translate and disseminate newsletters at local level. Partners also agree on content for next newsletter.
  • Participation at external events: partners are expected to attend min 2 external events in semester 2, therefore they are strongly encouraged to look for possibilities of disseminating the project.
  • There have been some delays in organising RDT meetings (4 out of 8 foreseen), but all partners have managed to overcome problems and all are expected to hold the second meeting during the current semester.

1st C3 Workshop

  • Presentation of existing methodologies by experts and Round table to discuss the topic of innovation governance

Partner 2, 3 and 6 present their existing methodologies. Details are provided in the presentations which are available on the project intranet.

The main issues to be highlighted are as follows:

  • P2 presents the research approach developed in INNODEC project. The methodology is a bottom-up research approach based on:
    • Involvement of a large number of actors (Public administrations, Agencies of innovation, civic associations, etc.);
    • Screening of available data with focus on local level;
    • Areas of investigation identified starting from the literature, in order to identify the correct indicators (both qualitative and quantitative).

Strengths: gathering and analysis of data at regional level; definition of a common set of variables.

Weaknesses: focus mostly on quantitative data; methodology still at experimentation level that has not been adopted by any local administration. In fact, results were shared with different stakeholders also outside the partnership, but nobody has implemented the methodology.

  • Sander van der Molen, Lithuanian Innovation Centre, presents their Local Innovation Policy, which is based on a set of specific instruments (portfolio) acting as applications areas available to stakeholders. These include among others: education, entrepreneurship, active municipality, research infrastructure, business support, clusters, etc.

The main goal is that of creating a common understanding of local innovation and local innovation policy with local stakeholders. Creating a model it is not enough, they must start thinking on policies where and how the model could be applied to or used to develop specific policies.

Moreover, in order to create added value for local policy makers, the ALBI model should be interesting and simple, a model they will be ready and willing to use. In order to create such a demand they need to create long-term partnerships with local policy makers, which go beyond the project. This will enable mutual understanding and trust.

  • Jurgen Besold, Bautzen Innovation Centre, presents their previous experience on Innovation from the STRINNOP project - strengthening the regional innovation Profile.

The main goal was to evaluate the regional innovation system, through the development of qualitative and quantitative indicators. Company surveys, workshops and analysis of statistics were carried out, involving different local actors (technology centres, universities, chambers, company associations, local and regional administration, companies).

The methodology was based on the analysis of the different types of technologies developed by SMEs in order to identify their priorities which could form the basis for a regional innovation strategy.

The final results came out from the comparison of Regional Innovation profile between their own region and a STRINNOP sample.

This methodology was long and fairly complex and, in order to learn from this experience, Mr Besold would like the IN-EUR methodology to be simpler and more user friendly.

Experiences from external stakeholders:

  • Christine Perici, Innovation Policy Executive for Malta Council Science and Technology (MCST), highlights the importance of Innovation and Innovation policy both at national and also individual/ companies level, as a driver of economic growth and improvement, including improved welfare and quality of life as well as further job creation. Also, in order to implement successful policy, Innovation should be based on firm pillars: it is a tool for survival in today's business environment and an investment for future return rather than an expense; it needs to be given a central role in both the private and public sector.
  • Rupert Gole, Mayor of Šentrupert, stresses the importance of identifying local specificity of each territory when addressing innovation policy. In fact, taking advantage of others initiatives and good practices by applying them at local level can only be successful if a proper adaptation to the context is made. This is showed by the numerous initiatives undertaken at local level in the field of innovation policy. The Local Council is widely recognised as one of the most environmentally conscious and energy efficient municipalities.

The key question emerging from reflections shared in between presentations is:

What can really be done at local level in terms of innovation and what can be done with limited funding?

This needs to be taken into consideration when undertaking the territorial analysis.

The question of stakeholder involvement is very important and is horizontal to all activities. On the one hand, it will help to gather data (including quantitative information). On the other, a lot of people need to be involved if the innovation system is to work, but some need to be convinced of the need to measure innovation. The local policy makers, for example, are often sceptical about the need for indicators: who really wants to examine how successful they have been?

Another problem raised by project partners is data availability at NUTS 3 level. The territorial reports are intended to help partners mapping their own territory and have clearer ideas on the kind of data available in their area.

A lot of work is to be done in terms of mainstreaming the tool. There is strong need to demonstrate the usefulness of data produced by the tool and to define how to manage this tool adapting it to different context.

All partners mention the importance of linking with other initiatives and promoting synergy. These could be on-going local activities or other EU projects. The important point is that IN-EUR should not be undertaken in a vacuum, but rather as part of an innovation system. This should also help to maximise resources. Indeed, partners are interest in promoting an innovation culture, of which the ALBI forms part.

So what is IN-EUR supposed to do?

  1. IN-EUR looks at instruments and models for measuring current levels of innovation (therefore, we are talking about innovation systems and not the impact of innovation policy);
  2. IN-EUR can help to characterise our regional/local level in terms of innovation, through a model which could fit all, and that can be used to programme policies. The model must then be tested with local stakeholders and see how the indicators can help recognise the level of innovation of each territory, in order to help partners improve their policies.
  3. With this photograph of the current situation, partners can go to policy makers and help them to chose strategies and allocate resources. The project has to conclude with policy improvement, so we must support policy makers in this process.
  4. IN-EUR measures progress in time. It is not specifically a comparison with other regions, though this may emerge as a by-product. The tool should provide a road map with a series of recommendations that can improve the current photograph. Partners need something concrete to show their policy makers.

To this end, while the territorial report will be technical in nature (forming the basis of ALBI) it could be the first step towards such recommendations. Parts of it can be used for promotion and for dialogue with local stakeholders. An extract could be transformed into more user friendly language, highlighting specific findings, as Irish partners already planned to do.

One concern arising in relation to the existing methodology is that partners are looking for a simple, user-friendly tool. They want to limit the number of indicators being analysed and allow for more frequent measurements (e.g. annual measurements; not analysis that takes minimum 2 years!). This should be dealt with on the basis of the information emerging from the territorial analysis.

Component 4 should be discussed in further detail after the territorial reports have been completed. While 3 partners are undertaking a full test, other partners should play an active role and should undertake activities that are of use for their local area.

Not all partners have to do the same: for example, while the 3 test regions are applying the model, other partners could look at specific aspects or sections of the methodology (e.g. stakeholder involvement, innovation in a certain sector).

Each partner can independently decide to go further in the project outputs and evaluate the possibility of getting further insights on the kind of policies to be developed in order to make the model applicable and workable.

Day 2 – Friday 07th September

C3 – Exchange of experiences dedicated to the identification and analysis of good practices

0830       Overview of the updating and integration activity developed by the partnership on innovation governance experience and on existing indicators

Chiara Martini, Province of Lucca - C3 Coordinator, gives an overview of the activities undertaken in the first semester. Details are provided in the presentation which will be available on the project intranet and can be requested from the Partners.

The following are some key issues emerging from the first months of exchanging activities:

  • IN-EUR partnership is a multilevel consortium (from PAs to local agencies and chamber of commerce) with different level of experience as well as roles within the local policy making system. Their different perspectives on the project topic can be included in the ALBI model in order to make it more representative for a wider list of local actors.
  • Different perspectives on “What Innovation is”, mainly deriving from the different level of experiences, not only among the consortium, but also among local stakeholders. The exchange activities of C3, and the templates in particular, will help partners better define Innovation and share a common understanding of words and outputs.

Starting from the analysis of the exchange of experiences among partners, Province of Lucca highlighted the main contributions received from partners as well as main needs and difficulties pointed out (see presentation for further details). P2 proposes some solutions:

  • Utilisation of a Common language: C3 experts will be in charge of defining a glossary in order to fix the key concepts of the project in order to have partners “speaking the same language”;
  • application of  a simple and concrete approach
  • improvement of the exchange activity: the objects of the exchange should be not only

* Studies
* Ideas, concepts
* Expectations

But also:

* Outputs from other projects (Innodec, Cliq, ARISE, CATMED,..ecc)
* Local Best practices (methods, indicators already validated)
* List of actors to be involved

Other outputs of Innodec were presented and a CD will be uploaded in the IN-EUR web site.

0900       Discussion and exchange of impressions and experiences on indicators and methodologies

Beyond partners with 3 existing experience identified during project preparation, other partners have also shown important background in the field of innovation, such P5, P7, P8 and 9.
Details are available on partners’ presentation to be uploaded on the project intranet and can be requested from the Partners.
Some distinguishing features are:

  • Chamber of Commerce and Industry Marseille Provence has developed a regional report as part of their local innovation strategy. The report is based on several indicators (both qualitative and quantitative), but comes from an analysis of regional level, while the IN-EUR tool would be useful for them to integrate existing model with new data that could be gained and measured at local level, rather than just regional.
  • Roscommon County / WESTBIC has developed a methodology based on the idea of comparing different level of innovation between regions through reviews, surveys, data analysis, etc. The model allows to build from existing studies, engage with all stakeholders, get good quality study, and obtain a final report able to provide inputs to policy / strategy at various levels. However, they faced problems related to definition of innovation to be share with all stakeholders, as well as data findings. They expect to overcome those problems thanks to the ALBI model
  • Development Centre Litija: a programme has been developed since 2006, applying some of the methods to communicate innovation to a wide range of stakeholders, involving them in talking, thinking and doing innovation. Once key stakeholders are identified, they undertake a 3 steps process which allows to identify successful innovative proposals for their region. The main feature of the method are: it does not define the process but only the key elements, the proccess adapts to each organisation (dinamic); it takes into account the specific characteristics of each organisation; it widers the concept of innovation.

The debate gives partners the opportunity to stress some key concepts already arisen during C3 workshop and which can be summarised as follows:

  • Important to agree on the definition of innovation as well as on the criteria for defining it, as this must also be made clear for policy makers, stakeholders.
  • Need for an implementation plan with tools to measure innovation and also suggestions on how to use the data. The ALBI model contains methodology of data analysis and also indications on possible activities, which is very important for local actors willing to use the model and applying it at local level. The plan should contain also recommendation on how to use the tool
  • Important thing is to keep the methodology and indicators SIMPLE!

1130       Definition of Work plan for C3

Deadlines are to be found on Province of Lucca - C3 coordinator presentation (soon available on project intranet and also upon request).
TEMPLATES to be drafted within the project are as follows:

  • 1 Template on innovation governance experiences – questions SHORTER
  • 1 Template on existing indicators - quantitative and qualitative

Partners will draft heir Territorial Reports (8+8) on the basis of the two templates. Specific information and guidelines on how to complete the reports will be provided by P2 (for example in the form of an annex to the templates).

  •  1 Template for Implementation Plan (C4) - Road Map

The most important deadlines can be summarised as follows:

  • 1 Oct 2012: Templates for territorial Report and Operational Method sent to all partners by C3 coordinator
  • 2 Oct - 31 Jan 2013: Partners fill in 8+8 Territorial Reports (8 on Innovation Governance, 8 on Indicators). Partners starts filling in the template in October. The templates are guidelines to help partners completing the territorial Reports. The reports (due on February 2013) are not to be completed with data collected, rather than with information on the availability of data for each area identified in the templates. This will be clearly explained in the report template
  • 28 Feb 2013: definitive draft of Territorial Reports
  • 21 March 2013 - Workshop 2 in Litija: Presentation of the Territorial Reports

Once the reports are filled in and shared, partners will have to agree on a common ground of indicators to be included in the methodology and that would be adaptive to different local needs.
PPs present each own territorial report. W2 includes a specific session for exchange among PPs that have had difficulties and particular needs. P2 presents results of the session making a proposal and stimulating discussion on methodology adaptation.

  • 10 Apr 2013: W2 Report
  • 15 Apr – 15 Jun 2013: First ALBI model on the basis of the Territorial Reports Analysis and presentation of the First Template for the Implementation Plans
  • 30 Jun 2013 - W3 in Vilnius: P2 presents:  the first draft of ALBI model on the basis of the 8 Territorial Reports received and the first draft of the Template for the Implementation Plan (a kind of Road Map finalised at the mainstreaming of ALBI into local policies and for the testing activities foreseen by C4). P2 manages a planning session in which partners are allocated to specific DLBIs (according to geographical location and territorial characteristic) and outlines an initial work plan to be declined in other 3 local ones. Following the planning session partners begin organisation at local level to ensure that activities can be carried out efficiently and effectively. Testing partners begin preparation of regional information (to be shared on forum and presented at 1st DBLI event)
  • October 2013 (date to be confirmed) Workshop 4 Bautzen: W4 presents and perfects ALBI and launches the testing phase (C4). It is the last chance for making eventual modifications to ALBI. Provides intense training to those intending to use ALBI. C3 stops waiting for C4 testing results. PPs are then ready for the testing phase foreseen in C4, facilitated by the Implementation Plans. The day after is foreseen the 1st DLBI event.

Also, an overview on Component 4 activities and timetable was shared in order to prepare partner for the Testing Phase (details available on P2 presentation and upon request to the partner).

  • C4 starts in April 2013, it applies the preliminary ALBI model in 3 specific partner territories in order to validate the method and define the Implementation Plans. Partners will be divided in 3 groups (DBLI) according to geographical location and characteristics emerging from the territorial analyses, each with a leader in charge of organisation. These 3 areas are:
    • South East Romania (PP1),
    • Lucca (PP2)
    • Roscommon County (PP8/9)
  • Testing will be undertaken through 3 Direction Boards of Local Innovation (DBLI) with the following tasks:
    • coordination activity - each DLBI is responsible for its own specific local area, in which the methodology is being tested (data collection, interviews, participative process);
    • testing the ALBI within each specific local context in order to verify its applicability and suitability, to identify any necessary modifications to the general model and to identify specific necessities for the local context;
    • Involvement of local stakeholders in each testing areas - students, researchers, public officers, etc.
  • DBLI events:

- 1st DBLI EVENT: October 2013 - Bautzen
- 3 Local seminars in testing areas
- 2nd DBLI EVENT: March 2014 - Marseille

Please refer to the Gantt drafted by P2 for C3-C4 workplan of activities contained in the presentation and constituting an annex of the present document.

1145 Conclusions, Allocation of Tasks and Next Steps

Miriam Siciliano, Resolvo Srl, summarises the deadlines and allocation of tasks until next project meeting. The presentation will be made available on the project intranet and forms an attachment to this document.

  • 21st / 22nd March 2013: 3rd project meeting/ 2nd C3 workshop in Litija (Slovenia)
  • June 2013: provisional date for International seminar (Lithuania) – P3 would like to check if there are some other initiatives to connect up with (e.g. joint event with other Interreg IVC projects) and confirm the date within a month, as partners are keen to fix the date. It should be before the end of June so that we do not delay they next meeting in Bautzen. Preparation of the agenda will be coordinated between LP, C2 and C3 coordinator and host partner. The first draft is to be sent to all partners by 20th of November, and soon after partners start to contact relevant stakeholders.