ADVISORY GROUP. FP7 THEME 2 Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology. Brussels, March 2010 MEETING REPORT

Transcription

1 ADVISORY GROUP FP7 THEME 2 Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology Brussels, March 2010 MEETING REPORT Introduction and Background This was the 10th meeting of the FP7 Advisory Group (AG) for Theme 2, Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology". It was the fourth time this AG met after the 50% turnover of its members that has taken place in November The meeting was attended by 18 out of the total 27 AG members. It must be noted that 9 AG members were listed as speakers during the meeting (and dinner) sessions. The agenda of this AG10 meeting followed a rather complex, threedimensional pattern, as it was designed to meet a three-fold mission, specifically, (1) To provide feedback on the structure and contents of the FP7-Theme 2 Work Programme for 2011 (WP2011), tabled by the Commission services; 1 (2) To explore the challenges and prospects for the Knowledge-Based BioEconomy (KBBE), as part of the new, Europe 2020 strategy; 2 and (3) To discuss the possible content, orientation, and use of instruments for the KBBE Work Programmes of the following 2 years (WP2012/2013). 3 The introductory part of the meeting agenda included a very interesting item, concerning the advisory role of this body and its potential value for the success of the KBBE research activities. It consisted in the presentation and discussion of the report from an EU-12 meeting, organised by the FP7 Theme 2 Directorate (Dir E) on 28 January This initiative followed up on AG10 recommendations with respect to the socio-economic constraints affecting participation of this group of the new Member States in the KBBE research. 4 1 WP2011 draft, dated , and sent to AG member along with the AG10 agenda. 2 Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication from the Commission, COM(2010) 2020, Brussels, Based on material presented by the Commission staff on the results in the period. 4 See the AG9 Report (2009), pp AG Meeting Report, Brussels, 17/

2 Several of the points addressed at the EU-12 meeting confirm the AG advice and attempt to put that in action by appropriate measures. Some examples follow: Priority on soft actions, such as training and mobility of researchers; Application of appropriate info-tools, e.g., coupled with the organisation of brokerage events; Efforts to increase the participation of EU-12 experts in the KBBE proposal evaluation rounds; Focus on the dual challenge to involve two critical types of actors, i.e., SMEs and researchers; and Emphasis on scientific and technical excellence as the main front for the enhancement of EU-12 participation. In the following sections we will summarise the results of the main sessions of AG10, which correspond to its three main dimensions, as defined above. WP2011: From Ideas to Final Shape The group approached the WP2011 draft document under the light of its main strategic recommendations (R1-6), as put together in its previous meetings. 5 (R1) Linking more closely KBBE research to that of the other related EU-funded RTD fields (environment, energy, and health): WP2011 shows significant progress, especially with respect to environment and energy research. Nevertheless, more interactions are necessary, especially in view of the multi-policy environment required to make possible a sustainable EU Bioeconomy by 2020 (see Table 3, below). Promising moves in that direction are (a) the Joint Call on Oceans of the Future, and the Council Proposals for Joint Programming in the areas of A healthy diet for a healthy life, and Agriculture for food security and climate change. (R2) Strengthening social and economic aspects within KBBE research: The EU-12 participation discussion (see above) is a concrete example of progress in this area. Other examples include a greater attention within WP2011 to policy effects and the need for adequate policy support by appropriate research. More actions, targeting specific socio-economic issues, will be demanded to secure a sustainable Bioeconomy in Europe. 5 See the AG9 report (2009), p. 2. AG Meeting Report, Brussels, 17/

3 (R3) Enhancing (eco)systems thinking, especially to improve understanding of complex bioeconomy phenomena, including sustainability issues: Also in this area the progress in the topic spectrum, as well as in the approach and language used, is significant and commendable. But, due to the extremely fragmented status of the Bioeconomy scene, more extended use of the systems approach will be needed to improve our relevant knowledge base, and support our selective, knowledge-based interventions. (R4) Need for an interdisciplinary approach across the programme mainlines: The same applies to the need for bringing together all the required critical expertise. Despite the progress in WP2011, more emphasis should be given to attract top-quality researchers from social, economic, financial, legal, and other fields. On a separate, but interconnected line, the green KBBE methodological background has still to be built from scratch on a novel, interdisciplinary basis. (R5) Focus on a small number of strategic research topics and aspects; major examples include (a) bio-waste as a biomass resource, and (b) international collaboration linked to growth economics: The focus on bio-waste, as well as on the enhancement of the already strong international dimension, is evident within WP2011. Nevertheless, the INCO dimension could benefit from greater clarity, e.g., as it concerns instruments and strategy. The way ahead leads to the identification of more focal points of strategic interest. Preliminary AG discussions show that emerging bioethical issues could form such a point, especially if linked to a new, resource-efficiency code-of-ethics (see below). (R6) More emphasis on the targeted development of appropriate tools, especially in fast growing fields like bio-informatics: The AG also acknowledges progress in the critical area of activities, particularly as concerns bio-informatics. But, as with the previous recommendation, this is a continuing battle, where the need for new tools will keep coming form all the above fronts of research (policy, strategy, approach, disciplines, and the various application paradigms). The 67 research topics opened by WP2011 can be grouped together in three classes, according to their main type of research target, as follows: 6 6 A similar classification was applied to the case of the WP2010, as shown in the AG7 Report (2008), p.5. AG Meeting Report, Brussels, 17/

4 Table 1: Main Orientation of WP2011 Topics Major Research Target* Totals Economy Industrial Competitivity Environment Health Quality of Life Society Policy Coordination TOTALS * For this table, topics with dual orientation were expressed in a fractional way. From this table we can see that the three dimensions of sustainability are well served by the WP2011 contents. Building Bioeconomy in Europe for 2020 Following the period of public consultation, which included the inputs by the KBBE Directorate and its Advisory Group, Bioeconomy has finally become part of the new, Europe 2020: Strategy for smart, greener, and inclusive growth. Specifically, the item Building the Bioeconomy for 2020 is now one of the key components of the Innovative Union strategic line. The AG10 discussion on this point took off from the information collected by Dir E a few years ago, according to which the European Bioeconomy had then a market size of, approximately, 1.5 billion Euro/year, and employed more than 22 million people: Table 2: Sizing-up the European Bioeconomy Bioeconomy Sector Turnover (B Euro/yr) Employment (millions) Missing Info To be added Agriculture Aquaculture - Multipliers Food Imports - Mutlipliers Forestry/Wood Imports - Multipliers Pulp/Paper Imports - Mulipliers Ind.Biotech. 50? Green Chemistry/Biofuels Totals (As above) AG Meeting Report, Brussels, 17/

5 Updating such a tentative mapping of the European Bioeconomy is a primary recommendation. This effort, which will most probably reveal a much greater economic and social weight, should include Conventional sectors missing from the previous table, e.g., aquaculture; Imports and exports of food, fibre and other biomass; New, emerging, knowledge-based sectors, e.g., green chemistry, and bioenergy; Added-value and rural multiplier coefficients; Food and feed supplements, substitutes, additives, specialty ingredients; Bio-wastes and residues; and More recent and better quality data on the above from Member States; The next recommendation concerns the communication efficiency of the Bioeconomy concert to the public. Specific difficulties that could risk giving the impression that It doesn t work! are The heterogeneity, complexity and fragmentation of the subject; The bad publicity with some agro-biotechnology experiences; and The existence of professional and other borders, blocking the flow of information across the various Bioeconomy areas. Developing appropriate Bioeconomy policies is definitely an answer to such and other problems, and thus it is recommended by this AG. Critical ingredients of the KBBE policy agendas include the following: Complementing the rather slow market forces, e.g., to foster innovation; Providing public communication tools, e.g., a new breed of journalism, Targeting synergies with information and other technologies; Making Europe attractive as a world leader on Bioeconomy research on the growth economies; Promoting a new, clear Green Bioeconomy vision, e.g., in the form of a Zero-Waste Society or of a Resource Efficiency Ethics. A good example of the required type of action is the Irish Smart Economy vision and plan, which was presented to the meeting participants during the 17 March dinner by AG member, Patrick Cunningham. 7 A key feature of the recommended Bioeconomy policies is that, for them to be successful, they will have to be conceived, designed and implemented within a multi-policy environment, as shown in the following table for EU: 7 Innovation Ireland, Report of the Innovation Taskforce, March AG Meeting Report, Brussels, 17/

6 Table 3: KBBE-Relevant EU Policies Europe 2020 ERA CAP, CFP Maritime Public Health Energy Environment Industrial Competitivity Regional Development International Development Crisis/Recovery Management In the Annex of this report we present the key rules resulting from the major comments by AG members raised during AG9, and concerning the design of research roadmaps and agendas on the way to the sustainable Bioeconomy in the EU. WP2012/2013: Stepping Stones for Bioeconomy Put in a nutshell, the AG s recommendations for the KBBE Work Programmes of the following two years represent a cross between the WP2011 criticism and the short-term response to Europe 2020 challenges, as presented in the previous sections of this dosument. A list of some points addressed by AG members to the Commission services and not already sufficiently covered follow: Explore the climate change mitigating functions of the Bioeconomy; Develop new roles, such as that of the curator of ecosystems ; Formulate a more balance view of the potential of oceans to contribute to food and biomass needs in a sustainable manner; Plan for a new, strategic view of food research, including (a) nutrigenomics; (b) functional foods, and (c) food/feed/diet ethics (e.g., protein deficiency, bio-piracy). Expand the bioethics portfolio to cover the issues of (a) resource conservation and management; and (b) social responsibility of key actors; AG Meeting Report, Brussels, 17/

7 Target research instruments to the needs of critical participants: SMEs and Less Developed Economies; With respect to SMEs, planning should carefully consider the demographics and logistics involved to avoid over-expectation and saturation effects; Distribute funds among instruments in a way that does not dilute the research money, and rewards top quality proposals; Apply the recommendations of the EU-12 meeting mentioned in the Introduction; Include specific responses to the challenge of dissemination, diffusion and absorption of research outcomes; In conjunction with dissemination options, consider ideas such as the Bioeconomy Days, run in various EU places, and the Bioeconomy Week, run in the whole Union. AG Meeting Report, Brussels, 17/

8 ANNEX Building Green Bioeconomy by Research: 10 Golden Rules 8 1. An emerging space for vital innovation. 2. The key role of research: to unlock the potential of bio-world in all its dimensions. 3. Modus operandi (A): better understanding of complex phenomena involved. 4. Modus operandi (B): planning and implementing knowledge-based action. 5. Examples of complex topic areas to be investigated: low-input farming, soil biosystems, nutrition disorders, sustainable non-food crops, novel biorefineries, landscape ecology. 6. Environmental biotechnologies as a potential research flagship. 7. Design of environmentally compatible bio-solutions, drawing upon other novel RTD areas and approaches. 8. Significant role in social and economic development, and key opportunity field for international cooperation. 9. Responding to societal concerns, and assessing risks. 10. Research to be accompanied by appropriate information, communication, dissemination and crisis-management components. 8 Cartoon from an ECN Report (2003): The Energy World in AG Meeting Report, Brussels, 17/