Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
This report assembles the contributions made by stakeholders in the context of a consultation held on June
2014. These contributions do not represent the views of the European Commission.
HORIZON 2020 SOCIETAL CHALLENGE 2
'FOOD SECURITY, SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE,
MARINE, MARITIME AND INLAND WATER RESEARCH
AND THE BIOECONOMY'
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION 2014:
ANALYSIS OF REPLIES
2
ACRONYMS
AKIS: Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems
ANIWHA: Animal Health and Welfare
ATF: Animal Task Force
BIC: Bio-based industries consortium
CAP: Common Agricultural Policy
CEN: European Committee for Standardization
C-IPM: Coordinated Integrated Pest Management in Europe
CFP: Common Fisheries Policy
CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility
EATIP: European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform
ECMAR: European Council for Maritime Applied R&D
EFARO: European Fisheries and Aquaculture Research Organisation
EFI: European Forest Institute
EIP: European Innovation Partnership
EMB: European Marine Board
ERA-NET: European Research Area Net
ERRMA: European Renewable Resources and Materials Association
ESPP: European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform
ETP: European Technology Platform
FABRE TP: Sustainable Farm Animal Breeding and Reproduction Technology Platform GAH:
Global Animal Health
GIS: Geographic Information System
GPS: Global Positioning System
GMO: Genetically Modified Organism
HDHL: Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life
IB: Industrial Biotechnology
ICT: Information and Communication Technology
IMTA: Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture
ICA: Association for European Life Science Universities
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISIB: Innovative, Sustainable and Inclusive Bioeconomy
JPI: Joint Programme Initiative
LCA: Life Cycle Assessment
LERU: League of European Research Universities
MPA: Marine Protected Area
MSFD: Marine Strategy Framework Directive
MSP: Maritime Spatial Planning
MSY: Maximum Sustainability Yield
NWFP: Non wood forest products
OHH: Ocean and Human health
RAS: Recirculation Aquaculture Systems
RS: Remote Sensing
SAFE: European Association for Food Safety
SFS: Sustainable Food Security
SCAR: Standing Committee on Agricultural Research
SME: Small and Medium Enterprises
SRUC: Scotland’s Rural College
SSH: Socio Economic Sciences and Humanities
VLIZ: Flanders Marine Institute
WSSTP: Water Supply and Sanitation Technology Platform
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 4
2. OVERVIEW OF THE REPLIES ............................................................................... 4
3. ANALYSIS OF THE REPLIES ................................................................................. 6
2.1. Challenges ......................................................................................................... 6
2.2. Bottlenecks & gaps ......................................................................................... 21
2.3. Opportunities ................................................................................................... 29
2.4. Output and impacts ......................................................................................... 44
4. KEY FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 52
ANNEX 1: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................. 54
ANNEX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................. 566
4
1. INTRODUCTION
The European Commission (DG Research and Innovation and DG Agriculture and Rural
Development) launched a stakeholders' consultation on the EU Framework Programme for
Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 ‘Food Security, Sustainable
Agriculture, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research and the Bioeconomy’ 1. The
consultation aimed to identify potential priorities for EU research and innovation funding and
underpin the development of the Work Programme 2016-2017.
Therefore, the objective of the consultation was to substantiate the targeting and to improve
the impact of the work programme, in particular by providing inter-disciplinary and cross-
sectorial perspectives, taking into account relevant existing initiatives at Union, national and
regional level.
The consultation targeted stakeholders from the widest possible range of constituencies,
sectors and disciplines, including European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs), European
Research Area Networks (ERA Nets), Joint Programming Initiatives (JPI), European
Technology Platforms (ETPs), international organisations, experts groups, scientific and ,
academic associations, industry associations, land-owners and NGOs. In total 171
stakeholders were consulted.
The consultation included a questionnaire (see Annex 2) that was sent by e-mail to the
specific contact lists. The questionnaire was composed of 11 questions that identified
challenges, the main opportunities and bottlenecks, as well as possible outputs and impacts in
the context of the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020
Societal Challenge 2 ‘Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture, Marine, Maritime and Inland
Water Research and the Bioeconomy’. The replies to each question were limited to 815
words.
2. OVERVIEW OF THE REPLIES
The total amount of contributions received was 49. Most of the replies addressed the agri -
food and the marine dimensions of the Societal Challenge 2. To a lesser extent, general
responses addressing several parts of the Societal Challenge 2 as well as responses focused on
bio-based products and processing were also received.
Four responses that addressed several parts of the Societal Challenge 2 were received, these
responses came from universities or research institutes such as the League of European
Research Universities (LERU), the University of Amsterdam (which is one of the members of
LERU), the Aston University U.K. , and Università Politecnica delle Marche that belongs to
ICA (Association for European Life Science Universities).
Eight responses received addressed bio-based products and processing. These responses
included two ERA-NETs, the ERA-Industrial biotechnology (ERA-IB) and the Preparatory
steps towards a GMO research ERA-Net (PreSto GMO ERA-NET); two industry
organisations, the Bio-based industries consortium (BIC) and EuropaBio; and a response from
an European body, the European Renewable Resources and Materials Association (ERRMA).
1Pages 54-59 of http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0811:FIN:en:PDF
5
Additionally, Sekab Biofuels & Chemicals AB, the European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturer's
Association and Bio based industries Germany, consulted as members of the expert group of
bio-based products provided relevant insights that have also been included.
Twenty-two responses addressed the agri-food dimension. These replies included a broad
array of stakeholders, including seven ETPs such as the Global Animal Health (GAH), the
Sustainable Farm Animal Breeding and Reproduction Technology Platform (FABRE TP), TP
Organics, Plants for the Future, Food for Life, the European Water Supply and Sanitation
Technology Platform (Wss TP), MANUFUTURE Sub-ETP Agricultural Engineering and
Technologies AET; some academic associations, such as the Animal Task Force (ATF),
Science Europe, the Federal Institute of Agricultural Economics, the European Sustainable
Phosphorus Platform (ESPP), the Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), the Institut national de
reherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environement et l'agriculture, the Centre for
Climate Science and Policy Research-Linköping University; the UK National Technology for
Food. In addition, responses from two ERA-NETS, a JPI, and two industry associations were
also analysed. The ERA NETS included in the analysis are the Animal Health and Welfare
(ANIWHA) and the Coordinated Integrated Pest Management in Europe (C-IPM ERA-NET).
The JPI included is HDHL (Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life). The inputs from two industry
associations, the FoodDrinkEurope, and the SAFE consortium (European Association for
Food Safety), were also included. The members of the SCAR were also consulted and the
contributions have been summarised.
Concerning forestry, four responses were analysed coming from two ERANETs,
SUMFOREST ERANET (Sustainable and multifunctional forestry) and Foresry
FORESTERRA ERANET (Enhancing FOrest RESearch in the MediTERRAnean through
improved coordination and integration); an ETP, Forest based sector TP, and an international
organisation, the European Forest Institute (EFI).
Concerning the marine dimension, eleven responses were analysed coming from a broad array
of stakeholders, including from an international organisation, the
UNESCO/Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), an international, cross-
sectoral industry alliance, the World Ocean Council (WOC), European bodies such as the
European Marine Board (EMB), the European Fisheries and Aquaculture Research
Organisation (EFARO), the European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform
(EATiP), the European Council for Maritime Applied R&D (ECMAR), the BONUS
secretariat, a national association, the Finnish Fish Farmers Association, largely based on the
results of the 2012 survey2 on the Environmental regulation of aquaculture in the Baltic Sea
region, and a regional platform for marine scientific research, the Flanders Marine Institute
(VLIZ). Parts of the contribution of the European Water Supply and Sanitation Technology
Platform (WSSTP) are also relevant for marine resources and have been included in the
synthesis. Our representative from the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine,
as well as the Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries consulted as members of the
Bioeconomy Panel, also provided some relevant insights that have been included. In addition,
responses provided in the framework of Horizon 2020 SC5 (Climate Action, Environment,
Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials) by the UK National Oceanographic Centre, and the
marine environmental NGO Surfrider Foundation Europe have also been given due attention
in the context of this analysis.
2 www.aquabestproject.eu/media/8660/aquabest_3_2012_environmental_regulation_of_aquaculture.pdf
6
The following two graphs show the participation by sectors as well as the participation by
type of stakeholders (divided into Science & technology and academic organisations, industry
associations, ETPs, ERA-NETs, Expert groups and international organisations)
3. ANALYSIS OF THE REPLIES
This part of the paper carries out an analysis of the responses of the stakeholders explained in
section 23. In total, 49 responses have been analysed. This section has been divided into the
four sub sections corresponding to the main parts in which the questionnaire was divided
(challenges, bottlenecks and gaps, opportunities and output and impacts). Additionally, due to
the complexity and variety of issues that Societal Challenge 2 tackles, and in order to
facilitate the understanding of this analysis, each question of the questionnaire has been
separated into the following dimensions: General, Bio-based products and processing,
Agriculture and food (which it also includes the contribution from SCAR), Forestry, and
Marine resources.
2.1. Challenges
1. Specific challenges
General
Several challenges stakeholders identified include collaboration of people from various
different disciplines and reducing the time from research to market of the most promising
products. Stakeholders also highlighted the importance of the transaction towards a circular
economy. Other specific challenges such as bioinformatics, research on gene functions,
genomics approaches in breeding, research on agrigenomics, new crop varieties, and ICT are
more specific to agriculture and hence are developed later.
3 To facilitate navigation through the themes, the key issues are presented in bolded form
7
Bio-based products and processing
The responses dealing with specific challenges for the bio-based products and
processing have been organised in different blocks: biomass supply, resource efficiency
processing, market take-up of bio-based products, funding and financing and social and
stakeholders' engagement:
-Biomass supply (feedstock):
On biomass supply challenges, most stakeholders considered issues like: secure supply of
sustainable (and certified) biomass at competitive prices to bio-based industries, adequate
access of locally grown raw material feedstock at competitive price and converting waste-
streams into resources. This last challenge includes strengthening the competitiveness of the
agro- and forest bio-based sectors by increasing their product portfolio and maximise the use
of scraps and residues; maximising energy efficiency of the agricultural sectors by agro-
residue valorisation and adapted silvicultural concepts to increase availability of wood
resources, for instance in the areas of wood species selected (and used) and logistics.
Other key challenge includes sustainable intensification of agriculture through novel plant
breeding and ecological intensification technologies.
-Resource efficiency processing (biorefineries):
On resource efficiency processing, stakeholders identified issues like: sustainability
requirements including economic, environmental and social aspects have to be fulfilled
along the whole value added chain; cascading use of biomass into bio-based products
(multiple times) before energy use; and building value chain for bioplastic starting from
locally grown biomass.
-Market take-up of bio-based products:
On market take-up of bio-based products, stakeholders highlighted challenges like:
substituting current fossil-based products by new sustainable bio-based products
(chemicals, materials, fuels and energy) with low environmental footprint aiming at the
consolidation of existing markets and creation of new ones; and boosting the uptake of
innovative bio-based products on the European market. This challenge includes intensifying
and accelerating the activities of CEN Standardisation for specific bio-based products for e.g.
bio-based polymers, biobased lubricants, bio-based surfactants and bio-based solvents; Public
Procurement issues, such as set-up of a Europe-wide public procurement system for bio-based
products; and market stimulation measures for innovative and sustainable biobased products;
-Funding and financing:
On funding and financing, stakeholders suggested combining financing for bio-based
industries of European and national support programmes; encouraging regional
opportunities and specialisations; creating funding support for the use of renewable
materials through the value chain (especially the scale-up from lab to pilot plant which has
high risks of failure involved, and will prevent SME’s from pursuing high-risk but high-
reward projects); and financial incentives.
8
-Social and stakeholders' engagement:
Several stakeholders pointed out challenges like: engaging with civil society, together with
industry, to encourage the debate on shaping a more competitive, resource efficient
bioeconomy for Europe; increase people awareness on the economic, social and
environmental benefits of bioeconomy on food security supported by a proper legislative
structure (e.g. linked to 2nd generation biomass and/or the use of abandoned arable lands);
and public acceptance of novel plant breeding (GMOs) and agricultural (and food production
and processing) technologies.
Agriculture and Food
The greatest challenge of the agri-food chain is sustainable intensification: intensifying the
production, preserving the environment, preventing further loss of biodiversity on both
genetic (e.g selection of animals that reduce the environmental impact, feed dependency on
protein crops) and general level, and ensuring the health and nutrition demands of
consumers. Additional challenges include access to food, access to land to produce food,
excessive waste and food overconsumption, and income security and socio-economic
conditions of the farming community.
Mitigating and adapting to climate change was identified by stakeholders as important
challenges. Agro-food systems and farming systems must improve their resilience and
adaptability. Stakeholders also highlighted the need to foster the development of a circular -
and for some more local - economy with more or 'better' food and biomass produced,
sustainably, with less.
Animal health was highlighted as a quite strong challenge by the animal sector stakeholders.
Improvement of animal health is necessary to improve efficiency, sustainability and
welfare of farm animals. Reducing the risk of animal diseases is also a condition to
reducing the risk of related human diseases. A challenge in this respect is to maintain its
strong research base in animal science - with its high quality and focus on long term
benefits. European aquaculture production is stagnating while the demand for aquaculture
products is growing. This is resulting into increasing imports of fish products from countries
with other standards in terms of animal welfare, social engagement and sustainability.
Therefore, the whole 'Fork to Farm' chain needs to be taken into account, ranging from
primary production to post-harvest solutions, processing, packaging, storage, logistical issues,
and addressing consumer needs. Agriculture must produce sufficient public goods (clean
water supply, clean air, fertile soils, stable climate, diverse landscapes, pollination,
biodiversity) and public services (public health and cultural services).
A key challenge is to involve and improve the cohesion between all stakeholders
(researchers, industry, next-users, end-users, individuals, governments and authorities,
interest-groups and society-at-large) to achieve effective, responsible and acceptable
innovation. Other key challenges include the sustainable use of resources (e.g. water,
nutrient, and energy recovery), reusing waste streams, and the inclusion of relevant SSH
aspects in R&D&I projects.
9
-Contribution from SCAR
Some members of the SCAR identified the following four challenges:
The need for appropriate knowledge, tools, services and innovations are necessary to
support more productive, resource-efficient and resilient agriculture and forestry
systems that supply sufficient food, feed, biomass and other raw materials and deliver
ecosystem services while at the same time supporting the development of thriving rural
livelihoods.
Food and feed security and safety, the competitiveness of the European agri-food
industry and the sustainability of food production and supply covering the whole food
chain and related services from primary production to consumption;
The sustainable exploitation of aquatic living resources to maximise social and
economic benefits from Europe’s oceans and seas;
Accelerating the conversion of fossil-based European bio-based industries to low carbon,
resource efficient and sustainable. This involves processing of biomass into a spectrum
of value-added products such as food, food ingredients, feed, fine chemicals and fuels.
Forestry
Stakeholders identified challenges like: resource efficiency and resource-efficient
technologies along the forest-based value chains to improve the management of its renewable
biological resources; reduce fossil fuel dependence on fossil fuels and scarce raw materials
and improve the sustainability of primary production; sustainable production and supply
of wood for both energy and material use, to service the growing bioeconomy (e.g.
biochemical and biomaterials) and consequently the sustainable development of markets.
Additional challenges stakeholders identified included economic growth and job creation;
added value from NWFP and ecosystem services (e.g. recreation, climate change mitigation,
biodiversity conservation, soil and water protection), for their sustainable provision; and
resilience of forests to underlying climate change and natural disturbances (e.g. drought,
storms, fires, pests and diseases, etc.), which need to also consider regional characteristics
(e.g. Mediterranean (agro-)forest ecosystems).
Marine Resources
On challenges and immediate actions, UNESCO/IOC considers issues like: restore fish
stocks; halt marine biodiversity loss, improve the conservation status of vulnerable marine
habitats and species and strengthen the legal framework to effectively address the problem
of invasive species; limit the effects of climate change; and halt and reverse the impacts of
pressures like eutrophication and litter.
10
The European Marine Board identifies other challenges like: the need of supporting
coordination and scientific action to address complex linkages between oceans and human
health, also identified by the VLIZ; better understanding marine microbial ecology; the
coherent implementation and management of marine protected areas (MPAs); and the
knowledge base to support EU Blue Growth in sectors like marine biotechnology and
aquaculture. In addition, the Flanders institute for Marine Science identifies ecosystem-based
management and the need to reinforce interdisciplinary multi-stakeholder research
(involving scientists, industry, society, policy makers).
EFARO suggests that an integrated and high quality monitoring system is necessary to
monitor the correct implementation of both the CFP and the MSFD, which will cover spatial
distribution of marine resources and impacts of aquaculture in coastal zones and fisheries on
marine ecosystems and habitats. It also signals the need for ecosystem-based Regional
Fisheries Management Systems; the effects of climate change on the distribution of fish;
the estimating MSY and developing fisheries management plans; marine pollution;
climate change impact on marine resource exploitation in the Artic and scientific
support to European Aquaculture Strategy: sustainable intensification, improved
production systems and offshore seaweed production in combination with offshore energy
production.
On specific challenges, ECMAR stresses the role of offshore structures and operations that
are safe and can withstand both normal and extreme wave loads. They also mention extracting
renewable energy at sea both as offshore and undersea currents and tides.
The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform identifies the improvement
of resource use (feeds & nutrition, systems technology, husbandry) and health/welfare of fish
reared in aquaculture (strategies/ treatments/protocols for infections, diseases and parasites) as
main challenges. Higher productivity, sustainable growth with environmental concerns,
transferring results/proposals through new knowledge networks to improve both uptake and
societal acceptance are specific challenges to be addressed.
The BONUS secretariat suggests the following challenges: sustaining long-term quality of
marine ecosystem services, finding efficient policy measures to support the development of
a maritime policy that is genuinely harmonized across sectors and national borders
within each sea basin (including the non-EU neighbours) and subsequently among the
European sea basins. Like other stakeholders, BONUS insists on the ecosystem approach to
integrated maritime policy and in particular, its genuine integration into each segment of
Integrated Maritime Policy. They also call for a radical improvement of the ability to devise
viable climate change adaptation policies. Socio-economic studies improving the
understanding of consumer behaviour and developing regulatory tools and economic
incentives in support of sustainable blue growth businesses is also seen as important.
The World Ocean Council identified challenges that are already addressed in the Blue Growth
Focus Area Work programme 2014-2015.
11
The Finnish Fish Farmers Association suggests that the most important specific challenges
which require immediate actions include the smart growth of aquaculture in variation
systems like net, ponds, RAS and also spatial planning and governance.
The European Technology Platform for Water points out the challenge to reduce agriculture
pollution and water shortage impacts on the water cycle (including surface, groundwater,
coastal or transitional water) while at the same time decoupling food production potential
from the use of water resources. The phosphorus and other nutrients efficiency and
recycling is also identified as a challenge that has synergies with reducing environmental
impact (eutrophication), with recycling and management of nitrogen fertilisers, and
energy/materials recovery.
The UK National Oceanography Centre suggests that many fundamental climate science
questions still need to be addressed. It also suggests that, as economic interest in deep-sea
mining grows, it will be important that knowledge from research projects is translated into
policy to ensure that the deep-sea environment is sustainably managed. The Surfrider
Foundation Europe suggests that the biggest challenge is a Knowledge state of the art. This
requires, on the one hand to maintain efforts in gaining knowledge on climate change and,
secondly, assessing the anthropogenic responses. The aim is to increase knowledge on the role
of oceans in the climatic dynamics and anticipate impacts.
2. Key research and innovation areas
General
Stakeholders advocated further research on sustainability, health, new modelling
approaches, and ecological agriculture. The University of Amsterdam stressed research and
innovation on areas like bioinformatics or e-bioscience infrastructure and the Università
Politecnica delle Marche stressed research on the marine/oceanic environment.
Bio—based products and processing
In the field of bio-based products and processing, stakeholders identified the following key
areas for research:
Sustainable supply of biomass for bio-based industries by the implementation of an
agreed and voluntary certification scheme developed by using a multi-stakeholder
approach, including the active involvement of biomass feedstock producers, industry
actors, European and national industry associations, NGOs, scientists, and policy
makers.
Decomposition techniques to maximize recovery from waste.
12
Development of technologies for downstream possibilities of cellulosic sugar and
lignin.
CO2 capture and utilization.
Bioconversion.
From laboratory to demonstration.
Development of completely new materials (e.g. bio-composites) with performance
equal to better of existing ones. For this, studies on material science should be
favoured.
Bio-materials for medical applications.
Advanced transportation fuels, Chemicals, Materials, Food ingredients and feed,
Energy.
IT increased expertise to analyse large databases.
Specific for GMOs, PreSto GMO ERA-NET pointed out the development of new plant
breeding techniques and legal regulations and international harmonization to support the
development of these technologies, supported by ways to sort out problems of public
acceptance as well as increase applicability in practice especially by SMEs. The European
Tyre & Rubber Manufacturer's Association highlighted genetic engineering applied to non-
food crops to increase biomass availability as key challenge.
Agriculture and Food
Because of the multi-disciplinary character of the 'Fork to Farm' agri-food chain, different
mutually reinforcing key research and innovation areas were identified by the consulted
external stakeholders. On the production side, stakeholders advocated further research
activities on agro-ecological methods for supporting the health of soils, crops and livestock,
organic agriculture, methods for improving recycling of nutrients; improving productivity
of protein crops; plant breeding with perennial crops; multi-use plants; animal breeding;
reduced use of antibiotics; preservation and sustainable use of genetic resources in
agriculture. They were also interested in more research on value chain approaches for both
food and non-food products, including new business models, short supply chains, models
for farm markets; and in minimally processed food, research on food waste in general and
waste valorization processes in particular was also demanded.
In addition, numerous references were made to ICT-enabled intelligent agriculture (e.g.
precision farming, further use of GIS, GPS and RS), animal and plant health (e.g.
biopesticides, Integrated Pest Management), and a diversification taking into account the need
for biomass for non-agricultural means. New crop varieties (which should be able to tolerate
more extreme climatic conditions) and processing techniques should take into account
consumer demand in general, and healthier diets in particular. Regarding food, further
advances in resource-efficient processing, packaging and preservation should be explored,
including new detection methods, tools and e-applications. In all areas however, sufficient
attention should be paid to health, food safety, SSH aspects, and practical applications.
13
In the field of animal production, specialized stakeholders identified four key areas for
research:
Resource efficiency (efficient and robust animals; efficient feed chains, improving
the use of residues in animal production, Precision livestock farming),
Responsible livestock farming (assessing EU animal production systems, improving
protein and energy autonomy of the animal production sector, productive grassland
based systems, climate smart agriculture);
Healthy livestock and people (prevention, control, and eradication, the microbiome,
animal, & human health, nutritional quality of animal products, feed & food safety);
Knowledge exchange towards innovation (knowledge exchange with farmers and
industry towards innovation, improving systems for the Implementation of ‘omics’
tools, ensuring animal welfare).
They also advocated for research activities on new medicines (especially vaccines) and
diagnostics tools, and on the biology and evolution of microbes and pests with the
objective to control their propagation with less recourse to chemical compounds and more
recourse to biological resources, addressing pathogenicity; detection; control and
prevention; alternative treatments; epidemiology and surveillance. Research on animal
welfare is also needed (requirements and parameters for assessment).
Finally, stakeholders demanded more research activities on empowerment of rural
communities, urban-rural linkages and partnerships and diversification of local economies
in rural areas.
- Contribution from SCAR
SCAR members mentioned five key areas for research:
Better understand the complex interlinkages in scarcities: long-term observations and
experiments
Driver interactions: environmental – social are critical and poorly studied,
governance and knowledge systems are important
Improve existing farming and food chain systems („sustainable intensification“, „no
waste chains“): Systems science for resource use optimality, include on-farm trials
Develop radically new farming systems (landless, urban …)
Exploit resources for feed and fiber that don´t compete with food
Forestry
Specialized stakeholders in forestry identified five key areas for research:
Development of intelligent (i.e. economic efficient and environment-friendly) forest
operation systems and novel solutions (including cutting-edge technologies) for
human–machine–terrain interactions;
Development of novel tree breeding strategies and tools aiming at sustainable and
high yield of biomass, improved wood quality and resistance to natural stressors;
14
Improved public policies and business models to promote the capitalisation of wood
and non-wood forest products along the value chains, and 'internalise' in the sector the
proven values of forest ecosystem services;
Development of management models to promote multipurpose forestry and
enhance the resilience of forests to natural disturbances, including pests and diseases;
Development of devices for the comprehensive monitoring of forest ecosystems and
assessment of resources as well as the integration of the data produced at large scale
and land uses
Marine Resources
UNESCO/IOC considers issues like: further research on the valuation of marine ecosystems
services for human wellbeing; exploration of marine resources for industrial
applications; new marine biotechnologies; full implementation of the European common
framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management; marine
renewable energy; new research infrastructures.
The EMB identifies a number of key areas the rationale of which is expanded in several EMB
position papers and science briefs, namely: ocean and human health, marine biodiversity,
marine microbial ecology, networks of MPA, marine biotechnology, and aquaculture.
The VLIZ identifies very similar areas: marine biodiversity, ecosystem functioning &
maritime spatial planning, ocean and human health, marine biotechnology. In addition, it
pinpoints deep-sea research. Regarding maritime spatial planning, it suggests the application
of extractive aquaculture (especially with seaweeds) as an area that should be fully explored
as innovative bioremediation approach in dealing with coastal eutrophication problems.
Regarding deep-sea research, it suggests the need to improve knowledge on the (sub) seabed
and its living and non-living features in order to inform decisions about the sustainable
exploitation of deep sea resources.
The Finnish Fish Farmers Association suggests research for the reduction of the
administrative burden of licensing without compromising environmental protection;
maritime spatial planning; the creation of level playing field across food production
sectors; and the maintenance of existing permits, when monitoring proves no risk for
ecosystem resiliency.
EFARO suggests the generic research and innovation areas: Fisheries and Aquaculture
Sciences; Economics and social sciences; Marine environmental sciences; Marine and
underwater technology; Blue Biotechnology; Blue bioeconomy; Fish farming and fisheries;
Fish production science; and Plant production sciences (seaweed).
ECMAR suggests the following research and innovation areas: understanding and
predicting the waves, both routine and extreme waves that must be withstood by any
offshore operation or structure. Such forecasts must enable real time, medium term and long
15
term prediction of complex sea as well as understanding the frequency and risk factors.
ECMAR also points out that full life cycle research is required to fully understand the costs of
offshore energy, where efficiencies can be made, on income streams, and the economic
model that can be applied to enable successful exploitation. Research is also needed to hydro-
dynamically model underwater current energy devices taking into account flow
stratification and sea bed interaction.
The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform identifies the following
research and innovation areas: improvement of feed and fish health, ensure
environmentally sustainable aquaculture industry by innovation – referring to systems
technology, better understanding of consumer perceptions, development of efficient
technologies to support growth, improved management and technology, scientific support to
deliver high quality aquaculture products, development of tools for environmental
governance and genetic improvement of traits.
The BONUS secretariat suggests encouraging interdisciplinary research and innovation
and calls for the formulation of marine environmental targets that are based on
comprehensive, inclusive and smart far-sighted analysis, for the development of
corresponding systems of indicators and the re-designing of all elements of marine knowledge
and monitoring. It also points out the need to develop the knowledge basis for truly working
measures (II cycle of Marine Strategy Framework Directive) as well as the robust integration
of non-monetary services to assess the value of marine ecosystem services. As other
stakeholders, BONUS insists on the further development of fair, science-based and
integrated maritime spatial planning. Finally, it indicates the need for improved spatio-
temporal resolution and quality of climate change impact projections including the robust
integration of socio-economic scenarios into projections and better science for adaptation
policies.
According to the World Ocean Council, research and innovation areas should be the ones that
respond to the operational and policy needs of the ocean industries through dialogue with
them.
The Surfrider Foundation suggests that the interrelations oceans/emissions need further
research to increase knowledge and allow all stakeholders to get involved and contribute to
the evaluation and development of appropriate anthropogenic responses.
3. Key assumptions
General
Stakeholders identified assumptions like increasing population, preserving the
environment, consumer behaviours, understanding that we live in an-almost-closed system.
16
Bio-based products and processing
Stakeholders identified the following general assumptions:
Biotechnology is a central pillar of innovation and contributes to create jobs,
improve energy and food security, help to mitigate the impacts of climate change,
enhance quality of life and enable smarter, more sustainable products and materials
making better use of our precious natural resources.
Industrial biotechnology (has become known as the Key Enabling Technology)
contributes towards of a more sustainable and competitive bioeconomy in Europe.
It provides an alternative to using fossil sources. It also plays an important role in
creating a more inclusive economy, because the renewable feedstocks that it uses often
come from European rural and coastal regions where jobs and economic growth need
to be boosted.
Developing a bioeconomy, enabled by industrial biotechnology, is already bringing
many economic benefits for Europe and Europeans, and environmental benefits
through the introduction of more sustainable products and processes and through
reduced energy consumption and CO2 emissions.
Competing regions, such as the US, Brazil, China, Canada and South East Asia offer
more attractive and supportive conditions to European industry.
Agricultural biotechnology plays a leading role in the process. It helps to improve
agricultural sustainability, to reduce CO2 emissions reduction, to increase resource and
energy efficiency and productivity.
Stakeholders also pointed out some assumptions leading to enhance biomass supply and
resource efficiency of biorefineries:
Methodologies to compare the environmental footprint of bio-based products and
processes would be needed.
Integration of different types of value chains (not sectoral approaches) would
enhance results of bio-based processes.
Reinforce the competitiveness of European agriculture and forest-based
industries is key.
There is a need to respond to demand of biomass beyond biomass for bioenergy
Learning from the bioenergy experience, bio-based industries should be anticipated
mechanisms secured from the beginning the sustainability of the feedstock base.
In addition, several assumptions to support market up-take were suggested by stakeholders:
Implementation of standardization of bio-based products.
Transparent claims for consumers on bio-based products which would increase
their purchase and use.
Consumer awareness.
17
Cooperation with downstream industries to better understand consumers’
requirements.
Public perception on novel technologies including novel plant breading is crucial
(specific for GMOs).
Agriculture and Food
The global population will continue to increase, resulting in an increased demand for food
(especially animal-based proteins). Therefore, resources (e.g. water and nutrients) will
become more and more scarce, and this requires a shift towards a more resource-efficient
and environmentally respectful agriculture. Technologies on one hand, societal change at
producer and consumer level on the other hand, are seen as central to achieving progress. At
consumer level, stakeholders observe an increasing demand for high quality food with
minimal impact on environment.
For the successful development of an innovative European food industry and in order to
achieve food security, it is essential that all R&D&I areas (from Fork to farm) are combined,
taking into account consumer preferences, changing lifestyles, changing diets, and an over-
riding safety ethic. Multidisciplinary programmes, including SSH aspects, are therefore
essential.
In the animal production sector, stakeholders assume that livestock farming is central to the
sustainability of rural communities around the world, as well as being socially,
economically and politically highly significant at national and international levels. Although
animal health research has provided effective prevention strategies for the major endemic
diseases of livestock, disease prevalence remains high and knowledge on economic
impacts remains fractionated. Stakeholders assume that the better knowledge of the
epidemiology of infection, its origin, prevalence and impacts on both, plants and animals
incl. zoonoses, will result in a more reliable agricultural productivity. Contributions foresee
that customers’ demands on less use of antibiotics in livestock production and less use of
pesticides in plant production will be taken into account. In terms of animal welfare, better
knowledge of livestock requirements and a more efficient assessment would greatly enhance
the possibilities for application of welfare standards. The possibilities for using existing
data (e.g. farm and slaughterhouse data) should be explored. Regarding the development of a
competitive and sustainable livestock sector in Europe, as major impacts are at least as likely
to come from integration of activities (across multiple stages of supply and production chains
or across broader geographical areas than single enterprises) as they are from individual
components a key assumption is that more effective cooperation/collaboration amongst
various actors is achievable. It is also assumed that meeting societal concerns and
achieving technical improvements are compatible. There are likely areas where this is not
the case. The way to manage such trade-offs then becomes important. FABRE TP assesses
that societal demands regarding livestock are i) an environmentally sustainable livestock
production, which makes efficient use of the global feed resources, and minimises pollution,
ii) a European production with high animal welfare and selection of animals in a responsible
way, iii) high quality of their animal food products, iv) a viable livelihood throughout the
countries/throughout Europe.
18
For aquaculture, the development of the different industries (species and countries) differs
greatly, making the potential for technology and knowledge great. Animal breeding is a
major and cost effective contributor for solutions to the challenges of the future.
-Contribution from SCAR
SCAR underlined assumptions such as global population growth (including growth in
demand for food ); global climate and other environmental changes, environmental
impacts of farming, fishing, food processing, transport and consumption, limited key
resources; social drivers (include urbanisation, demographic change, issues of land tenure,
governance and international security, changing patterns of consumer needs, preferences,
choices…); economic drivers (include issues of trade, land tenure, trends in production and
demand and potential for shocks, food markets and their volatility, supply and distribution…)
and political drivers such as changes in government policy and political instability.
Forestry
The growing impacts of climate change, increasing demand for raw materials and
energy, and environmental problems, (land degradation, water shortages and floods,
chemical pollution and biodiversity loss), indicate that the planet is approaching the limits
of sustainability, in spite of the adoption and implementation of multilateral environmental
agreements. At a global level, over 1.5 billion people are affected by desertification, land
degradation and drought in more than 110 countries. The EU will be more dependent in the
future on its finite land resources – which include some of the most fertile soils in the world
– and on their sustainable use. This entails the need for identifying and promoting more
labour intensive and resource extensive solutions for land use servicing a growing
bioeconomy, and the inclusion of land resources in the assessment of production systems (e.g.
LCA).
On the other hand, the EU’s stock of growing forest biomass is continuously increasing,
and may face 'saturation' in some particular cases. In 2010 the annual increment of Europe’s
forests was 768 million m3, while the annual harvest of wood was 484 million m
3, illustrating
the existing and prospective production basis. Europe is largely independent regarding the
supply of wood for the industry, with a larger share of 'imports' for bioenergy.
Additionally, forests provide society with a multitude of ecosystem services adding to the
wood and non-wood products. Forests capture and sequestrate ca. 10% of the EU’s GHG
emissions, host biodiversity at species and gene level, ensure water conservation, soil
protection and nutrient balance, enable socio-economic activities in the mountains by
mitigating natural hazards, and offer recreational opportunities. These ecosystem services are
nevertheless mostly non-excludable in use and often go unrecognised by the existing markets;
therefore the challenge remains to find the right balance in space and time for providing these
services sustainably. In accordance with IPPC AR5, the most cost‐effective mitigation options
in forestry are afforestation, sustainable forest management and reducing deforestation, with
large differences in their relative importance across regions. Policies governing forest
conservation and management are more effective when involving both mitigation and
adaptation.
19
Marine Resources
UNESCO/IOC considers that there is a need to change the paradigm: in the past we have
managed the ecosystems by looking at individual species, now we look to the entire
ecosystem; we have limited our capabilities to small spatial scales, now we are considering
multiple scales; we need to move from a short-term perspective to a long-term perspective;
consider humans as an integral part of ecosystems; management was very often divorced
from research now we use an adaptative approach; we should now concentrate in sustaining
production potential for both goods and services.
The EMB states the growing recognition within the scientific community of the need for a
more holistic approach to understanding the complex links between the seas and oceans
and human health. The EMB recognizes that Europe has made significant progress in
marine biodiversity (although more is needed in deep-sea), but achieving the biodiversity
targets it has set itself requires excellent science, strong European research collaboration,
enhanced observing and research capacities, effective science-based decisions and
management including effective science-policy interfaces. More research is needed on
marine microbial ecology, as marine microorganisms are at the foundation of life, and of
critical importance to the habitability and sustainability of our planet.
The EMB calls also to continue the effort to complete the ‘ecological mapping’ of
ecosystems, a prerequisite for the effective management of MPA networks. In this domain
other important research priorities include: further understanding connectivity and ecosystem-
engineered habitats; enforcement, surveillance and stakeholder participation, also matched
with the development of MPA networks in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Marine
economic activities moving further offshore into the deep-sea e.g. seabed mining, aquaculture
are key, given the demand for resources and advancements in technology. Research and
innovation will continue to be at the core of EU efforts to provide a basis for the sustainable
expansion of the aquaculture sector, but also to make EU aquaculture production the most
technologically advanced in the world. The Board underlines the need to set-up a strategy for
marine biotechnology development in Europe. Basic research remains fundamental to
inform Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).
EFARO considers as key assumption that research priorities have to underpin the
implementation of major marine and maritime European strategies, policies and directives,
such as the CFP, MSFD, EU Maritime Policy, EU Aquaculture Strategy, EU Strategy 2020,
EU Sea Basin Strategies and European Strategy for Marine and Maritime Research, but also
global commitments such the Convention of Biodiversity.
ECMAR suggests the development of offshore structures that can withstand both normal
wave loads and those from extreme events: real time, medium and long term prediction of
waves within complex sea states. Even under normal seasonal conditions, the sea is a hostile
environment which places tremendous forces on marine structures. Occasional extreme waves
do occur, even sometimes within otherwise benign conditions and that these extreme waves
do cause catastrophic damage to structures. Any structures at sea must be designed to
20
withstand both the routine fatigue loads from those caused by occasional extreme events. The
frequency and forecasting of these events is still largely unknown and is essential if further
activities are moved offshore.
In addition, ECMAR states that there is huge potential from offshore energy. However,
unlike land based facilities the cost structures are different. Even though the potential offshore
energy available is much higher than equivalent land based sources, the devices must also be
stronger to resist marine forces. They are more expensive to install, maintain and
decommission. To be economic, it is essential to consider the full life cycle, and the
associated external costs. Currently with the exception of wind, offshore energy devices are
largely smaller and pre-commercial scale.
The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform underlines that aquaculture
products will be increasingly present in the ‘fisheries’ market, responding to consumer
demand and expectations for healthy, safe seafood. Competitiveness and sustainable
production while achieving higher levels of efficiency & productivity will be possible
through research and innovation. New technologies combined with better livestock profiles
and responses to disease/infections are clear means to achieve these. Nonetheless,
environmental concerns (using science to replace perceptions) and new
monitoring/observation tools are essential to respond to civil society. All technical
improvements need to be assessed for acceptance by both the legislator and society,
providing win-win positions.
The BONUS secretariat considers that the uptake level of long-term sustainability issues in
civil society is insufficient. This trend must be reversed by radical change of attitude to
science dissemination. Understanding of the role of scientists and science in society still waits
radical revisiting. There is a need for specific communication tools for crossing over the
science-policy interface.
According to the WOC, the key assumption is that research and innovation has to address
the needs of the private sector and the business community is interested in growth.
The Surfrider Foundation suggests that lack of knowledge of where and what deep-sea
minerals exist can be a major limitation on the activity of deep-sea mining. Without
knowledge of deposit location and richness, mining could not be effective.
21
2.2. Bottlenecks & gaps
4. Bottlenecks, risks and uncertainties
General
The main bottlenecks are the need for more knowledge transfer and international
collaboration among stakeholders. Additionally, they also recognised lack of research on
sustainable food consumption; lack of models that also consider cultural and social
specificities; bottlenecks in sustainable crop production; bottlenecks in minimizing
agricultural and food chain wastes; lack of research on climate change uncertainties; lack
of research on novel foods; lack of fund on biodiversity research. The University of
Amsterdam stressed lack of skilled bioinformaticians, lack of bioinformatics support as
bottlenecks.
Bio-based products and processing
On biomass supply, stakeholders identified the following bottlenecks, risks and uncertainties:
Comply with renewable energy commitments respecting specific needs for bio-
based industries including food and feed.
Limited biomass resources for what it is critical to increase the productivity and
output of biomass from European forest and agricultural land in a sustainable way and
to unlock the potential of the residues and side-streams and waste
The advanced feedstock supplies are still underdeveloped and require significant
infrastructure for mobilisation and logistics.
Raw material - a smart and sustainable bioeconomy will need to create more added-
value from certain feedstocks in order to be able to grow continuously. Further
research in terms of second generation feedstock is crucial in order to ensure multiple
types of raw material are valorized to their fullest and contribute to reaching the ideal
of a zero waste society.
Integrating industrial food and feed sector to the bio-based industries value chain.
On market take-up of bio-based products, stakeholders pointed out:
Limited market understanding of the importance of using materials with reduced
carbon footprint (often at higher cost). Marketing strategies, especially using social
media, would help to increase awareness.
Difficulty to compete with global market prices due to duties (imports are duty
free)
22
High investment costs. To be addressed with specific policies on financing / taxing of
highly innovative activities.
Stakeholders also identified some social aspects:
The economic situation is not favouring long-term university studies. E.g
uncertainties on economical recognition of efforts / limited outlet for highly skilled
people, like PhDs which are often perceived as “too specialized”. Higher support for
the students while performing their PhDs could at least partially help.
Specific for GMOs: deficiency of true inter-disciplinary understanding of why
public reservations against certain technologies arise, how they are formed and
stabilised, how they change over time and how they can be changed.
Agriculture and Food
The 2 main bottlenecks are the need for more innovation and technology transfer and
international collaboration among stakeholders (translation of research results into practical
applications; especially relevant for SMEs and Public-Private Partnerships), and the shortage
of multidisciplinary teams that can successfully tackle the challenges described in questions
1-2. Other but less cited bottlenecks include the lack of adequate IT systems and advanced
technologies, the uncertainties regarding the role of food and diets on human health (also a
multidisciplinary issue), regulatory and bureaucratic impediments, SSH aspects, and the
limited awareness of the real costs and economic value of certain raw materials
(especially water and nutrients).
In the animal sector, bottlenecks include an excessive administrative burden on the animal
health industry, which needs to be reduced to free budget to foster innovation. There is also a
need to better transfer animal health (and animal welfare) knowledge and integrate it
into a socio-economic framework. The sector is confronted to an increase in farm and
herd sizes, which need to be handled by fewer and fewer workers, with potential high
scale losses. The influence of climate change and globalisation and increased (cross-border)
transport of people, animals, crops and goods, increase the risk of (exotic) disease
introduction and spread. The added cost of respecting welfare standards and organic -
or other alternative treatment- production are not necessarily compensated by willingness
of consumers to pay higher prices.
On knowledge and technology bottlenecks in the livestock sector, throughput phenotyping
remains its infancy for farm animals while it has been quite well developed for plants and
laboratory rodents, be it “deep” phenotyping (including ‘omics technologies), i.e. large
number of measurements from a small sample of animals or “broad” phenotyping, i.e. small
number of measurements on a large sample of animals. Investment in physical research
infrastructure is needed both to link existing facilities and to develop new platforms for
deriving relevant phenotypes. Cost effective approaches of genotyping technologies and/or
mathematical approaches, and application of these, to obtain high quality genome information
for the use in selective breeding are needed as well. Our knowledge on how to make the
best use of existing genetic variation in precision farming environments is also limiting.
23
Whilst genomic resources are developed for most agricultural species, the aquacultural
species have fragmented and incomplete genomic resources. These are vital to increasing
the competence of the biology of these species, for both industry and wild population genetic
management. A concerted trans-European action is needed for this issue/matter, as all efforts,
until now, have been few and fragmented in time and space. ELIXIR is a European
infrastructure that can be utilised in this work.
-Contribution from SCAR
Examples of bottlenecks highlighted by some SCAR members include:
Lack of integration of environmental demands and barriers to influence
management change at the farmer level.
There is a need for increasing the multi-disciplinary approach.
There is a need for more coordinated, cross-thematic research approaches from
diverse disciplines.
Usability and user-friendliness of the products must be improved, thereby
increasing the uptake of ICT and automation.
For Galileo applications in agriculture: since Galileo is not yet operational, private
companies cannot expect an immediate return on their investments (ROIs).
Bottlenecks lie in a true inter-disciplinary understanding of the potential of the bio-economy
but also its limits, imposed by public acceptance (e.g. synthetic biology; green
biotechnology), governance and regulation, market rules (“playing field”). This calls for a
broader, more integrated approach to developing new technologies, products and services,
ensuring that the bio-economy is able to deliver truly sustainable, socially acceptable and
economically viable solutions for the grand challenges and within industrial contexts. We
need common dialogue platforms to align the goals of the different stakeholders e.g. industry,
NGOs, etc..
Forestry
In the field of forestry, specialised stakeholders have identified these bottlenecks:
Fragmentation of forest ownership, entrepreneurs and SMEs in wood-working
industries, as well as weak long-term monitoring of forest ecosystems, impeding the
proper application of economies of scale principle in forest operations and processing
in the downstream value chains.
Limited integration of existing information on forest resources by means of the
observation systems (meteorological, hydrological, forest health, etc.) both within and
among member states. Also, forest and agrarian systems are researched as independent
systems and the integration between both is relevant to understand the provision of
essential services such as water supply (possible new Art. 185 initiatives may include
forestry alongside agrarian interests).
24
Limited incentives and capacity to invest for innovation in the forestry and
forest-based sector, given the unfavourable ration between the investments required
in the high-tech segment and the market share of the forestry industry (e.g. forest
operations machineries).
The adaptation of forests and forest management planning to current changes to
the environmental and socio-economic process have to consider the specificities of the
sector, in particular high rotation/harvesting age. Also, compared to other land
production activities, forestry has a strong regional component, shaped by the main
use and services that are very often pattern-specific.
Non technological barriers: standardisation (e.g. safety systems for utilisation of
robots in open environments), regulatory framework (e.g. increased need for
traceability and sustainability assurance for biomass).
In spite of the existing ERA-Net schemes (SUMFOREST, WOODWISDOM,
FORESTERRA), the forest-based sector research is still fragmented. These
coordination activities could evolve under Horizon 2020 in a more coordinated action
including all current existing multi-actor networks and initiatives at the European level
and pan-European as well as national level.
The possibility for the R&I and R&D activities to address these bottlenecks are relatively
limited, and the public funding should be directed in those specific cases of 'market failure'
emphasised by this document on the whole.
Marine Resources
According to UNESCO/IOC, they include: reduced research budgets, at both national and
EU levels; lack of political willingness to act in areas related with climate change and
removal of subsidies to fisheries; uncertainties related to aquaculture, marine
biotechnology, deep sea mineral mining, marine renewables and its impacts on the marine
environment including share of maritime space.
The EMB identify major bottlenecks like: insufficient capacity for crossing disciplines to
address complex societal challenges; insufficient effort on behalf of project consortia to
deliver appropriate knowledge transfer to support policy/societal goals; barriers to access
marine data in support of research and innovation - open access to data and knowledge;
technology deficits e.g. of fast-track new sensor and platform technologies prohibiting
progress towards integrated marine observing system in Europe and on biological monitoring
which especially need technological innovation; lack of engagement of European citizens in
data gathering, observations and experimental work on Citizen science.
The VLIZ identifies data and technology as bottlenecks. It stresses the need for data to be
available at no cost, the need for quality control and for raw data rather than data products as
the latter are easier to use for multi-purposes. According to VLIZ, technological development
is needed to optimize sampling, surveying and observation systems. This is of particular
relevance in view of the cost-effective monitoring of the marine environment. Regarding
deep-sea research, an increased accessibility for marine researchers, from all Member States,
to sea- and ocean-going platforms and marine research infrastructure is needed (e.g.
Initiatives such as Eurofleets).
25
EFARO sees a bottleneck on H2020 requirement for collaboration between industry,
academic and government funded science where performance indicators and IPR hinder
collaboration. It suggests separation of H2020 funding schemes for industrial, academic and
policy related research with different performance indicators, such as publications for
academia and patents for industry.
For the Finnish Fish Farmers Association, the main bottleneck is limitation of available and
comparable data.
The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform identifies as bottleneck the
two tendencies: higher focus on improvement of current species/practices rather than
diversification efforts – i.e. a preference for shorter-term benefits as opposed to longer-term
potential which will inevitably, lead to discord between professionals and the researchers. In
addition, the identification and development of research priorities at
local/national/regional levels is difficult – particularly when addressing fragmented and
dispersed SMEs dominating the EU aquaculture. The transfer of knowledge developed after
a research project is not always guaranteed. Environmental and consumer concerns are
important in determining uncertainties and efforts could be made to
improve/promote/implement the existing knowledge on this. Other risks/uncertainties include
fish health, alternative feed ingredients, and moving offshore (new technology, new
management protocols).
BONUS identifies as main bottleneck the inability to efficiently assess the effects of
combined pressures on ecosystem in the long term. This needs more natural and
interdisciplinary research.
For the WOC, the key bottleneck is the lack of a systematic process for identifying the
practical priorities of the business community but also lack of trust and a track record for
collaboration between the private sector and the public sector and civil society. This can be
addressed by developing the structure and process for interaction between industry and
other stakeholders. Pilot projects can be developed to test the collaboration and achieve
more immediate results.
The UK Oceanography Centre suggests that the utilization of the marine environment requires
significant cross-disciplinary collaboration. The exploitation of the deep sea would
require cross sectorial collaborative working practices allowing stakeholders to work
together to develop long term, sustainable economic growth.
The Surfrider Foundation pinpoints that bottlenecks could result from a lack of reactivity
with the risk of conflicts of interests. In order to avoid this risk, it would be appropriate to
develop cooperation including taking the lead via a readily accessible, enforceable and
transparent information. The establishment of a multi-stakeholder task force could help
enhance the dissemination of knowledge and limit the barriers to change.
In addition, the institute of Oceanographic and Fisheries includes that “green” and sustainable
activities often yield lower profits than non-sustainable ones.
26
5. Major Gaps
General
Most of the consulted external stakeholders linked their response to this question (gaps) to
their input on the previous question (bottlenecks). Additionally, Università Politecnica delle
Marche highlights lack of research on detection of marine pollutants in seas. The UK
Aston University highlights the products and processes that are developed and do not
reach the market.
Bio-based products and processing
On supply and logistics for bio-based industries and the deployment of the bioeconomy
stakeholders identified these gaps:
Lack of level playing field between the industrial and the energy use of biomass.
The supply of additional and sufficient biomass for a bio-based economy is
questionable. To sort out this situation the following measures were proposed:
Optimising utilisation of existing feedstock (forest and agricultural biomass), the
development of new feedstock supply chains (e.g. forest residues, agricultural
lignocellulosic residues or dedicated crops), as well as industrial side streams and
organic municipal waste.
Advanced feedstock supplies are still underdeveloped and require significant
infrastructure for mobilisation and logistics.
Novel plant species or varieties and adequate advanced recycling methods for
bio-materials and residues (e.g. from agriculture, forestry, Municipal Solid Waste)
must be developed: a wider engagement and a stronger link between farmers, forester,
downstream industries and consumers are yet necessary to achieve these aims.
To improve the pre-treatments and the preparation of harvested material already
at farm level, in order to reduce transport costs and increase storage capability and
productivity.
On consumers side, stakeholders identified the following gaps:
Due to the absence of tailored incentives for consumers to prefer biobased
products to their fossil-based alternatives, the market uptake of the products created
thanks to IB is limited.
Green public procurement will play an important role as will the putting in place of
standards, certification and labelling.
Specific for GMOs:
o Asynchronous authorisation of products obtained by novel technology. New
products are not available on EU market.
o Legal requirements hamper broad application of novel technologies.
27
o Difficult access to novel technologies by SMEs.
o As described in the US Bioeconomy Blueprint, use of genetically modified
(GM) substances for other uses than those for food applications (e.g. plants
used for textiles).
Agriculture and Food
Most of the consulted external stakeholders linked their response to this question (gaps) to
their input on the previous question (bottlenecks). On top of the conclusions of question 4
(which remain valid), the following specific gaps were mentioned: the real value of
ecosystems and their services; a clear definition of 'sustainability'; how to close the
nutrient cycles; how to reduce energy consumption; use of appropriate ICT technology
and precision farming, animal welfare and viable husbandry; new business models for
multi-functional agriculture; how to identify, detect, prevent, reduce, control or eradicate
the animal diseases fast and cost-efficiently; how to cope with the global scarcity of fish
oil and fish meal; soft (people-centred) skills such as better communication between
producers, researchers, policy-makers and consumers; how to assess the long-term impacts
of new technologies; data collection and standardisation.
Some stakeholders report gaps in market knowledge and policy support (regard
regulations for import and transports of animals, plants and their products on disease
emergence and spread, regulations for disease treatment and control) and in the handling
of intellectual property rights. Some also signaled that current R&D investment capacity
by private companies is impaired by the economic crisis, a pity as too low investment in
technology development further endangers European competitiveness (vicious circle).
- Contribution from SCAR
Societal Challenge 2 will need to work closely with other H2020 societal challenges to avoid
gaps and overlaps and ensure synergies and with the wider agendas for skills, innovation
and research infrastructure.
The research challenges outlined above will need to build on new and existing knowledge and
technologies and a key challenge, but one with potentially significant added value in
addressing these at EU level, is to take an holistic view and to better understand the trade-offs
and synergies between the different aspects of the SC2 Challenge such as food security and
bio-resources, including the perspective of ecosystem services. This can help us understand
and deliver the most effective package of actions and policies to help Europe achieve its
objectives in this area.
This requires coordinated and integrated interdisciplinary research and effective, pro-active
translation into practice and policy. Avoiding fragmentation of resources is essential to
maximize the exploitation of research infrastructure and expertise. For selected technology
areas further coordination of infrastructure financing and exploitation that facilitate access to
a majority of interested European investigators is required.
28
Forestry
These gaps are identified by specialized stakeholders:
How forests should be managed to satisfy multiple demands in an 'optimal' way
is limitedly understood. Spatial integration or the segregation of forest functions is
heavily debated. New management models considering the holistic basket of
economic, social and environmental services, and aimed at closing the gap between
the high-level research and field practice are badly needed.
Ecosystem services are difficult to evaluate in monetary terms and even more
difficult to be translated in policy mechanisms for sustained provision, which warrants
further analysis and development. Increased coordination of forest related policies
at the EU level can also benefit from improved science-based evidence.
Even though there is no EU country whose wood harvest exceeds forest increment,
there is need of new and adaptive production systems for achieving higher yields,
improved wood quality and stress tolerance in changing environmental conditions, to
ensure sustainable supply of raw materials for the growing bioeconomy. Further
development of novel tree breeding strategies and tools is instrumental to this end.
A new generation of resource inventory and monitoring systems and flexible
planning tools, enabling accurate and harmonised information on quantity and quality
on local, regional and global scales, are needed. To enhance the economic viability
and environmental benefits of forestry, they should be complemented by wood supply
systems achieving better integration along value chains from forest to end-
product. This includes partly autonomous harvesting and transport systems that
increase 'precision' on targeted harvesting and are able to negotiate difficult terrain
conditions with minimised impact on soil and water resources.
Marine Resources
UNESCO/IOC considers the need to: ensure a better understanding of the cumulative
impacts of human uses of maritime space; avoid the long term and irreversible effects and
depletion of finite marine resources; provide adequate long-term environmental and
health monitoring, and conduct research into early warnings; provide quantitative
valuation of the marine ecosystems services for human wellbeing.
The EMB highlights some additional specific gaps, for example: limited amount of
information providing quantitative assessment of the disease burden and economic impact
of marine-related human illness; lack of quantitative assessment of marine biodiversity
(in particular deep-sea) status and trends in Europe; a serious decline in taxonomy
knowledge where Europe used to be a leader; on the lack of skills and training of the future
marine experts; the underutilization of existing European Marine Stations; in order to
proceed sustainably with Blue Growth initiatives, there is a need for monetary and non-
monetary valuation systems for marine ecosystem services and benefits.
The VLIZ also identifies skills and the current training system as a gap where marine
sciences and maritime technologies are separated with little interfaces. It insists on the need
for enhancing multi-disciplinary skills of young scientists and training professionals with a
29
multi-disciplinary background. Cooperation between research institutes, industry, societal
organisations and governmental parties (the Triple Helix concept) has to be intensified.
EFARO states that more environmental friendly ecosystems for fisheries and aquaculture,
need more knowledge and related skills on marine systems and mathematical models to test
management scenarios is required. Link between natural and social sciences are needed.
Regarding the sustainable intensification of aquaculture, a multidisciplinary approach is
an asset. For the next development of aquaculture, expertise from the livestock production
science will be needed.
The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform recognizes that the
aquaculture sector is fragmented and dispersed throughout the coastal and rural
communities, and this makes effective RTD communication/uptake difficult. The use of
national/local structures is needed. Gaps are identified in policies supporting genetic selective
improvement measures in aquaculture, lack of veterinary skills to apply fish health measures,
application of informatics-benchmarking tools in markets, on-farm operations, certification,
RAS, lack of socio-economic expertise on aquaculture, expert networks for shellfish and SME
fish farming and environmental competence within associative structures.
The BONUS secretariat suggests that, in the Baltic Sea Region, there is an urgent need to
harmonize agricultural and environmental policies. Markets, innovation, competence and
skills will quickly fill in, if there is a policy-created incentive.
The UK Oceanography Centre pinpoints gaps in understanding cumulative impacts and the
impacts of multiple stressors to underpin policy implementation and in developing
models capable of prediction of climate impacts at local and regional scales and on
seasonal, annual and decadal timescales. The further development of underpinning
technologies, such as marine autonomous and robotic observation systems is critical to
understanding, managing and sustainably exploiting the marine environment. Concerning
deep sea mining, the UK Oceanography Centre suggests the need of appropriate knowledge
about the entire environment that deep-sea deposits are located in, in order to fully assess
the physical impacts on the environment, including both the pelagic and benthic communities
as well as the physical impact on the deep seabed.
The Surfrider Foundation suggests that one of the main gaps is the lack of knowledge and
awareness, on climate change and its interactions with oceans as well as the absence of
political will to support social innovation to address, for example, the interaction climate
change / ocean.
2.3. Opportunities
6. Emerging opportunities
General
Emerging opportunities stakeholders identified include interest of the citizens for
sustainable food consumption, opportunities for increasing collaboration among
scientists with different disciplines, bring the new technology closer to the public.
30
Bio-based products and processing
On logistics and supply of bio-based industries, specialised stakeholders suggested:
Introduction of new/innovative species varieties.
Higher mobilization of forest biomass by innovative technologies.
Higher biomass yield by combining innovative cultivation methods with the regional
most suitable crop rotation; higher efficiency of fertilizers’ use (focus on N, P, K) by
increasing the amount of harvested biomass per unit of fertilizer; higher efficiency in
the water use through crop rotations and management practices.
Implementation of cost-efficient methods of preparation of harvested material
Dedicated non-food crops growing in contaminated / abandoned arable lands for
bio-based products will low impact on food chain.
Raw material replenishment e.g. recovery of gases from waste would reduce Europe
dependence on energy.
Improvement of logistics (at local and regional scale) and storage to provide a
continuous supply of feedstock to specific value chains, minimise transport costs and
guarantee intermediate products quality and availability.
Development of adequate advanced recycling methods for bio-materials and
residues (improving collection, sorting and processing).
Higher innovation in existing primary processes (agro-food, pulp and paper) to
minimise residues and obtain higher added-value products.
Advancement of technologies to mildly extract or separate components while
preserving their functionalities and minimising the degradation of other components to
enable their further enhancement.
Enhancement of the use of enzymes as highly specialized catalysts and their further
specialization could give rise to new economic opportunities.
Development of demonstration biorefineries
On market up-take and social aspects, specialised stakeholders suggested:
Certified sustainable biomass sources
Transparent claims for the consumers of bio-based products based on the chain of
custody.
Helping access to risk finance and partnerships to ensure the making of sustainable
biobased products, processes and services.
31
Grant Europeans access to all the social, economic and environmental benefits the
bioeconomy provides.
Establishment and implementation of an agreed voluntary sustainability scheme to be able to proof and display that bio-based industries' products are based on
sustainable feedstock. Such a scheme needs to be developed by using a multi-
stakeholder approach, including the active involvement of biomass feedstock
producers, industry actors of the bio-based sector, relevant European and national
industry associations, NGOs, scientists, and policy makers.
Agriculture and Food
The received inputs to this question were as diverse as the variety of the consulted
stakeholders themselves; many external stakeholders mainly included (often very detailed)
lists of potential Horizon 2020 topics in their fields of interest. On the production side of the
agri-food chain, emerging opportunities included (among others) nutrient recycling
technologies, biomass production, genomic and associated methodologies, integrated pest
management, and sustainable intensification of all systems of livestock production
including those in hills, rangelands and more remote areas.
On the food manufacturing side, increased (water; energy and waste) efficiency, new IT
solutions (wireless management systems, cloud computing, robotics, sensors, unmanned aerial
vehicles …), integrative management of agricultural products, and bio-energy were seen
as interesting opportunities.
Some opportunities on the consumer side were also mentioned, such as the need for clear
strategies and interventions to impact consumer behaviour. Overlapping opportunities
includes further increases in traceability, and an increased involvement of social sciences.
In the livestock sector, a very detailed list of opportunities have been listed including, all
converging towards the idea that the significant increase in demand for animal food can be
met by improving the quantity and quality of livestock, and its health, welfare and
production. The key research areas mentioned at question 2 were recalled in this question,
covering different dimensions of sustainable husbandry (Resource efficiency, Responsible
livestock farming, Healthy livestock and people, and Knowledge exchange towards
innovation). A number of these issues will depend for real progress on developments in more
fundamental understanding in a number of areas. Therefore an additional key area was
mentioned around 'opportunities and needs in Excellent Science'. Sub topics within this
additional area are (a) Diet-host-‐microbiome interactions, (b) Long-term consequences of
environmental effects in early life, (c) Enabling the predictive understanding of phenotypic
variation, and (d) Immune regulation at mucosae. FABRE TP mentioned a variety of other
subjects on genetics, genomics and breeding.
Policy instruments such as EIP-AGRI and ERANETs are seen as an opportunity for further
efficient developments.
32
-Contribution from SCAR
SCAR member mentioned that a clear opportunity exists for advances in the areas tackled by
Societal challenge 2 by coordinating and creating synergy between existing national,
European and international initiatives. There exist a large number of initiatives and a
strong dialogue among them will contribute to tackling the challenges, in Europe and at a
global scale, and to creating a European Research Area. In addition, SCAR also highlighted
that for sustainable growth the Bio-economy needs to be developed within the context of
sustainable use of land and water, along with marine resources and our food security
objective.
Forestry
Specialized stakeholders identified the following emerging opportunities:
European citizens and society generally support the development of labour-
intensive, resource-efficient and environment-friendly technologies in most
economic sectors, including forestry. Topics should be based on those with a global
dimension but which also have a European perspective or in which cooperation at the
European level can bring a comparative advantage to research efforts at national level
within and outside the EU.
Constraints on materials and energy result in bottlenecks and scarcities, which
make them geo-strategic. Energy efficient technologies, for example, counteract
scarcities in energy sources as they reduce demand. Those constraints spur research
towards technologies that minimize the use of expensive/critical materials or
environment (in terms of costs of dealing with difficult waste-streams). They also spur
research towards finding alternatives (e.g. ways of sustainably using more abundant or
renewable materials etc.), and untapped sources of supply. Forest biomass is a very
good example in this regard.
European researchers are also world leading in many areas of tree breeding and can
lead the sector to become the world leader in quantitative and biological sciences
related to tree breeding. We have a better understanding of benefits and risks
related to economic performance, social acceptance and environmental effects
associated with the use of genetically improved trees, as well as how wood and
fibre properties in growing trees can be modified to better meet the requirements of
end products.
Enhancing the role of forestry and forest-based sector in rural economies can be
achieved through enhanced public investments including for R&I activities, tailored to
local conditions.
Marine Resources
On emerging opportunities, UNESCO/IOC suggests: marine renewable energy; devices for
observation and monitoring; biotechnologies; environmental clean technologies; genetics
and pharmaceutics.
33
The EMB adds some more by stating that with blue growth sectors such as marine
biotechnology, aquaculture and seabed mining expected to increase, there is the
opportunity for Europe to become a world leader in knowledge production to address
gaps, drive innovation and match socio‐economic activity with ocean governance.
EFARO suggests opportunities from inter- and trans- disciplinary approaches across
natural sciences and humanities, and combining conservation and economic growth.
The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform highlights the significant
contribution of the aquaculture sector in "safe and healthy diets" and for unlocking the
potential of aquatic living resources and the production of algae for defined purposes
(micro-ingredients, feedstock, food….).
The BONUS secretariat states that currently, most big bio-economies in the world are
evidently unsustainable. Europe can pioneer an example of a fully sustainable and still
successful economy – and, equally important, apply this attitude when dealing in global
bio-economy markets. Achieving Ecosystem Approach to Management in all European
sea basins would be a 21 century opportunity.
WOC considers the development of more integrated, cross-sectoral economic activities in
the marine environment as an emerging opportunity. Research and innovation can target
these possibilities for complimentary use of marine space and infrastructure, e.g. offshore
platforms for fish farms that also serve for renewable energy and desalination infrastructure.
The Surfrider Foundation suggests that the evaluation of the current and projected
anthropogenic responses will allow developing more adapted responses.
7. Areas with the strongest potential to leverage innovation
General
Some of the strongest potentials stakeholders identified include biotechnology, hi-tech
innovative research, plant-based biofortified food, or offshore and coastal engineering.
Bio-based products and processing
Specialized stakeholders identified the following areas with the strongest potential for
innovation:
Chemical industry including related industries such as polymer industry, paint and
coatings, etc.
Specific for GMOs: Not obstructive legal regulations to employ new plant breeding
techniques.
34
Take advantage of the facilities and logistics already in place (e.g. paper mills) to
use forest by-products and renewable raw materials for bio-based products.
EU has trade secures imports of ready-made products but must secure feed stock so
the European industry can compete with the imports. Otherwise will the bio based
production and innovation happen outside Europe.
Value chains where SME’s can contribute based on their know-how (often highly
specialized, for example for universities start-ups) and large industries can find added
advantage in products differentiation coupled with societal visibility (Corporate Social
Responsibility -CSR).
Innovative starters and SMEs own know-how and capture the potential of new
technologies fast and therefore are critical to push the bioeconomy as a whole.
Agriculture and Food
Just as with question 6, the diversity of the consulted stakeholders results in different
suggested innovation areas, industry participation ideas, and suggested R&D&I topics. The
replies to question 7 were therefore often linked to the replies to questions 4-6. However, a
considerable amount of the consulted stakeholders stressed that agrofood SMEs are mostly
interested in practical, close to market applications, and that improved ICT solutions could
greatly benefit industry, especially SMEs. Other less widespread inputs concluded that
precision agriculture, renewable energy production, waste reuse and transformation,
integrated pest management, cradle to cradle production and recycling processes, robotics and
sensors, bioenergy production, nutrients recycling, increased sustainability, and crop genetic
improvements were areas with a substantial innovation and industrial potential.
In the animal sector, sectors with enhanced industrial interest would include new and
improved vaccines, diagnostics and pharmaceuticals, alternatives to antimicrobials, new
husbandry systems that lead to fewer or even better no infection transmissions, plant
breeding programmes to come to more robust species reducing inputs, improved
breeding systems for plant and animals using genetic selection, alternative protein
supply/feed by breeding for plants with high protein content that can be grown near-by and
to use bi-products for feeding, biosecurity systems that reduce the risk of introducing and
spread of infectious diseases, predicting phenotypes of animals in their specific production
environments.
-Contribution from SCAR
Examples highlighted by some SCAR members include: innovation in crop genetic
improvement; opportunity to develop and access natural food antimicrobials; strong potential
for SMEs in the area of food processing; strong potential of SME and industries in the area of
biotechnology; aquaculture, and all aspects related to fish and shellfish development.
35
Forestry
Companies in the forest and woodworking industries are mostly SMEs with a few large
companies, typically in the softwood sawmilling, wood-based panel, and pulp and paper sub-
sectors. More than 365,000 SMEs in the European forest-based sector employ over 2.5
million people and cover a wide range of traditional and innovative industrial activities.
Innovation in the sector is still highly needed, to increase competitiveness (e.g. productivity)
and support the transition from the current fragmented approach to a full integration of the
sector in a European Bioeconomy. Specific potential for innovation exist in the following
areas:
Wood mobilisation (harvesting, transport and primary processing) and promotion of
material use of wood in constructions and other high added-value areas of the
bioeconomy (e.g. biochemical and biomaterials), based on the cascading principle
New forest management tools and models conducive to forest stands/ecosystems
resilient to natural disturbances, responding to multitude of societal demands on
forests, and adapted to local circumstances
New business models for capturing and internalising (part of) the large values of
forest ecosystem services
Marine Resources
UNESCO/IOC proposes the same list as in part 6 issues. According to the EMB, research
must also address more fundamental questions in a way which may not deliver immediate
economic gains, but which will form the basis for a much longer-term sustainable
management of our seas and oceans. Thus, seas and oceans research can contribute to the
development of not just a “smart economy” but, more importantly, can underpin our progress
towards becoming a “smart society”, of which economy is just one important component. As
regards activities which contribute to expanding the EU maritime economy, research can
support technology development, efficient operations, minimum environmental impact
and new opportunities in the areas of marine biotechnology, aquaculture, ocean
observing/forecasting, seabed mining, and renewable ocean energy.
EFARO understands that data collection and monitoring systems will be enhanced by the
collaboration with private sector and industry. It also sees an opportunity on greater energy
efficiency of the fishing sector. In aquaculture, SMEs are still in need of scientific support to
lead new developments, in particular, the introduction of new species, seaweed cultivation,
integrated multi-trophic aquaculture and recirculation aquaculture systems.
The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform identifies areas such as the
positive industry participation in RTD/innovation projects, formulation of feeds on solid
knowledge & sustainable raw materials, environmentally sustainable aquaculture
industry by innovation, improved fish health, better understanding of consumer
perceptions, and the development of efficient technologies.
The BONUS secretariat suggests the following areas: combating water scarcity and impaired
quality by eco-technologies; safe and secure transportation; marine renewable energy
and all associated services; sustainable fisheries and aquaculture.
36
For WOC, the potential lies in linking innovation and R&D to the actual operational
problems faced by ocean industries, especially problems that are under the scrutiny of the
environment community and are the target of likely regulation (national, EU and/or
international).
The Surfrider Foundation suggests that research and innovation on climate change and ocean
have the potential to be truly multidisciplinary, engaging and involving a wide range of actors
from scientists to businesses, public authorities, NGOs, and citizens through participative
science.
8. Contribution of Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 to EU policies, growth and job
creation
General
Societal Challenge 2 can best contribute to EU policies by fostering the EU citizens’ trust
that research and innovation can actually provide solutions for
environmental/economical/ethical problems, by fostering collaboration among disciplines
and boosting the development of smart, biobased products.
Bio-based products and processing
Societal Challenge 2 can best contribute to EU policies, growth and job creation:
By creating a level playing field between the industrial and the energy use of
biomass.
By implementing public procurement for bio-based products
By assessing the effects of the current regulation in relation to the assessment of
authorisation of GMO and making recommendations for future action, in order to
reach a better understanding of the risks and benefits of regulation in relation to
innovation in agriculture (but also more broadly in other areas).
By supporting strong agricultural, agro-food, forestry and pulp & paper sectors
and world-leading companies in the plant breeding, biotechnology, chemistry,
energy and bioprocess engineering.
By optimising and utilising Europe’s existing pilot and demonstration facilities, and
realising the required leap forward towards advanced technologies utilising waste and
lignocellulosic feedstock
37
By leveraging the combined and complementary knowledge and skills of academia,
research organisations, SMEs and larger corporations to achieve its innovation
objectives.
By enabling innovation by dynamic and innovative biobased industries across the
member states through the implementation and development of national bioeconomy
strategies. Close coherence with and leverage of smart specialisations and regional
programmes is essential in this respect.
Agriculture and Food
Societal Challenge 2 can best contribute to EU policies by ensuring that complementary
funding and training actions are promoted within the member states aimed at the same
objectives, namely, improving the health of the European consumer and developing
innovation opportunities in the agricultural sector and the EU food industry (including SMEs)
by ensuring healthier, safer, more consumer-ready new products and processes and by
ensuring that food security is enhanced within the European population. In this regard, there
is a clear need for improved policies related to training and technology transfer. A strong and
focused research programme, aligned with other existing initiatives (e.g. JPIs), is needed to
underpin future economic development with emphasis firmly placed on impact at all times.
With regard to job creation, the animal health industry mentions that the administrative
burden on them needs to be reduced to free budget to foster innovation. Further
developments can be obtained by better supporting the constitution, functioning and
sustainability of dedicated networks for collaboration of member’s state funding
agencies. One possibility for the Societal Challenge 2 to contribute to EU policies is also that
it fosters innovation to improve a competitive and sustainable livestock production
chain. H2020 can contribute significantly to an evidence-based revision of the collective
agriculture policy. By enabling innovations through advanced and high tech solutions,
such as proposed above, the continuous efforts of the EU and its member states to advance
high quality, highly productive and efficient animal production, based on innovative solutions
which satisfy the demands of modern consumers, the trendsetting position of the EU in
worldwide animal production can be further extended.
In the field of organic production, greater contribution to policy would come from a
dedicated research programme linked to the expected new organic regulation tackling:
FEED - Locally produced organic feed,
FERTILIZATION: Organisational innovation and new models for closing nutrient
cycles regionally / fertilization strategy with no external inputs,
BREEDING: plant and animals
INPUTS: alternative to copper
CONVERSION/CERTIFICATION: facilitate (e.g. orchards) and improve procedures
MARKET/CONSUMER: transparency and maintain trust – code of practice for
organic processing
-Contribution from SCAR
38
Examples highlighted by some SCAR members include:
Horizon 2020 and Challenge 2 have great opportunities to contribute to EU policies,
and leverage and complement Member States' efforts for growth and job creation.
That needs coherent actions, efficient use of partnering tools and initiatives across
Societal Challenges and with Industrial Leadership.
To further the cause of alignment between national research programmes and H2020,
other mechanisms can be taken on board and better used, like the COST-programme
‘Forward Look on European Food Systems in a Changing World” and other relevant
COST-actions.
Sustainable food production has been a driving force behind the greening of CAP and
there is still the challenge of meeting global food demands while protecting the
environment.
Research in the area of natural food antimicrobials aligns with several European
Research Initiatives and other relevant European policy/regulatory/legislative drivers.
Societal Challenge 2 could contribute effectively by supporting interdisciplinary
research, setting standards, organising dialogues, creating a bio-based finance
instrument to leverage private investment and maximises agricultural and
environmental goods and services.
Societal Challenge 2 covers the whole area of the bioeconomy, including agriculture,
forestry and the Marine. There is huge scope within these sectors for significant
economic activity and job creation.
Forestry
Societal Challenge 2 can best contribute to EU policies, growth and job creation through:
A sustainable and adaptive supply of forest-based raw material is a prerequisite
for different competing end-users, i.e. the forest-based industries, emerging bio-based
industries and bio-energy. An increased use of wood (i.e. a realistic and sustainable
option) will imply more wood available to the market for both material and energy
use, and will consequently develop jobs along the value chain (i.e. key political
objective for the EU), while also stimulating planning for increased and sustained
growth rate of forests.
By bridging the innovation support gap and aiding development within and
cooperation between regions (smart specialisation), societal challenge 2 will help to:
replace fossil-based substances and new biomass combinations in composite materials
will further improve the supply of lignocellulose for various uses in the bioeconomy.
The consumer need for safer food and the need to reduce waste will be met by
advanced bio-based packaging materials, offering enhanced protection (e.g. scarce
water supply), reusability and recyclability.
39
Improved understanding and knowledge of forest ecosystem services and
innovation in forest management planning will contribute to better-integrated land
management, i.e. the leading principle of CAP 2014-2020. The integration of the
stream of benefits from forest ecosystem services in the broader economic systems
will also support the implementation of the new EU Forest Strategy 2013.
The forest-based sector also plays a pivotal role in society’s struggle against climate change
as much as it needs to adapt to it. Forests can contribute to GHG emission reduction in several
ways, i.e. conservation of sustainable C stocks (i.e. mutually reinforcing Biodiversity policy
objectives), increasing the C stocks and trade-offs with the energy sector through increased
mobilisation of woody biomass (i.e. climate and energy policies).
Marine Resources
On Horizon 2020 SC2 contribution to EU policies and Member States' efforts, UNESCO/IOC
recognizes the support to MSFD, MSP, CFP, and many other EU initiatives and urges for
more action from political leaders, all stakeholders in general, including the private sector.
The EMB affirms that the part of SC2 that deals with marine and maritime research should
not only focus on blue growth. Other important EU policies in need of knowledge and advice
from the scientific community include MSFD, WFD, the EU Biodiversity Strategy, the
CFP, the EU Aquaculture Strategy, the EU Climate and Energy Package.
EFARO understands that H2020 can make major contributions to the implementation of the
reformed CFP and the operation of the MSFD by contributing to the development of
better systems of governance, more environmentally sustainable use of living resources
and meeting the challenge of food security in the face of climate change. New jobs will be
in the field of technology development and operationalizing automated marine
observation and data acquisition technologies.
The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform understands that H2020
definitely contributes to provide a clear focus on research/innovation and with strong
measurable impact; it complements the aquaculture components of the new Common
Fisheries Policy and contributes to EU policies relating to food safety, public health and
the environment.
The BONUS secretariat suggests the strengthening of the macro-regional approach, e.g.
ways of effective mutual complementing and cooperation between research and innovation
framework and EU regional development fund programmes.
Fisheries and aquaculture are sectors that still create many jobs in the seafood industry,
including the processing plants and transport sector. Aquaculture has the economic and
market potential to double in size.
For WOC, co-operation with international multi-industry organizations to harness the
interests of the private sector in developing and implementing solutions and focusing
priorities is key element for H2020 (SC2) to best contribute to EU policies, leverage and
complement Member States' efforts for growth and job creation.
40
9. Cross-cutting and trans-disciplinary activities
General
Most of the consulted stakeholders proposed integration of disciplines. Università
Politecnica delle Marche stressed the need of research in the fields of marine physics and
bio-ecology, coastal and offshore engineering, creation of new technologies and new
policies and legislation.
Bio-based products and processing
On Schemes, specialized stakeholders considered the following cross cutting issues:
ERA NET-IB proposed more coordination and support actions.
Some stakeholders suggested interregional trans-disciplinary programmes to
enable the sustainable production of food, feed, fibres, chemicals and fuels from
biomass and crop residues.
On market up take of bio-base products suggested cross-cutting challenges such as
market, legal aspects, quality.
Stakeholders also proposed numerous cross cutting activities on engagement along and
between value chains:
Coordination of the different steps of the value chains, the different levels of
innovation as well as the different stakeholders involved from the private and the
public sector.
A network to compiling and implementing criteria and indicators for the
verification of a sustainable biomass supply chain for the bio-based industries. Even
though the focus lies on the supply of primary raw materials, actors.
Specific for GMOs: Cross-cutting activities addressed to bring together researchers
from various areas, i.e. those developing new technologies/products, those assessing
how convictions and public opinions are formed, those that inform the general public
on these issues, and also regulators, risk assessors, policy makers and others from
industrial end-use shall be actively involved into the network as they need to feed in
the technical requirements for the raw materials.
Measures to increase social acceptance.
Information exchange with third countries and global initiatives.
41
Agriculture and Food
Most of the consulted external stakeholders concluded that a combination of technical and
socio-economic expertise is needed to tackle the identified challenges and realize the many
opportunities. Therefore, the integration of disciplines such as climatology, ecology, and
socio-economics should be incorporated within R&D&I actions aimed at the agri-food sector,
which is already supported by a broad and diverse research base (food and agricultural
sciences, engineering).
Ideas to encourage these future collaborations include common training activities (including
demo sites and pilot projects), facilitated conferences, and IT-based collaboration tools.
However, some consulted stakeholders identified the potential danger of these types of
collaborations, as integrating all these disciplines might not be relevant to some sectors, and
might even result in unwanted – and even unneeded – complexity. The EU agri-food industry
is very diverse, so targeted instead of integrating actions might sometimes be more
appropriate.
Additionally, some stakeholders demanded larger programmes from farm to fork. Also
there is a wide demand for cross-cutting activities which should aim at understanding better
how to get research and innovation results adopted on the ground. They should also study
how to influence behavior, analyse costs and benefits of proposed solutions and understand
why innovations are not always used by farmers.
'Sustainable food security’ is seen as an excellent defined cross-cutting topic. An activity
that would tackle the challenges based on the first experience would be to bring animal-,
plant-, and food sciences even more directly together, in combination with an underpinning
contribution of social and environmental sciences. This theme requires a well-defined trans-
disciplinary approach. A suggestion would be to refine the focus area for a sustainable food
security towards an even more concrete area: ‘(Climate) Smart Agro Food Production’.
Genomics as a tool along the food-chain: large programmes which focus on entire
production chains for (specified) animal products are needed, i.e. the full chain from genetic
supplier to farm and/or processor c.q. producer of consumer products, to optimize inputs from
each shackle of the chain to the next through provision of feedback from each shackle to all
previous ones. Each actor/supplier, e.g. the genetics supplier, should then be able to develop
and implement the technologies required to target his inputs specifically to this product based
on information fed back from the entire system. (FABRE TP)
In the animal sector, the development of new animal health products inevitably has to cross
several domains to go from preclinical development (discovery, safety), to clinical evaluation
and recommendations. A great challenge is to integrate knowledge from the veterinary
sciences, agricultural economics and social sciences with the common shared objective of
improving farming resilience by more integrated, economic and communicable animal health
advice. On animal feed and nutrition, cross cutting activities could target: alternative
protein supply/feed by breeding for plants with high protein content that can be grown near-
by and to use bi-products for feeding. Bi-products may be enzymatically processed before
use. There is a need for trans-disciplinary approach including expertise in plant breeding,
animal physiology/nutrition, microbiologists for characterization of the
microbiome/pathogens/GI health, and economics to describe cost-effectiveness. On
42
alternatives to antimicrobials, there is a need for trans-disciplinary approach including
expertise in the particular topic, industrial partners for production, and farmers to take part in
the validation.
-Contribution from SCAR
Examples highlighted by some SCAR members include:
•Anticipatory, from blue sky to applied research
•Interdisciplinarity: natural and social sciences
•Transdisciplinarity (farmers, food processers, retailers, consumers) who would make
innovation and transition happen: a true two-way exchange and valuation of traditional
knowledge
•Strong experimentation: test, show, exchange experience, disseminate
•Diversity in approaches and regional diversity is a strength: keep all options open
(sufficiency and productivity) but at the same time:
•A much stronger system of evaluation and regular watch out to tune the innovation
pathway towards sustainability
Forestry
The three focus areas/calls under the SC2 in WP 2014-2015 have limitedly addressed the
specificities of the forestry and forest-based sector. Forestry was referred to in a very few
topics in SFS and ISIB call from a much broader perspective, i.e. integrated in the
biological/agricultural production and the general concept of bioeconomy, respectively. There
remains significant potential for cross-cutting activities that are relevant too for the forestry
sector, such as the following:
Just as for the agriculture, marine and maritime sectors of the bioeconomy, the forest-
based sector depends increasingly on ‘space technology’ in form of global positioning
systems, remote sensing and geo-information technologies, and 'integrated' with other
land uses. Profiling the forest-based sector compared to the other sectors of the
bioeconomy would imply development of LIDAR and digital air-photo technology, as
well as satellite-based technologies providing 3-D information, where data are easily
accessible through web services.
Together with most manufacturing and processing industries, breakthrough
technologies that significantly reduce energy and water inputs and enhance
recyclability of waste are integral to resource efficiency in the forestry value chain.
Biobased and recyclable packaging, for example, is an area where smart, forest-fibre
based products, can be combined with recovery systems for harvesting, treatment and
drying processes. Other examples of cross-cutting-edge developments include
robotics/automation, ICT, etc.
Developing and implementing specific, non-technological options at the ecosystems
and policy levels based on detailed information on regional impacts and meaningful
assessment of the adaptive options and their feasibility at regional and local levels.
Workable adaptation options for land management need to be developed in close
43
collaboration with decision-makers and stakeholders involved in the research and
development process.
There is much 'substance' pertaining to the research areas above that is already included in the
WP 2014 of the JTI BBI. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to ensure this complementarity
with other sectors of the Bioeconomy horizontally in the work programmes of Horizon 2020.
Marine Resources
On cross-cutting, UNESCO/IOC considers the Ocean of Tomorrow calls' model inspiring and
successful and underlines the importance of including Social sciences as well; it summarizes
by stating that Science, Private sector and Society are the triple helix to achieve synergies.
The EMB considers that all the priority areas that it proposed, i.e.ocean & human health,
marine biodiversity, marine microbial ecology, MPAs, marine biotechnology, and
aquaculture, require an interdisciplinary response and could benefit from cross-cutting
research calls. In the particular case of oceans and human health, the EMB proposes that a
cross-cutting call, with input from societal challenges 1, 2, 5 & 6, based on the ‘FP7 Ocean of
Tomorrow’ model, would be highly effective to deliver a major boost to advance knowledge
and build an interdisciplinary OHH community in Europe. In addition, OHH is a field with
high potential for transatlantic cooperation (particularly with the U.S.A. which has a strong
OHH capacity), in line with the goals of the Galway Statement.
EFARO understands that the exploitation of the marine environment for human activities
needs to be supported by multidisciplinary science. Exploration, mitigation and remediation
of marine pollution or climate change impact on the marine resources of the Arctic are
essentially cross-cutting, as are seafood and seaweed production in connection to renewable
offshore energy production; and a stronger cross-link between livestock and fish production.
For VLIZ, knowledge exchange events are seen as important as well as partnerships with
stakeholders throughout the innovation cycle.
The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform identifies the following
crosscutting activities: Offshore platforms for integrated use of marine resources (wind-
aquaculture), multi-resource aquaculture (e.g. integrated multi-trophic aquaculture)
combining algae-shellfish-fish) – potential for integration with fisheries, freshwater rural
aquaculture – integration with alternative activities to raise efficiency of resource/land
use – e.g. solar/aquaculture, bio-based industries – waste materials or specific production
lines – for feed ingredients for fish farming and new IT/engineering solutions for
management/control/predictability in livestock production procedures.
WOC also considers workshops to address specific cross cutting technical issues, e.g.
marine noise as relevant to bring together different industries and sectors to identify the
specific problem and the research and innovation needs.
Howell Richard, (Irish department of agriculture, food and the marine) stated that Blue
growth and Sustainable Food Security are two crucially important focus areas that should
44
remain in place for the remainder of the H2020 programme. Having a dedicated Marine
research programme is crucial as the opportunities offered by the Marine are endless.
2.4. Output and impacts
10. Output and impacts
General
All output and impacts mentioned by stakeholders include: food security, food safety,
transition towards a circular economy, health aspects, animal welfare, waste recovery,
low-cost technology systems, new modelling approaches to detect pollutants.
Bio-based products and processing
Regarding secure and sustainable biomass supply as well as sustainability through the
biorefinery processes, stakeholders pointed that Horizon 2020 would contribute to:
Improve the secure and sustainable supply of sustainable biomass feedstock for
bio-based industries. To this regard, a biomass certification scheme, a reliable and
broadly accepted standards as well as a labelling system according to the EU eco-label
Directive were mentioned.
Create jobs and growth in particular in rural and coastal areas
Valorise and regenerate of disused industrial sites, abandoned/contaminated lands.
Decrease the risk of deforestation.
Reduce CO2 emissions.
Develop sustainable new products, based on renewable raw materials that meet
consumer demands for high functionality and sustainability and reduce dependency
from imports.
Transparent claims for consumers increasing the demand and the market up-take
of bio-base products.
Specific for GMOs: Better understanding of how public perceptions are shaped, what
might trigger the general public or special interest groups to be wary against a certain
technology and its products, and ways of mitigating these effects. This would
safeguard the innovation potential in Europe, which could otherwise be harmed by
negative public perception of novel technologies, their governance, but also the
45
governance of research programmes that lead to these technologies (ref. responsible
research).
Specifically, the stakeholder BIC proposed some targets in relation to biomass
mobilization:
To fully use the potential and better valorise agriculture land that currently is no
longer under production or is currently not under optimal use: 15% of this
underutilised land should be put back into production or at least be better utilised in
2020.
To increase productivity and mobilisation of biomass in sustainable manner while
making best use of innovations in agriculture and forestry practices: H2020 should
contribute to achieve 10% increase in biomass supply in Europe by 2020 by.
To better valorise the unused by-products and wastes from various bio-based
sources (agriculture, forestry, waste water treatment, sludge, organic household waste,
yard waste, food processing waste, debarking waste) amount to a total of 2.8 bn
tons/year in the EU: H2020 activities should stimulate the mobilisation and utilisation
of these potential resources to be increased to 15% of the total amount in 2020.
Agriculture and Food
All suggested solutions would in the end contribute to achieving EU food security, increase
food safety, health (via healthy diets and environmental improvements), farmers' health by
technologies protecting them from pollutants, precision farming technologies, energy
efficiency, reduction of dependence on fossil fuels and the competitiveness of the agri-
food sector. The measurement of success is however seen as being difficult, as the goals are
often long-term (e.g. health), and are the result of many interdisciplinary parameters.
Therefore, increased attention needs to be given to developing output and impact assessment
tools. Most of the consulted stakeholders again stressed the importance of investing in
initiatives that bridge the gap between research outputs and their applications and would like
to see more European Innovation Partnership.
The stakeholders from the organic sector anticipate increases in land used for organic
farming, share of organic products on the European market, amount of locally produced feed
and closed nutrient cycles, positive impacts on food security, environment, healthy nutritious
food availability, reduction of negative impacts on the environment, improved links between
farmers and consumers and in general a spread of organic farming technics.
From the livestock sector, the following outputs are foreseen:
Measurable outputs would be published patents, scientific articles and marketed
animal health products with improved characteristics over existing products. (IFAH)
Lower diseases prevalence, less use of pesticides, less use of antibiotics and
antiparasitics.
For animal welfare, a more standardized way of measuring welfare as well as a
better understanding of the animals’ requirements would allow the policy makers
46
to better implement legal requirements for livestock production and reassure the
consumers.
Increased and more sustainable agricultural productivity, with high quality food
products, in the case of livestock production with respect for animal welfare.
More successful marketing of (more expensive) products originating from
alternatively treated crops and livestock, and from livestock raised under optimal
welfare circumstances.
Truly competitive and sustainable livestock production sector across Europe,
which is accepted by the public and credible for the whole sector.
Success would be a vibrant agricultural and rural economy, yielding products
that consumers want and value, with minimal wastage and positive
environmental impact.
Europe would be a model contributor to global food security and agricultural
productivity.
The success of using genetic improvement of farmed animals can be measured as:
• Increased feed efficiency and utilisation
• Reduced pollution
• Reduced waste products
• Reduced medical treatments of farmed animals
• Maintained or improved overall or specific nutritional quality of the products
• Reduced production cycles
• Reduced import of feed to EU
• Increased animal welfare through safe feed and less diseases
• Reduced importation of animal products into EU
• Workplaces within the green and blue sectors throughout the EU/the member states
and at all levels
• European organisations are seen as a serious, reliant partner.
• No take-overs of established companies by non-European investors, which would
lead to a loss of both knowledge and highly skilled scientists.
• Europe being an exporting area of technology and products.
-Contribution from SCAR
Examples highlighted by some SCAR members include:
Innovation should include tailoring towards local solutions for a better standard of
living for rural populations, and an increase in regional food security through
involvement of local stakeholders.
Improved varieties which would result in reduced inputs to European agriculture.
There will be multiple outputs including the formation of closer relationships
between European experts (academia and industry), the sharing of infrastructure and
expertise, innovations in the form of the commercialisation of new products and
processes, which would be a clear marker of success.
Enhancing the image of European foods as being natural and healthy and catering
for consumer demand.
47
Outputs will be diverse, ranging from good case studies in which the enabling
potential of the bio-economy has been demonstrated in a new field of research,
innovation and industrial activities; to identifying bottlenecks for the development of a
truly transformative framework for its enabling capacities; to cutting-edge new
technological developments that have an immediate impact on how we address the
grand societal challenges.
Forestry
Productive and resilient forest ecosystems sustainably managed by a variety of
owners and owner cooperatives, providing for all products and services society
demands, including raw material production, sustainable C stocks, soil and water
protection, biodiversity and recreational opportunities. This will service key/already
assumed political objectives in specific EU policies, such as the 2030 Framework for
climate and energy policies (moving beyond the 20-20-20 objectives), EU
Biodiversity Strategy 2020 (i.e. halting biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystem
services by 2020), 7th
EU Environmental Action Plan (i.e. secure investment for
environment and address environmental externalities), etc.
Increasing the sustainable wood harvesting entails substantial addition of biomass
for the European bioeconomy each year, which will help reverse the existing trend of
the declining industry in Europe. With an increase of yield by 30% - a hypothesis, the
added value created in the forest-based industry value chains would be at least 75
billion Euro by 2020. This would enable to preserve and improve the competitiveness
of related sectors (woodworking, pulp and paper, construction, bio-chemicals, bio-
energy), while minimising the side-effects on the environment (e.g. transport of wood
pellets outside of the EU).
Substitution of a sizeable part of commodities and products that come from fossil
resources by analogues from sustainable, renewable sources (bioplastics, biofuels,
wood in construction, biocomposites, etc.).
As biomass is processed close to the source, for the obvious logistics, this
development will potentially create millions of jobs and billions EUR income
preponderantly where they are badly needed, i.e. in underdeveloped rural areas.
Marine Resources
On the type of outputs and impacts, UNESCO/IOC includes the sustainable development of
economic activities affecting the marine environment, the basic understanding of the
dynamics of human-environment systems, the design, implementation, and evaluation of
practical interventions and developments that promote sustainability in particular places,
fields and contexts, and linkages between relevant research and innovation communities
and relevant policy and management communities.
48
The EMB provides a long list of qualitative and quantitative outputs and impact for each of
the 6 priority areas, for example on: ocean and human health to improve capacity to
anticipate new threats to public health; marine biodiversity to increase Europe's leadership;
marine microbial ecology to contribute to the sustainable use of marine genetic resources;
MPAs to improve marine spatial management; marine biotechnology to set a vision for
marine biotechnology in Europe by 2020, contribute for a globally competitive European
marine biotechnology sector; and aquaculture to contribute to increase production, reduce
imports, diversify healthy seafood for consumers, reduce environmental impacts. These
should contribute to making Europe as a world leading exporter of knowledge, technology
and best-practices.
VLIZ also stresses outputs in addressing the challenge of oceans and human health. A
better understanding of the marine ecosystem and the relation with human health will give the
opportunity to reduce the burden of human marine-related diseases, help developing new
pharmaceuticals, evolve towards a greener economy and reduce the costs for the restoration of
the marine ecosystem. Further research in new areas such as deep-sea mining will benefit
industry and improve knowledge concerning marine biodiversity.
The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform identifies the following
major outputs: Provision of high quality aquaculture food products, produced sustainably
through efficient resource use and new application technologies, stimulating sectoral growth,
skill-based jobs and local economies throughout coastal and rural Europe; internationally-
competitive aquaculture companies, receptive to innovation, that will be knowledge-based
and capable of managing all of the environmental aspects of their operations; the European
supply of products, using European raw materials, adapted to consumer demand and
preferences and product environment footprint of aquaculture would be the lowest of all
livestock production.
They have also identify the following impacts: increased acceptability of aquaculture;
raised levels of European supply, offsetting import requirements, contributing to food
security; higher levels of contribution to sectorial development from engineering/IT
research & innovation, new approaches from biology/genetic/veterinarian/health/socio-
economic scientists; economic growth of the sector and higher levels of
participation/support by private sector in research/innovation efforts. They also suggest
indicators of the success such as: EU Production vs. imports; employment and skill profiles of
employees in the sector; production/employment and productivity/investment;
investment/uptake in new technologies and product environment Footprint of aquaculture vs.
other livestock production.
The European Water Technology Platform identifies increased cooperation in freshwater as
well as sea water with the EU close neighbours both as an emerging opportunity and an
output. The platform stresses that seas represent the first source of fresh water (notably via
desalination) and many other goods and services (biological species, mineral, metals, energy,
etc.) and that the EU countries have neighbours in very important seas such as Mediterranean,
Black sea, North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the North‐East Atlantic.
EFARO suggests for the fisheries sector: self-compliant fisheries, automated data
acquisition, higher and sustainable fisheries yields and responsive fisheries management
adaptive to climate change. Regarding aquaculture, it expects low impact fish farms that
are climate smart, production that is less dependent on wild fish as a food source, the use of
49
multi-trophic systems that can make good use of primary production and smart selection of
cultivated species in line with European market perspective (salmon, trout, sea bass, and
seriola).
In terms of outputs and impacts, WOC suggests that the agreed upon research and innovation
programme would deliver practical and implementable solutions for the business
community. Success would be linked to the implementation of these solutions by leading
companies and the monitoring of the results.
11. Some innovation aspects that could reach market deployment within 5-7 years
General
Stakeholders mentioned new sustainable food products, new crop varieties, genetics, safe
food, clean energy, and better agricultural products.
Bio-based products and processing
Specialised stakeholders mentioned these as key innovation aspects:
Social innovation throughout the value chain.
New bio-based products such as bio-based road transport and jet fuel technologies,
innovative enhancement concepts for different kinds of waste (e.g. MSW, manure,
food waste), cellulose-based functional materials and bio-based chemical
intermediates.
Cis-genic plants and others derived from new plant breeding techniques
(depending on the regulatory framework and its impact on product development and
authorisation). GMO-ERA net.
Standardisation, certification schemes and labelling systems.
The European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturer's Association mentioned that only
projects ready at least for pilot plan scale could possible reach full industrial
application in 5 to 7 years.
50
Agriculture and Food
On the production side, the input from the consulted stakeholders resulted in a mixed picture.
The identification of new natural food preservatives, the development of approaches to
produce these on a large scale and the ultimate commercialisation of these products should all
be achieved within 5-7 years. On the livestock and crops breeding side however, innovations
will always take longer. In the agri-food industry, here are many innovation aspects that can
reach market deployment within this time frame. Many of the process-based initiatives are
already close to market development but may need development funding for fruition.
Likewise, food safety issues can be implemented with relative ease and sustainability
innovations, while perhaps requiring significant investment, are also relatively easy to
implement. In the area of consumer sciences, research outputs are immediately applicable.
Other developments concern new ingredients, but often these require approvals with an
unknown timing. Development trends in the agri-food industry with a high potential include
innovations in the field of pleasure food, food contributing to a healthy diet, and
convenience food. For health-related market deployments, the timeframe is difficult to
identify. However, if for instance research on microbiome, nutrition and epigenome and
biomarkers leads to important insights this might have an effect on for instance the production
of novel foods and healthier diets. A better understanding of the connections between diet
and the epigenome will create opportunities for clinical applications.
All EIP-AGRI activities are seen as potentially leading to quick market deployment in the
coming years. The following other aspects have also been listed:
Technologies for precision farming and waste valorization
Organic plant protection products
ICT tools for farmers and consumers
Machines for soil management and weed control tuned to organic farming
Forecasting tools for pests and diseases
New sources of organic fertilisers
New intercropping and agroforestery systems
Know-how innovation and management practices / social innovation
Very difficult to predict which animal health products may reach market within this
period because: 1) products currently under development are typically kept
confidential in the animal health industry until ready for launch; 2) The average
development time for a completely new pharmaceutical is about 10 years.
Early detection systems, early warning systems, easy-to-use diagnostic tools (on-
farm tests).
Alternatives for biocides, pesticides, antimicrobials and antiparasitics.
New vaccines.
More robust lines of plants and livestock (genetically more resistant).
More efficient welfare assessment tools.
There are several innovation aspects that are expected to reach market. ‘Precision
Livestock Farming’ is such an innovation. Improving the assembly of data and
interconnectivity between data is a main goal to improve the opportunities of precision
livestock farming. The goals are to create systems for the collection, collation and
sharing of relevant data and the creation of protocols for the use of such data in
51
software development for smarter farming systems. Another innovation related aspect
could be the area ‘Integrated feed and breed’.
Forestry
Specialised stakeholders mentioned these as key innovation aspects:
New modes of payments for ecosystem services have been developed by both public
and private sectors and are partially in place by 2020
Fast growing, currently low-value tree species are being grown and then harvested
for special wood properties and compounds for high-value wood-based products
In 2020 a new generation of forest resource observation, inventory and monitoring
systems, as well as flexible planning tools, enabling precise information on quantity
and quality on local, regional and global scales, are in place
New, partly autonomous forest operations and harvesting machineries and systems
increasing productivity, protecting environment and improving the working conditions
for operators are developed, tested in real conditions and partially scaled up
Innovative design of fibre-based products which reduce material use, reduce energy
demand and enhance reusability/recycling of e.g. food packaging
-Contribution from SCAR
Some innovation aspects highlighted by some SCAR members include: second generation
biofuels and bioplastics; development of improved varieties; the identification of new
natural food preservatives; new techniques (ICT and robotics for all sectors); innovation
aspects on food packaging, transport systems, postharvest technologies, techniques for
minimizing hygiene problems; the market for nanotechnology-derived products for the food
sector; plant breeding; developments in the field of reduced food waste, food safety, diet
diversity, alternative protein supply, sustainable fishing techniques;
Marine Resources
On reaching market deployment, UNESCO/IOC expects that new pharmaceuticals, new
clean technologies, scientific instruments to observe the ocean etc. will be launched in the
market in the next 5-7 years; marine renewable energy will need much more time to be
competitive and implemented at large scale.
EFARO believes that a major step will happen in automated and cost efficient monitoring
technologies as well as related data acquisition, handling and analyses. In aquaculture this
will be: next generation Recirculation Aquaculture Systems (RAS) and Integrated Multi-
trophic aquaculture systems (IMTA); market introduction of Seriola; seaweed farming
technology; fishless feed.
52
The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform considers that offshore
aquaculture pilot units will be in place, there will be higher levels of precision
aquaculture, new feed formulations, using alternative raw materials, new
vaccines/protocols for effective fish health management, packaging/shelf-life and
processing advances towards new products with high levels of consumer acceptance.
4. KEY FINDINGS
Stakeholders demanded more collaboration of people from various different
disciplines and among stakeholders.
Numerous references to climate change, circular economy, and food waste and waste
enhancement.
Numerous references to bioinformatics and e-bioscience.
Bio-based products and processing:
Secure supply of sustainable (and certified) biomass at competitive prices to bio-based
industries.
Increase the productivity and output of biomass from European forest and agricultural
land in a sustainable way and to unlock the potential of the residues, industrial side-
streams and waste.
Respond to demand of biomass beyond biomass for bioenergy and learn from the
bioenergy experience, therefore bio-based industries should anticipate mechanisms
secured from the beginning the sustainability of the feedstock base.
Developing cascading use of biomass into bio-based products (multiple times) before
energy use.
Fulfil sustainability requirements including economic, environmental and social
aspects along the whole value added chain.
Support to scale-up from lab to pilot plant.
Financial support, in particular to SMEs.
Support market take-up of bio-based products:
Promote the use of synergies between public funding and encourage regional
opportunities and specialisations
Social acceptance: Engaging with civil society, together with industry.
Agriculture and food:
Strong emphasis on ensuring health and nutrition demand for consumers.
Development of agro-ecological methods and organic agriculture.
Development of methods for improving recycling of nutrients.
Improving productivity of protein crops;
Plant breeding, multi-use plants, animal breeding, new crop varieties.
Preservation and sustainable use of genetic resources in agriculture.
More research on value chain approaches for both food and non-food products.
53
Development of ICT-enabled intelligent agriculture.
Animal and plant health
Improved resource-efficient processing, packaging and preservation
Responsible livestock farming
Diversification of local economies in rural areas.
Forestry:
Development of intelligent forest operation systems.
Development of novel tree breeding strategies.
Improved ecosystem services.
Monitoring of forest ecosystems.
Marine:
Exploration of marine resources.
Restoration of fish stocks.
Exploitation of marine biotechnologies.
Exploitation marine renewable energy.
Preservation of marine biodiversity.
Improved marine research infrastructures.
Ocean and human health.
Improved ecosystem functioning and maritime spatial planning.
Sustainable aquaculture.
54
ANNEX 1: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS
SC2 STAKEHOLDER LIST Questionnaire SC2
ERA-NETs/ ERA-NET Plus
ERA-IB (Industrial biotechnology) X
SUMFOREST ERANET (Sustainable and multifunctional forestry ) X
PreSto GMO ERA-NET (Preparatory steps towards a GMO research ERA-Net) X
FORESTERRA ERANET (Enhancing FOrest RESearch in the MediTERRAnean through improved coordination and integration) X
ANIWHA (Animal Health and Welfare) X
C-IPM Eranet (Coordinated Integrated Pest Management in Europe) X
ETPs Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform (EATiP) X
GAH (Global Animal Health ) X
FABRE TP (Sustainable Farm Animal Breeding and Reproduction Technology Platform ) X
Forest based sector TP X
TP Organics X
Plants for the Future X
Food for Life Refer to
FoodDrinkEurope
Wss TP (European Water Platform) X
MANUFUTURE Sub-ETP Agricultural Engineering and Technologies AET X
Expert groups
Bioeconomy Panel 3 replies
Expert group for bio-based products 3 replies
SCAR X
International organisations UNESCO/IOC (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission) X
EFI (European Forest Institute) X
JPIs, Art.185 HDHL (Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life) X
Bonus X
Science & technology and academic associations EFARO (European Fisheries and Aquaculture Research Organisation) X
European Marine board X
ATF (Animal Task Force) X
LERU (League of European Research Universities) 2 replies
Science Europe X
ICA (Association for European Life Science Universities) 2 Replies
Federal Institute of Agricultural Economics X
Flanders Marine Institute (VLZ) X
ESPP (European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform) X
SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College) X
Institut national de reherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environement et l'agriculture X
Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research-Linköping University, Sweden X
55
UK National Technology for Food X
Aston University U.K. X
Industry associations , land owners, NGOs and other stakeholders BIC (Bio-based industries consortium) X
ECMAR (European Council for Maritime Applied R & D) X
EuropaBio X
European Renewable Resources and Materials Association (ERRMA) X
World Ocean Council X
FoodDrinkEurope X
Italian Food and Drink Industry Federation X
SAFE consortium (European Association for Food Safety) X
Finnish Fish Farmers Associations X
56
ANNEX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE
STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION 2014
HORIZON 2020 SOCIETAL CHALLENGE 2
Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research
and the Bioeconomy
Please consider the following questions, referring specifically to the Horizon 2020 Specific
Programme for Societal Challenge 2 ‘Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture, Marine,
Maritime and Inland Water Research and the Bioeconomy’.
Please quote where relevant any available evidence such as foresight and other assessments
of research and innovation trends and market opportunities.
Replies to each question should be limited to 815 words.
Thank you for your kind collaboration
Identifying the challenges
1) In the framework of the Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2, what are the most
important specific challenges which require immediate actions in order to achieve smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth?
2) What key research and innovation areas need to be addressed in order to tackle these
specific challenges, and meet the specific objectives of Societal Challenge 2?
3) What are the key assumptions underpinning the development of these areas (research
& innovation, demand side and consumer behaviour, citizens’ and civil society’s concerns
and expectations)?
Tackling bottlenecks & gaps
4) What are the bottlenecks – in practices and research – in addressing these areas, and
what are the inherent risks and uncertainties, and how could these be addressed?
5) Is there evidence for any major gap (knowledge, science and technology, markets,
policies, competences, skills)?
Defining opportunities
6) What are the emerging opportunities for advances in the areas tackled by Societal
Challenge 2, taking into account the EU position in research and innovation?
7) In which areas is the strongest potential to leverage innovation and, in particular,
ensure the participation of industry including SMEs?
57
8) How could Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 best contribute to EU policies, and
leverage and complement Member States' efforts for growth and job creation?
9) What types of cross-cutting and trans-disciplinary activities would best tackle these
challenges/opportunities based on the first experience of Focus Areas such as Blue Growth or
Sustainable Food Security?
Output and impacts
10) What type of output could be foreseen and what could the impacts (on science and
technology, innovation, economy, environment and society) be based on your identification of
priority areas for action? What would success look like? How would you measure it?
11) Which related innovation aspects could reach market deployment within 5-7 years?
