Bio Based Industries en

Bio-based industries,
towards a public-private
partnership under
Horizon 2020?
Report on the European Commissions
public on-line consultation
Research and
Innovation
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

Directorate E Biotechnologies, Agriculture & Food
Unit E.2 Biotechnologies
E-mail: RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Bio-based industries,
towards a public-private
partnership under
Horizon 2020?
Report on the European Commissions
Public on-line consultation
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

2013 Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food Knowledge-based Bioeconomy
Data mining, graphic analysis and write-up by Dr Felice Addeo, independent
expert reviewer
Special thanks go to Jens Hoegel and Edoardo Baldoni for their valuable
contribution to this publication
EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers
or these calls may be billed
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which
might be made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the European Commission.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013
ISBN 978-92-79-28799-2
doi 10.2777/72672
European Union, 2013

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Cover Image carballo, #42544342, 2013. Source: Fotolia.com.

Contents
1. Introduction 5
Implementing Horizon 2020 in relation tobiobased industries 5
Biobased industries, at the heart of the bioeconomy5
2. Results 9
2.1. Respondents profile 9
2.1.1. Respondents answering as individuals11
2.1.2. Respondents answering on behalf of an organisation or an institution12
2.1.3. The whole sample13
3. Identification of the problems17

3.1. Overall views on the competitiveness of the European biobased industries17
3.2. The European biobased industries: strengths and weaknesses 22
4. European added value35

4.1. The importance of EUlevel intervention35
4.2. Added value of EUlevel intervention39
5. Objectives of EUlevel intervention43

6. Towards aPPP?49
7. Impacts 51
5
INTRODUC TION
1. Introduction
Implementing Horizon 2020 in relation
tobiobased industries
Biobased industries, at the heart of the bioeconomy

Europe is committed to excelling in smart, inclusive and sustainable growth. In this con-
text, the Europe 2020 strategy highlights the building of abioeconomy by 2020 as one of
the deliverables under its flagship initiative Innovation Union. The Commission has recently
presented the communication Innovating for sustainable growth: Abioeconomy for Europe
(COM(2012) 60 final).
The online public consultation conducted in connection with the preparation of the bioeconomy
communication found that alarge majority (>85%) of respondents saw significant advan-
tages in developing aEuropean strategy on asustainable biobased economy as follows:
supporting biobased markets and the creation of economic growth and highly
skilled jobs (88.3%);
fostering the move towards azero waste society (90.4%);
securing asufficient supply of food and biomass (88.3%);
integrated, sustainable agricultural, aquatic and ecosystem services (89.9%);
strengthening the research and innovation base (85.7%).
The abovementioned communication also sets out acomprehensive bioeconomy action plan.
The plan includes the establishment of apublicprivate partnership on research and inno-
vation for biobased industries as ameans to promote the development of integrated
and diversified biorefineries, including their biomass supply chains. Consequently, the aim of
apublicprivate partnership has been proposed in Horizon 2020, the future EU framework
programme for research and innovation.
Europe needs to champion the use of sustainable biobased resources as amajor source of
raw material for conversion into innovative industrial products and fuels/energy. This must
be achieved without creating shortages in food and feed supply and in full respect of the
environment. Several studies (e.g. by the European Environment Agency(1)) demonstrate the
potential to mobilise, in asustainable manner, large volumes of nonfood biomass in the EU
as feedstock to support the growth of the biobased industries. Europes biobased industries
need to be technologically prepared and equipped to successfully address this challenge,
along with all other participants in the value chain (e.g. farmers, foresters, waste managers).
An important goal is to expand the range and the volume of innovative products manufac-
tured by the biobased industries (e.g. biobased plastics, chemical building blocks, highvalue
1 Estimating the environmentally compatible bioenergy potential from agriculture, EEA Technical Report No12/2007; How much
bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment?, EEA Report No7/2006.
6
B I O B A S E D I N D U S T R I E S : T O WA R D S AP U B L I C P R I VAT E PA R T N E R S H I P U N D E R H O R I Z O N 2020 ?
ingredients for pharmaceuticals or cosmetics, advanced biofuels) from renewable biological

resources (e.g. specialty crops, residues from agriculture, forestry, fisheries and the utilisation
of biowaste). This will require the development of new types of biorefineries and the associ-
ated value chains as well as innovation within established biobased industries with along
tradition of processing renewable biological resources (e.g. the pulp and paper industry, the
starch and the food industry). The pulp and paper and the starch industries have the potential
to play asignificant role in the innovation cycle leading to the successful development of an
effective integrated biorefinery infrastructure in Europe. Furthermore, the chemical industry
can play an important role by expanding its use of biobased resources. The biotechnology
industry will deliver key components for innovative new processes.
The development of biobased industries, if successful, can bring alot of rewards that con-
cern many stakeholders: consumers who get access to new sustainable products based on
renewable biological resources, biobased industries that take technological and sustainability
leadership and thereby build longterm competitive advantages; enhanced economic growth
and new jobs in rural, coastal and industrial areas; and new revenue streams for EU-27 agri-
culture and forestry.
Horizon 2020 aims to build technological and sustainability leadership as alever for indus-
trial competitiveness on aglobal scale. In addition to delivering excellence in research and
technology development, the aim is to deliver real innovation and to promote its deployment
on alarge scale.
Under FP7, the EUs seventh framework programme for research, certain sectors pioneered
the use of publicprivate partnerships (PPP), as anovel means to manage and implement
EU research programmes. In the context of aPPP, both private and public sector contrib-
ute resources to support research and innovation activities, based on multiannual research
agendas. Examples of PPPs operating under FP7 include: the European green cars initiative;
Factories of the future; the innovative medicines initiative; the clean sky; and fuel cells and
hydrogen. The continued use of publicprivate partnerships is explicitly provided for under
Horizon 2020.
A large group of stakeholders from the biobased industries has shown strong interest in the
creation of anew PPP in the area of biobased industries and has expressed acommitment
to contribute to its activities. The Commission is considering supporting aPPP in the area of
biobased industries, addressing specific parts of Horizon 2020: Sustainable and competitive
biobased industries.
On the basis of these considerations, the Biobased industries, towards apublicprivate part-
nership under Horizon 2020? consultation was launched to collect the opinions of stakehold-
ers active in the field and of public at large on the state of play of the European biobased
industries, focusing on the aspects related to research and innovation.
The consultation specifically aimed at seeking respondents views about the role of the pub-
licprivate partnership in implementing research and innovation activities under Horizon 2020.
The research design of the public consultation was made up of six general dimensions (as
shown in the concept map, Figure 1).
7
INTRODUC TION
respondents profile: information about respondents according to their type of

participation in the consultation (individuals or on behalf of an organisation or
institution), such as occupation, organisation sector, professional field, residence
and workplace;
identification of the problems: this section addresses the respondents perception

about: the competitiveness of the European biobased economy; the strengths and
weaknesses of the European biobased industries; and the innovation capacity of
the biobased industries;
European added value: views about the added value of Europeanlevel intervention
in facing the problems of the biobased industries, in comparison with other levels
(regional, national);
objectives of EUlevel intervention: what are the goals that should be addressed
assuming EUlevel action on research and innovation in connection with biobased
industries;
towards aPPP?: considerations about the implementation of research and

innovation activities in the biobased industries area under Horizon 2020 through
aPPP;
impacts: this section deals with the perceived potential impact of EU research and
innovation actions on biobased industries if these actions are applied under aPPP
framework.
The instrument used for the public consultation was aquestionnaire (designed with assistance
from the Interservice Steering Group (ISG) on Article 187 initiatives). The online version of
the questionnaire was prepared using the Internetbased software package IPM (Interactive
Policy Making), an Internetbased software package aiming at the creation, launch and analysis
of replies to online questionnaires. The questionnaire was accompanied by aspecific privacy
statement and astatement for the protection of personal data.
The questionnaire was composed of six sections, resembling the research dimensions shown
above. Each research dimension was measured using asingle question or, more often, aset
of items.
The public consultation was open for contributions between 21 September and
14December2012.
Awareness about the opening of this consultation was raised through anumber of sources,
including:
the DirectoratesGeneral (DGs) involved in the interservice group;
the FP7 KnowledgeBased Bioeconomy (KBBE) Programme Committee;
the FP7 KBBE Advisory Group and relevant National Contact Points in the Member
States;
the European Bioplastics Association;
the ERMAs (European Renewable Resources and Materials Associations);

8
the European Technology Platform for Sustainable Chemistry;
the ForestBased sector Technology Platform;
The Plants for the Future Technology Platform;
EuropaBio;
CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council);
CEPI (Confederation of European Paper Industries);
FoodDrinkEurope;
COPA COGECA (European Farmers and European Agricultural Cooperatives

Association);
The ESA (European Seed Association).
All contributions collected through the online questionnaire were analysed and used to gener-
ate the tables and the graphs found in this report.
Figure 1 Concept map of public consultation
Bio-based industries, towards

a public-private partnership under Horizon 2020? Respondents profile
Identification of the
problems Organisation
Individuals (individuals on
behalf)
Innovation
Competitiveness Occupation,
Capacity Occupation,
professional
Strengths and professional field,
field,
Weaknesses country of residence
country of residence
Objectives of EU level
European Added intervention Impacts
Value
Tackling the Added value of EU Towards a PPP?

problems level intervention
9
R E S U LT S
2. Results
During the consultation period from 21 September to 14December2012, 682 answers were
collected. Data quality control and data cleaning procedures were applied to the dataset.
Nine participants were removed because they answered the public consultation twice (they
were identified because they provided the same contact details); moreover, 35 people were
removed from the final dataset because they did not agree to provide their names and contact
details. During the analysis of the replies it was noted that 61 respondents from one single
Member State were completely identical, apart from the contact details. These responses,
representing 9.5% of the total, were further analysed to establish whether they influenced the
overall outcome of the analysis and to what extent. It was concluded that the overall outcome
of the consultation was not affected by these respondents and therefore it was decided to
fully include them in this report.
The final sample is therefore composed of 638 respondents.
2.1. Respondents profile

This paragraph illustrates the profile of the participants in the public consultation. As shown
in Figure2, the number of respondents who answered as individuals (53.1%) was slightly
higher than those who answered on behalf of an organisation or an institution (46.9%).
Figure 2 Are you answering as an individual or on behalf of an organisation or an

institution? (n = 638)
Individual
53.1 %
Organization
46.9 %
Poland was the country with the greatest number of respondents in this consultation, fol-
lowed by the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, France, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Italy and Austria.
10
Generally speaking, alarge number of EU Member States were represented; there were also
some respondents from associated and nonEU countries (see Table 1).
Table 1 Geographical contributions
Frequency
Poland 143
Netherlands 94
Germany 82
Spain 58
France 54
Belgium 47
Sweden 30
Finland 24
Italy 22
Austria 21
Norway 9
United Kingdom 9
Czech Republic 6
Portugal 5
Romania 5
Denmark 4
Switzerland 4
Bosnia and Herzegovina 3
Ireland 3
Hungary 2
Serbia 2
United States 2
Brazil 1
China 1
Greece 1
Israel 1
Moldova 1
Peru 1
Singapore 1
Slovakia 1
Turkey 1
Total 638
The previous table is summed up in the next figure that shows the distribution of the respond-
ents according to their origin: 71.2% of participants originated from the EU-15 (Member States
of the European Union prior to 1May2004), 24.6% originated from the EU-12 (those Member
States joining the EU on/after 1May2004) and 4.2% originated from countries outside the EU.
11
R E S U LT S
Figure3 Geographical contributions grouped according to EU aggregation (n = 638)
EU-15
24.6 %
EU-12
Non-EU
4.2 %
71.2 %
2.1.1. Respondents answering as individuals

The number of respondents who answered as individuals was 339 (53.1% of the total sam-
ple), the majority of whom worked as aresearcher in aresearch organisation or in academia
(30.1%) or for aprivate company (other than an SME; 25.4%).
A significant number of farmer/forester (19.2%) and SME employees (13.0%) also participated
in the consultation.
Table2 If you are responding as an individual
Frequency %
I work as aresearcher in aresearch organisation
102 30.1
or in academia
I work for aprivate company (other than an SME) 86 25.4
I am afarmer/forester 65 19.2
I work for an SME 44 13.0
I am selfemployed (but not as afarmer forester) 11 3.2
I work for apublic authority (national level) 11 3.2
I work for apublic authority (local/regional level) 8 2.4
I work for anongovernmental organisation
3 0.9
(other than aconsumer organisation)
I work for an international organisation
2 0.5
(e.g. UN, OECD)
Other 7 2.1
Total 339 100.0
12
As regards professional fields, respondents were allowed to give up to two choices, which
explains why the number of responses exceeded the number of respondents (Table3).
Table3 Main professional field of respondents answering as individuals (multiresponse)

(n= 339; responses = 432)
Frequency % responses
Agriculture 115 26.6
Food and feed 60 13.9
Industrial biotechnology 60 13.9
Chemicals 42 9.7
Energy and biofuels 40 9.3
Forestry 27 6.3
Environment 25 5.8
Transport 8 1.9
Health 8 1.9
Socioeconomics 5 1.2
Nanotechnology 4 0.7
Fisheries and aquaculture 0 0.0
Other 27 6.3
Other (nonpharmaceutical) biotechnologies 11 2.5
Total 432 100.0
The relative majority of respondents were engaged in the agricultural field (26.6%). The other
main professional fields represented were: food and feed (13.9%); industrial biotechnology
(13.9%); chemicals (9.7%); and energy and biofuels (9.3%). There was no individual respond-
ent from the fisheries and aquaculture field.
2.1.2. Respondents answering on behalf of an organisation or an institution

Participants who answered on behalf of an organisation or an institution mainly represented
the private sector: 48.2% represented asmall or mediumsized enterprise (SME, 22.4%),
amultinational or atransEuropean private company (18.1%) or anational private company
(7.7%). Other respondents represented the academic sector (18.1%), public authorities/public
administrations (10.0%) and industry associations or chambers of commerce (9.7%).
Table 4 If you are responding on behalf of organisation or an institution (n = 299)
Frequency %
I represent asmall or medium enterprise (SME) 67 22.4
I represent amultinational or atransEuropean
54 18.1
private company
I represent an academic/research organisation or
54 18.1
association of academic/research organisations
I represent apublic authority/public
30 10.0
administration
13
R E S U LT S
I represent an industry association or achamber

29 9.7
of commerce (national/regional/local)
I represent anational private company
23 7.7
(excluding SMEs)
I represent an association of farmers or other
16 5.4
primary producers (national/regional/local)
I represent anongovernmental organisation/
associations of NGOs (excluding consumer 9 3.0
association)
Other 17 5.6
Total 299 100.00
Participants who replied on behalf of an organisation mainly represented the industrial bio-
technology field (17.9%) and fields like agriculture (14.4%), food and feed (12.7%), energy
and biofuels (12.2%) and chemicals (11.2%).
Table5 Main professional field of respondents on behalf of an organisation or an insti-

tution (multiresponse) (n= 299; responses = 418)
Agriculture 60 14.4
Chemicals 47 11.2
Forestry 28 6.7
Environment 23 5.5
Transport 6 1.4
Health 6 1.4
Other 47 11.2
Total 418 100.0
2.1.3. The whole sample

In order to synthesise the information about the type of organisation the respondents worked
for, atypology was created, combining the answers to the variables shown in Tables 2 and 4.
The typology has four categories(2): private, public, academia and NGO (nongovernmental
organisation) (Table6).
2 Respondents who chose the residual category, i.e. other, could add aspecific comment to the text. The content
analysis allowed the open answers to be reclassified into one of the four categories. The same criterion has been
adopted for the recategorisation of the professional field.
14
The majority of respondents worked in aprivate organisation (64.6%), whereas 24.6%

belonged to the academic sector. Few respondents were categorised as coming from the
public sector (8.8%) or an NGO (2.0%). Overall, the number of responses received was con-
sidered relatively high with the exception of replies from the NGO category. The relatively low
number of replies from NGOs in particular would need to be considered with regard to their
representativeness.
Table6 Type of organisation
Frequency %
Private 412 64.6
Academia 157 24.6
Public 56 8.8
NGO 13 2.0
Total 638 100.0
Considering the entire sample, the most represented professional field was agriculture
(20.6%), followed by industrial biotechnology (15.9%), food and feed (13.3%), energy and
biofuels (10.7%) and chemicals (10.5%).
Table7 Main professional field of respondents (whole sample; multiresponse) (n = 638;

responses = 850)
Agriculture 175 20.6
Chemicals 89 10.5
Forestry 55 6.5
Environment 48 5.6
Transport 14 1.6
Health 14 1.6
Other 74 8.7
Total 850 100.0
In the following graph, professional fields were recategorised according to primary (35.7%)
and other type of production (64.3%).
15
R E S U LT S
Figure4 Type of production (n= 638)
Primary production
35.7 %
Other types of production
64.3 %
16
17
I D E N T I F I C AT I O N O F T H E P R O B L E M S
3. Identification of the
problems
Section Bof the questionnaire addressed the respondents perception about the competitive-
ness of the European biobased industries. Participants were asked to express their view about
the state of theart of the biobased economy in Europe, focusing on the problems faced
by European biobased industries. This section of the questionnaire contained three sets of
items, whose specific aim was to survey the opinions of the respondents about the potential
strength and weakness of the biobased industries in relation to the current state of affairs
in research and innovation.
3.1. Overall views on the competitiveness of the

European biobased industries
The first question in Section Bwas intended to analyse what participants thought about the
general level of competitiveness of the European biobased industries. This topic was surveyed
with aset of seven statements, each of which referred to the perceived competitiveness in
various steps of the value chain (primary production; logistics and storage; extraction and
processing of renewable resources; commercialisation; market development).
Respondents were asked to express their agreement with each item using afivepoint Likert
scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
According to the respondents answers, the items were divided into three groups:
(1) sectors in which European biobased industries were considered competitive in aglobal
context (Figure5):
logistics and storage (strongly agree+agree = 65.0%) and
primary production (strongly agree+agree = 54.5%);
(2) sectors in which uncertainty prevailed over European biobased industries competitive-
ness in aglobal context (Table8):
extraction and processing of renewable biological resources into valueadded

biobased materials (neutral = 40.1%) and
extraction and processing of renewable biological resources into biofuels (neutral =

39.3%);
(3) sectors in which European biobased industries were not considered competitive in
aglobal context (Figure5):
EU measures for market development, harmonisation and standardisation in the

field of biobased industries (strongly disagree+disagree = 55.7%) and
18
commercialisation of valueadded products produced from renewable biological

resources (strongly disagree+disagree = 50.5%).
Table8 What are your overall views on the competitiveness of the European biobased
industries? (%)
No opinion
Disagree
disagree
Strongly
Strongly
Neutral
Agree
agree
Items
Total
EU primary production is
competitive in aglobal 5.2 23.0 14.6 47.0 7.5 2.7 100.0
context
EU logistics and storage
is competitive in aglobal 1.6 12.4 15.5 55.6 9.4 5.5 100.0
context
Extraction and processing
of renewable biological
resources into valueadded
3.6 21.5 40.1 24.1 8.5 2.2 100.0
biobased materials in the
EU is competitive in aglobal
context
Extraction and processing
of renewable biological
resources into biofuels in the 5.8 28.7 39.3 17.2 5.3 3.7 100.0
context
Commercialisation of
valueadded products
produced from renewable
29.2 21.3 19.1 19.9 7.4 3.1 100.0
biological resources in the
context
EU measures for market
development, harmonisation
and standardisation in the
28.4 27.3 21.6 13.9 3.9 4.9 100.0
field of biobased industries
are competitive in aglobal
context
Overall, Europes biobased
industries are competitive on 3.1 23.8 42.9 21.9 5.3 3.0 100.0
the worldwide scene
NB: n = Strongly agree plus agree more than strongly disagree plus disagree; n = strongly disagree plus
disagree more than strongly agree plus agree; n = neutral more than 25%;
19
Figure5 What are your overall views on the competitiveness of the European biobased
industries? (%)
Whole sample
Items
EU primary production
is competitive 28.2 54.5
in a global context
EU logistics and storage

is competitive 14.0 65.0
in a global context
Extraction and processing of

renewable biological resources into 25.1 32.6
value-added bio-based materials
in the EU is competitive in a global context
Extraction and processing of renewable

biological resources into biofuels in 34.5 22.5
the EU is competitive in a global context.
Commercialisation of value-added products

produced from renewable biological resources 50.5 27.3
in the EU is competitive in a global context
EU measures for market development,

harmonisation and standardisation 55.7 17.8
in the field of bio-based industries are
competitive in a global context
Overall, Europe's biobased

industries are competitive 26.9 27.2
on the worldwidescene
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Strongly disagree + Strongly agree +

disagree agree
20
As shown in the following graphics (Figures6 and7), the survey revealed an overall positive
opinion with regard to the competitiveness of primary production and logistics and storage
in the EU. However, some differences between stakeholder groups were also recognised, as
follows:
In particular, stakeholders of the private sector did not agree that all subsequent
processing steps after primary production and logistics and storage were competitive,
whereas the other groups showed aless unified response pattern.
The academic stakeholder group was identified as showing the starkest contrast
to the private sector and the other stakeholder groups in so far as the majority
of academic respondents indicated that European biobased industries were
competitive on all but one item surveyed.
Also to be noted was that respondents from the NGO sector showed aunanimous
disagreement regarding the competitiveness of current biofuel extraction from
renewable biological resources. The majority of stakeholders from the private sector
also disagreed with this statement.
industries? (%)
Private sector
Items
Primary production 33.0 54.6
Logistics and storage 17.7 64.1
Extraction value added 29.4 22.1
Extraction biofuels 36.9 16.5
Commercialisation 62.6 19.2
EU measures 64.6 12.9
Overall competitiveness 31.6 18.0
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

disagree agree
Items

21
Overall competitiveness 31.6 I D E N T I F I C18.0
AT I O N O F T H E P R O B L E M S
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Academic sector disagree agree
Items
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

disagree agree
industries? (%)
Public sector
Items
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
disagree agree
Items

22 EU measures 50.0 19.6
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
NGO sector Strongly disagree + Strongly agree +
disagree agree
Items
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
disagree agree
3.2. The European biobased industries: strengths

and weaknesses
The next part of the questionnaire dealt with the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the
European biobased industries. Two subdimensions were surveyed: (1) the EUs current situa-
tion and (2) the current innovation capacity of the biobased industries.
Regarding the evaluation of the EUs current situation, respondents were asked to rate, on
afivepoint scale from very weak to very strong, the EUs current situation for 10 items,
having as the benchmark what they believed was required for Europe to be successful in the
development of competitive biobased industries (Table9).
According to the responses received, the following three items received the highest approval
rates, based on summing up the results for very strong and strong:
strength of basic research in areas of likely future relevance, with 78.7%;
investment of the private sector in research and innovation related to biobased

industries, with 50.3%;
filing of patent application, with 42.6%.
Other items considered strong rather than weak by respondents were:
strength of applied research and technology development (41.8%);

23
SME participation in research and innovation related to biobased industries

(40.7%).
Having analysed the responses for very weak and weak, two items were identified as being
by far the weakest points:
access of biobased industries to arange of stateoftheart demonstration plants,

with 70.8%;
involvement of primary producers (farmers, forestry or aquaculture) in innovation

efforts related to the development of supply chains for biomass as feedstock for
biobased industries, with 68.5%.
Other items considered more weak than strong by respondents were:
collaboration between stakeholders along value and supply chains in terms of

conducting research and innovation pertinent to biobased industries (60.7%);
investment of the public sector in research and innovation related to biobased

industries (59.3%);
EUwide coordination of applied research and technology development (55.9%).
In the context of this online public consultation it was surprising to see that even the public
sector itself seemed to indicate that the investment in research and innovation by the public
sector was considered aweakness (Figure 9). Due to the sample size of 638 valid responses,
this result could certainly not be regarded as fully representative for the public sector in the
EU in general; nevertheless it was considered to underline some consensus among all stake-
holder groups, calling for better and more public support for research and innovation activities
in the EU.
24
Table9 The European biobased industries: strengths and weaknesses

the EUs current situation (%)
Very strong
No opinion
Very weak
Neutral
Strong
Items
Weak
Total
Strength of basic research in
0.6 7.7 11.1 64.6 14.1 1.9 100.0
areas of likely future relevance
Strength of applied research
0.6 40.6 15.7 32.1 9.7 1.3 100.0
and technology development
EU wide coordination of applied
research and technology 26.6 29.3 23.8 13.6 4.1 2.6 100.0
development
Involvement of primary
producers (farmers, forestry
or aquaculture) in innovation
efforts related to the 8.2 60.3 17.1 9.9 2.4 2.1 100.0
development of supply chains
for biomass as feedstock for
biobased industries
Investment of the private sector
in research and innovation 4.1 23.0 20.4 45.6 4.7 2.2 100.0
related to biobased industries
SME participation in research
and innovation related to 6.3 23.2 24.1 35.7 5 5.7 100.0
biobased industries.
Investment of the public sector
in research and innovation 5.2 54.1 20.7 14.7 3.6 1.7 100.0
related to biobased industries
Filing of patent applications
(in line with the exploitation
1.6 14.7 27.0 40.4 2.2 14.1 100.0
potential of research results
obtained)
Collaboration between
stakeholders along value
and supply chains in terms
4.9 55.8 20.5 12.1 3.1 3.6 100.0
of conducting research
and innovation pertinent to
biobased industries
Access of biobased industries
to arange of state of the art 39.0 31.8 14.7 7.4 2.8 4.3 100.0
demonstration plants
NB: n = Very strong plus strong more than very weak plus weak; n= very weak plus
weak more than very strong plus strong;n= neutral more than 25 %;n= no opinion
more than 10 %.
25
Figure8 The European biobased industries: strengths and weaknesses the EUs cur-
rent situation (%)
Whole sample
Items
Strength of basic research
in areas of likely
future relevance 8.3 78.7
Strength of
applied research & technology
development 41.2 41.8
EU-wide coordination of
applied research & technology
55.9 17.7
development
Involvement of primary producers (farmers,
forestry or aquaculture) in innovation efforts
related to the development of supply chains 68.5 12.3
for biomass as feedstock for bio-based industries.
Investment of the private sector
in Research and Innovation 27.1 50.3
related to bio-based industries.
SME participation in
Research and Innovation related 29.5 40.7
to bio-based industries.
Investment of the public sector in
Research and Innovation related 59.3 18.3
to bio-based industries.
Filing of patent applications
(in line with the exploitation 16.3 42.6
potential of research results obtained).
Collaboration between stakeholders along value
and supply chains in terms of conducting 60.7 15.2
R&I pertinent to bio-based industries
Access of bio-based industries
to a range of state of 70.8 10.2
the art demonstration plants
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Very weak + Very strong +
weak strong
26
Figure9 The European biobased industries: strengths and weaknesses the EUs cur-
rent situation (%)
Private sector
Items
Basic research 4.6 84.5
Applied research 48.5 35.4

Items
EU-wide coordination 65.8 13.6
Involvement of primary producers 73.8 8.7
Investment of the private in in R & I 23.5 59.7
SME participation in R & I 23.3 45.9
Investment of the public sector in in R & I 67.0 12.9
Filing of patent applications 12.9 53.6
Collaboration between stakeholders 67.5 12.4
Access demonstration plants 79.6 6.6
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Very weak + weak Very strong + strong
Items
Academic sector Basic research 100 80 60 40 14.620 0 20 40 60 68.880 100

Items
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

27
Figure10 The European biobased industries: strengths and weaknesses the EUs
current situation (%)
Public sector
Items

Items
Investment of the private in R & I 26.8 50.0
Investment of the public sector in R & I 55.4 28.6
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
100 80 60 40 20 Items
0 20 40 60 80 100
NGO sector Basic research 38.5 + strong
Very weak +23.1
weak Very strong
Items
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

28
Overall, the perception of individual stakeholder groups with regard to the items surveyed was
found to be very similar and in line with the overall results for all stakeholder groups together.
However, some interesting indications in terms of different views between stakeholder groups
were identified as follows:
The NGO and academic sector differed from the other two sectors in that they
regarded the participation of SMEs in research and innovation activities as being
rather weak, whereas the private and public sectors considered this as rather
astrong point in the EU.
The private and public sectors regarded the investment of the private sector in
research and innovation as astrength, whereas the NGO/academic sectors seem
to have considered this rather aweakness.
Finally, the same pattern was identified for filing patent applications, which was
regarded by the private and public sectors as rather astrength, in contrast to the
other two sectors, which held the opposite view.
The second item surveyed the opinion of stakeholders regarding the current innovation capac-
ity of the biobased industries in the EU. Aset of 11 statements was presented in the ques-
tionnaire. These statements were considered as having adirect or indirect impact on industrial
innovation capacity. Respondents were again asked to rate these statements on afivepoint
scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Participants were found to generally disagree with the majority of the statements, which
therefore indicated an overall limited innovation capacity of biobased industries in the EU.
Taking the responses of all stakeholder groups into account, the most disapproved of state-
ments were as follows (see Table 10 and Figure 11):
Consumers are well informed about benefits and risks associated with biobased
products (82.2%).
Biobased industries are sufficiently consolidated and integrated (critical mass)

across Europe to support the growth of the biorefinery infrastructure (69.9%).
Appropriate industry standards, certification systems and labels are in place

to create afavorable economic environment for the development of biobased
industries (68.8%).
Member State public support mechanisms stimulating largescale deployment of

innovation in the biobased industries are strong (68.0%).
However, two statements overall received fairly positive ratings from all participants, namely:
There is good potential to source, in an environmentally sustainable way, other types

of nonfood feedstocks (56.9%).
There is asufficient availability of traditional feedstock, mainly food crops such

as maize, wheat, sugar beet or oilseeds in Europe, to support the rapid growth of
biobased industries while assuring food and feed supply (51.1%).
29
Generally speaking, under the current circumstances respondents seemed not to have much
confidence in the current innovation capacity of the biobased industries in the EU. This issue
is further analysed in the following sections of this report.
Table10 European biobased industries: strengths and weaknesses which may have
adirect or indirect impact on the innovation capacity of the biobased
industries (%)
Noopinion
Disagree
disagree
Strongly
Strongly
Neutral
Agree
agree
Items
Total
Biobased industries are
sufficiently consolidated and
integrated (critical mass)
8.3 61.6 13.6 11.8 1.7 3.0 100.0
across Europe to support the
growth of the biorefinery
infrastructure
There is asufficient
availability of traditional
feedstock, mainly food crops
such as maize, wheat, sugar
beet or oilseeds in Europe, to 8.6 21.3 13.5 21.0 30.1 5.5 100.0
support the rapid growth of
biobased industries while
assuring food and feed
supply
There is good potential to
source, in an environmentally
sustainable way, other types
of nonfood feedstocks (e.g.
residues from agriculture,
2.0 6.3 33.2 36.8 20.1 1.6 100.0
forestry and biowaste,
lignocellulosic crops) in
Europe, supporting the future
development of EU biobased
industry
Appropriate solutions to
ensure an effective biomass
supply chain are already in 11.6 31.8 39.5 13.2 1.4 2.5 100.0
place (e.g. logistics, stable
supply contracts)
Necessary crosssectoral
collaboration between
stakeholders in biobased
8.5 56.7 15.5 11.9 4.9 2.5 100.0
value chains enabling smart
and sustainable ways of
using biomass is in place
30
EUlevel public support

mechanisms stimulating
largescale deployment of 37.8 29.8 18.5 9.1 1.9 3.0 100.0
innovation in the biobased
industries are strong
Member State public support
mechanisms stimulating
largescale deployment of 34.0 34.0 18.0 9.4 1.4 3.1 100.0
innovation in the biobased
industries are strong
Appropriate industry
standards, certification
systems and labels are in
place to create afavourable 8.9 59.9 13.8 10.3 2.4 4.7 100.0
economic environment
for the development of
biobased industries
Policy measures and
initiatives promoting the use
of biobased products create
9.1 52.7 15.2 13.0 6.9 3.1 100.0
afavourable environment
for the development of local
biobased industries
There is astrong and
effective integration of
measures to protect the
7.7 53.0 17.1 14.7 2.8 4.7 100.0
environment with measures
aimed at the development of
biobased industries
Consumers are well informed
about benefits and risks
48.7 33.5 9.4 5.6 .9 1.9 100.0
associated with biobased
products
NB:n= Strongly agree plus agree more than strongly disagree plus disagree; n=
strongly disagree plus disagree more than strongly agree plus agree; n= neutral more
than 25%.
31
Figure11 Actions required for Europe to be successful in enhancing the innovation

capacity of the biobased industries (%)
Whole sample
Items
Bio-based Industries are sufficiently
consolidated and integrated (critical mass)
across Europe to support the growth 69.9 13.5
of the biorefinery infrastructure
There is a sufficient availability of traditional
feedstock, mainly foodcrops such as maize,
wheat, sugar beet or oilseeds in Europe, 29.9 51.1
to support the rapid growth of bio-based industries
There is good potential to source, in an
environmentally sustainable way, other types of
non-food feedstocks (e.g. residues from agriculture, 8.3 56.9
forestry and biowaste, lignocellulosic crops)
Appropriate solutions to ensure an effective
biomass supply chain are already in place (e.g. 43.4 14.6
logistics, stable supply contracts)
Necessary cross-sectorial collaboration
between stakeholders in bio-based value-chains
enabling smart and sustainable ways 65.2 16.8
of using biomass is in place.
EU-level public support mechanisms stimulating
large-scale deployment of innovation in the 67.6 11.0
bio-based industries are strong.
Member state public support mechanisms

stimulating large-scale deployment of innovation 68.0 10.8
in the bio-based industries are strong.
Appropriate industry standards, certification systems
and labels are in place to create a favourable
economic environment for the development 68.8 12.7
of bio-based industries
Policy measures and initiatives promoting
the use of bio-based products create a favourable
environment for the development 61.8 19.9
of local bio-based industries.
There is a strong and effective integration
of measures to protect the environment
with measures aimed at the development 60.7 17.5
of bio-based industries
Consumers are well informed about
benefits and risks associated 82.2 6.5
with bio-based products
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Strongly disagree + disagree Strongly agree + agree
32

Private sector
Items
Critical mass 74.3 11.2
Availability of traditional feedstock 23.3 59.2

Good potential to source 8.0 47.6
Items
Appropriate solutions 40.8 13.8
Cross-sectorial collaboration 71.4 14.6
EU-level support 76.7 7.8
Member state support 75.2 9.0
Appropriate industry standards 76.9 9.0
Policy initiatives 68.7 16.5
Integration of measures 67.5 15.3
Consumers well informed 86.4 4.4
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Integration of measures 67.5
Strongly disagree + disagree 15.3Strongly agree + agree
Items
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Academic sector
Availability of traditional feedstock 30.6 agree + agree
Strongly47.1
disagree + disagree Strongly
Items
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Integration of measures Strongly45.9
disagree + disagree Strongly agree + agree
24.2
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

33

Public sector
Items
Appropriate solutions 39.3 Items 17.9
Availability of traditional feedstock 30.4 7.1 57.1
EU-level support 71.4
Good potential to source 10.7 14.3 57.1
Member state support 60.7
25.0
Policy initiatives 60.7
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Integration of measures Strongly

55.4disagree + disagree Strongly agree + agree
17.9
Consumers well informed 87.5 Items 10.7
Critical mass 100 80 6046.2 40 20 0 20

15.4 40 60 80 100
NGO sector
Availability of traditional feedstock 30.8
Strongly disagree + disagree 15.4
Strongly agree + agree
Items
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Integration of measures Strongly disagree
46.2 + disagree 7.7 Strongly agree + agree
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

34
Figures 12 and 13 display the opinion of the individual stakeholder groups regarding the 11
statements mentioned. Apart from two issues, no major differences between the groups were
identified.
The statement There is asufficient availability of traditional feedstock, mainly food crops such
as maize, wheat, sugar beet or oilseeds in Europe, to support the rapid growth of biobased
industries while assuring food and feed supply was supported by the majority of respondents
from the private and public sector groups, whereas the majority of the academic and NGO
groups did not agree with this statement.
Another difference in views between stakeholder groups was found regarding the state-
ment Appropriate industry standards, certification systems and labels are in place to cre-
ate afavourable economic environment for the development of biobased industries. Here,
opinion within the NGO group was equally split between those who agreed and those who
disagreed (both 30.8%), while respondents from the other three groups largely disapproved
of this statement.
35
E U R O P E A N A D D E D VA L U E
4. European added value

Section Cof the questionnaire requested the view of stakeholders on the added value of
EUlevel action on research and innovation for the biobased industries. Respondents were
asked to provide their opinions regarding: (1) the importance of EUlevel intervention in com-
parison with other types of interventions and (2) the added value of EUlevel intervention.
4.1. The importance of EUlevel intervention

Participants were asked to provide their opinion concerning the added value of EUlevel inter-
vention in comparison with no public intervention and intervention at regional and/or national
levels.
According to the replies displayed in Table 11, respondents strongly believed that support for
research and innovation actions at European level is essential; the statement An intervention
at EUlevel is needed to help industry address the problems was supported by 94.3% of
all participants. Nomajor differences between stakeholder groups were noted in this regard,
although the statement received slightly more support from private and academic stakehold-
ers and slightly less from NGOs and public stakeholders.
In this context it is also to be noted that some participants from academia (with 18.5%), NGOs
(15.4%) and private stakeholders (10.2%) expressed support for intervention at regional or
national levels.
Table 11 Tackling the problems (%)

Noopinion
Disagree
disagree
Strongly
Strongly
Neutral
Agree
agree
Items
Total
Industry alone, without

government support, is able
54.5 38.7 3.4 1.7 0.8 0.9 100.0
to address the relevant
problems
An intervention at the level
of the regions or of Member
States would be sufficient 10.2 59.9 16.8 9.7 2.5 0.9 100.0
to help industry address the
relevant problems
An intervention at EU level
is needed to help industry 0.8 1.1 2.5 31.0 63.3 1.3 100.0
address the problems
NB:n= Strongly agree plus agree more than strongly disagree plus disagree; n = strongly disagree plus
disagree more than strongly agree plus agree;n= neutral more than 15%.
36
Figure14 Tackling the problems (%)
Whole sample
Items
Industry alone, without government support,

is able to address the relevant problems 93.2 2.5
An intervention at the level of the regions

or of Member States would be sufficient to help 70.1 12.2
industry address the relevant problems
An intervention at EU-level is needed

to help industry address the problems 1.9 94.3
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
37
Private sector
Items
Industry alone 93.2 2.9
Items
Regions or of Member States intervention 74.5 10.2

EU-level intervention 1.2 96.8

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Strongly disagree + disagree

1.2 Strongly agree + agree
96.8
EU-level intervention
Items
Academic sector 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Items

0.6 92.4
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Strongly disagree + disagree
0.6 Strongly agree +92.4
agree
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
38
Public sector
Items
Items

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

85.7
EU-level intervention 8.9
Items
NGO sector 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Items


100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
EU-level intervention Strongly disagree + disagree

7.7 Strongly agree +76.9
agree
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

39
4.2. Added value of EUlevel intervention

The next section of the questionnaire aimed to gather stakeholders views about the potential
added value of public intervention at EUlevel with regard to biobased industries. The section
was composed of eight statements, which respondents were asked to rate, using aseries of
five points ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Table 12 and Figure 17 respectively provide an overview of the responses received and the
results achieved in terms of ranking the eight statements on the added value of apossible EU
intervention. According to the results, all statements listed in the questionnaire were consid-
ered by the stakeholders to indeed provide added value, with strongest support for:
achieving the required level of investment in research and innovation, with 93.1%;
ensuring EUwide cooperation between all relevant stakeholders along the value
chains, with 92.0%;
providing improved policy coherence, for example in terms of environmental,

agricultural and industrial policies, with 91.4%;
promoting nontraditional partnerships (transnational, crosssectoral) between

stakeholders that may otherwise lack opportunities or incentives to collaborate,
with 90.8%.
The least appreciated statement was identified as greater mobilisation of research efforts in
universities and research institutes, which was supported by 61.5% of the respondents, with
34.3% of them giving aneutral answer.
40
Table12 EU intervention will provide added value in terms of (%)
Noopinion
Disagree
disagree
Strongly
Strongly
Neutral
Agree
agree
Items
total
mobilising the necessary
critical mass required to
0.6 1.3 7.1 38.9 50.8 1.3 100.0
reach key objectives in
atimely way
ensuring EUwide
cooperation between all
0.2 1.6 5.3 62.2 29.8 0.9 100.0
relevant stakeholders along
the value chains
promoting nontraditional
partnerships (transnational,
crosssectoral) between
0.3 1.1 6.9 32.3 58.5 0.9 100.0
stakeholders that may
otherwise lack opportunities
or incentives to collaborate
contribute to achieving the
required level of investment 0.5 0.8 4.7 32.0 61.1 0.9 100.0
in research and innovation
greater mobilisation
of research efforts in
0.5 2.4 34.3 35.3 26.2 1.3 100.0
universities and research
institutes
coordination between
0.3 1.1 9.6 60.3 26.3 2.4 100.0
national policies
...reduce first mover risk
associated with deployment 0.2 1.6 8.2 27.4 58.8 3.8 100.0
of innovative technologies
providing improved policy
coherence, e.g. in terms of
0.3 0.9 5.5 29.5 61.9 1.9 100.0
environmental, agricultural
and industrial policies
NB:n= Strongly agree more than agree n= agree more than strongly agree ;n= neu-
tral more than 20%.
41
Figure17 EU intervention will provide added value in terms of (%; strongly agree +
agree)
Items
contribute to achieving the required level of investment in

research and innovation 93.1
ensuring EU-wide cooperation between all relevant

stakeholders along the value chains 92.0
providing improved policy coherence, e.g. in terms of

environmental, agricultural and industrial policies 91.4
promoting non-traditional partnerships (transnational, cross-

sectorial) between stakeholders that may otherwise lack 90.8
opportunities or incentives to collaborate
mobilizing the necessary critical mass required to reach key

objectives in a timely way 89.7
coordination between national policies 86.6
reduce first mover risk associated with deployment of

innovative technologies 86.2
greater mobilisation of research efforts in universities and

research institutes 61.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
42
Figure18 EU intervention will provide added value in terms of (%; strongly agree
+agree; differences by stakeholders)
Items
93.2
mobilising the necessary critical mass required 88.5
to reach key objectives in a timely way 91.1
69.2
89.1
ensuring EU-wide cooperation between 80.9
all relevant stakeholders along the value chains 83.9
69.2
promoting non-traditional partnerships
87.9
(transnational, cross-sectorial) between stakeholders 86.0
that may otherwise lack opportunities 83.9
69.2
or incentives to collaborate
50.5
contribute to achieving the required level of 91.1
investment in research and innovation 55.4
76.9
93.7
greater mobilisation of research efforts 91.7
in universities and research institutes 94.6
84.6
91.7
coordination between national policies 89.8
87.5
84.6
92.5
reduce first mover risk associated with 91.1
deployment of innovative technologies 92.9
84.6
91.3
providing improved policy coherence, e.g. in terms of 88.5
environmental, agricultural and industrial policies 85.7
69.2
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Private Academic Public NGO
43
OB JEC TIVES OF EULEVEL INTERVENTION
5. Objectives of EUlevel
intervention
Section Dof the questionnaire sought stakeholders views on arange of objectives of EUlevel
intervention. Respondents were asked to rate in five steps from not important at all to very
important the significance of these 15 objectives, the results of which are summarised in
Table 13.
According the replies received, the top five ranked EUlevel intervention objectives were to:
facilitate more rapid deployment of promising technologies in pilot, demonstration

and first of its kind industrial scale plants, with 94.2%;
generate knowledge required for competitiveness of EU industries in the medium

and long term, with 93.4%;
promote effective collaboration on research and innovation between all stakeholders

along the value chain for greening the industry, with 93.3%;
deliver innovative technologies for the use of biomass in smart and efficient
nowaste processes, with 92.0%;
deliver innovative technologies aimed at building stable, competitive and sustainable

biomass/biowaste supply chains (e.g. with regard to logistics and integration of
supply networks), with 90.6%.
The objective of ensuring that greater emphasis is placed on seeking protection through intel-
lectual property rights when promising results emerge was the least supported statement
among respondents, but still received arelatively good score of 64.9%.
With regard to differences between individual stakeholder groups, it was noted in particular
that the objective of reinforcing and effectively utilising the research and innovation potential
present in Europes universities and research centres showed significantly higher support from
academia compared to the public and private sectors. Given the discussions on the innova-
tion valley of death in Europe, this could be interpreted as aconfirmation of agap between
basic and applied research, which closer cooperation between academia and private sectors
is expected to overcome.
With regard to differences between stakeholder groups, NGOs seemed to consider the following
two statements as of much lower importance than the other three groups:
Ensure that greater emphasis is placed on seeking protection through intellectual

property rights when promising results emerge was considered by only 23.1% of
NGOs as being an important objective of EUlevel intervention.
Favour high industrial participation rates in funded projects was considered

important by 46.2% of NGO participants, but still considerably lower compared to
other stakeholders.
44
Table 13 Objectives of EUlevel intervention: EUlevel action on research and innovation

in connection with biobased industries should (%)
Unimportant
Noopinion
Important
important
important
Not at all
Neutral
Items
Total
Very
generate knowledge
required for competitiveness
0.2 0.6 4.7 31.5 61.9 1.1 100.0
of EU industries in the
medium and long term
boost EU leadership in
technologies for conversion
of lignocellulosic biomass 0.0 0.5 7.4 26.2 64.3 1.6 100.0
and other nonfood
feedstock such as biowaste
promote effective
collaboration between
stakeholders to conduct the
0.0 0.6 7.8 33.7 56.7 1.2 100.0
research and innovation work
required to ensure sufficient
availability of biomass
promote effective
collaboration on research
and innovation between
0.0 1.3 4.9 33.4 59.9 0.5 100.0
all stakeholders along the
value chain for greening the
industry
promote building projects
0.3 2.5 12.9 29.5 53.3 1.5 100.0
with greater critical mass
incentivise private sector
stakeholders to increase their 0.0 1.4 8.5 34.5 54.1 1.5 100.0
investment level in R& I
help to build panEuropean
and crosssectoral linkages
0.0 1.3 29.9 37.3 29.6 1.9 100.0
with aview to achieving
enhanced innovation success
effectively promote the
participation of SMEs in 0.2 1.7 11.6 53.1 32.0 1.4 100.0
funded projects
favour high industrial
participation rates in funded 0.2 1.4 13.2 31.8 52.4 1.0 100.0
projects
45
reinforce and effectively

utilise the research and
innovation potential present 0.0 0.3 31.8 32.6 33.9 1.4 100.0
in Europes universities and
research centres
ensure that greater
emphasis is placed on
seeking protection through
0.6 6.4 22.9 50.5 14.4 5.2 100.0
intellectual property rights
when promising results
emerge
facilitate more rapid
deployment of promising
technologies in pilot,
0.0 0.8 3.6 23.8 70.4 1.4 100.0
demonstration and first
of its kind industrial scale
plants
deliver research and
innovation outputs (e.g.
related to standards or
0.2 1.6 8.8 30.1 57.5 1.8 100.0
labels) that can stimulate the
growth of the markets for
biobased products
deliver innovative
technologies for the use
0.0 0.6 5.6 30.6 61.4 1.8 100.0
of biomass in smart and
efficient nowaste processes
deliver innovative
technologies aimed at
building stable, competitive
and sustainable biomass/
0.0 0.9 6.9 59.9 30.7 1.6 100.0
biowaste supply chains
(e.g. with regard to logistics
and integration of supply
networks)
NB:n= Very important more than important; n= important more than very impor-
tant;n= neutral more than 20%.
46
Figure19 EUlevel action on research and innovation in connection with biobased

industries should (%; important+very important)
Items
facilitate more rapid deployment of promising technologies in pilot,
94.2
demonstration and "first of its kind" industrial scale plants
generate knowledge required for competitiveness

93.4
of EU industries in the medium and long term
promote effective collaboration on research and innovation

93.3
between all stakeholders along the value chain for greening the industry
deliver innovative technologies for the use of biomass

92.0
in smart and efficient no-waste processes
deliver innovative technologies aimed at building stable,
competitive and sustainable biomass/biowaste supply chains 90.6
(e.g. with regard to logistics and integration of supply networks)
boost EU leadership in technologies for conversion of lignocellulosic
90.5
biomass and other non-food feedstock such as biowaste
promote effective collaboration between stakeholders to conduct the research

90.4
and innovation work required to ensure sufficient availability of biomass
incentivise private sector stakeholders to increase their investment level in R&I 88.6
deliver research and innovation outputs (e.g. related to standards or labels)

87.6
that can stimulate the growth of the markets for bio-based products
effectively promote the participation of SME's in funded projects 85.1
favour high industrial participation rates in funded projects 84.2
promote building projects with greater critical mass 82.8
help to build pan-European and cross-sectoral linkages with

66.9
a view to achieving enhanced innovation success
reinforce and effectively utilise the research and innovation potential

66.5
present in Europe's universities and research centres
ensure that greater emphasis is placed on seeking protection

64.9
through intellectual property rights when promising results emerge
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
47
Figure20 EUlevel action on research and innovation in connection with biobased

industries should (%; important+very important; differences by
stakeholders)
Items
92.0
generate knowledge required for competitiveness 98.1
of EU industries in the medium and long term 96.4
69.2
boost EU leadership in technologies for conversion 90.0

91.7
of lignocellulosic biomass and other non-food 92.9
feedstock such as biowaste 76.9
promote effective collaboration between 89.8

90.4
stakeholders to conduct the research and innovation 96.4
work required to ensure sufficient availability of biomass 84.6
promote effective collaboration on research and 92.7

93.6
innovation between all stakeholders along the value 98.2
chain for greening the industry 84.6
86.9
promote building projects 72.6
with greater critical mass 85.7
61.5
90.3
incentivise private sector stakeholders to increase 87.9
their investment level in R & I 82.1
69.2
help to build pan-European and cross-sectoral 60.7

83.4
linkages with a view to achieving 66.1
enhanced innovation success 69.2
86.7
effectively promote the participation 81.5
of SME's in funded projects 87.5
69.2
88.3
favour high industrial participation 75.2
rates in funded projects 87.5
46.2
reinforce and effectively utilise the research 55.8

and innovation potential present in 94.9
64.3
Europe's universities and research centres 69.2
ensure that greater emphasis is placed on seeking 72.6

protection through intellectual property rights 50.3
58.9
when promising results emerge 23.1
facilitate more rapid deployment of promising 95.4

technologies in pilot, demonstration 92.4
96.4
and "first of its kind" industrial scale plants 69.2
deliver research and innovation outputs (e.g. related to 88.3
standards or labels) that can stimulate the 85.4
92.9
growth of the markets for bio-based products 69.2
92.5
deliver innovative technologies for the use 91.1
of biomass in smart and efficient no-waste processes 94.6
76.9
deliver innovative technologies aimed at building stable,
91.5
competitive and sustainable biomass/biowaste 86.0
supply chains (e.g. with regard to logistics 98.2
84.6
and integration of supply networks)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
48
49
T O WA R D S AP P P ?
6. Towards aPPP?
Section Eof the questionnaire contained asingle question seeking the view of stakeholders
regarding the format of afuture EU research programme on biobased industries. It was
explained in the questionnaire that compared to the standard management of collaborative
research by the European Commission, setting up apublicprivate partnership would allow for
amuch greater role of private sector stakeholders in establishing ajointly agreed longterm
strategic research agenda with the European Commission. It was furthermore explained that
compared to standard collaborative research, aPPP would allow agreater private sector
financial contribution to be taken on board, thus generating additional leverage at European
level, and that different types of PPP structures could be considered.
The vast majority of stakeholders, 86.9%, agreed or strongly agreed that aPPP was the most
appropriate mechanism to implement the research and innovation programme for biobased
industries under Horizon 2020 (Figure21).
Figure21 Apublicprivate partnership is the most appropriate mechanism to implement

the research and innovation programme for biobased industries under Hori-
zon 2020 (%)
60 57.1
50
40
29.8
30
20
10 7.5
1.6 1.3 2.8
0
No opinion Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
disagree
The idea that aPPP could be the best solution to foster the implementation of aresearch and
innovation programme was strongly supported by the private sector with 93.2%, followed
by academia with 77.7%, the public sector with 69.6% and NGOs with 69.2% (Figure22).
50
Figure22 Agreement concerning PPP among different stakeholder groups (%)

Stakeholders
Private 2.4 93.2
Public 7.1 69.6
Academia 6.4 77.7
NGO 15.4 69.2
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
51
I M PA C T S
7. Impacts
Section Fexplored the potential impact of EU research and innovation actions applied in
the context of aPPP on biobased industries. Specifically, respondents were asked to rate
on afivepoint scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, their agreement with 12
medium or longerterm socioeconomic impacts that one can expect to achieve as aresult of
an optimal development of the biobased industries in Europe under the PPP frame.
Considering together strongly agree or agree, all the items received ascore higher than
80%. This significant result means that interviewees were very favourable towards aEuro-
pean research and innovation strategy on the basis of aPPP and they seemed to believe
that implementing this could produce many favourable outcomes in terms of socioeconomic
impact (Table14).
Participants mostly appreciated the following statements, when they were asked whether
research and innovation work done in the context of aPPP:
will enable agreater use of renewable biomaterials in awide range of products

(92.3%);
will help to increase overall investments in research and innovation activities in the
EU in the sectors concerned (91.4%);
will help ensure that biobased industries develop in line with EU objectives on
sustainability (90.6%);
will contribute to the competitiveness of biobased industries in the EU at aglobal

level (89.5%);
will contribute to developing technologies that allow the conversion/upgrading of

existing plants to use new types of biomass input and/or to manufacture new
products (88.7%);
will help in achieving EU ambitions with regard to biobased products from biomass
in away that is environmentally sustainable and compatible with food/feed security
(88.2%);
will increase the chances of setting up first of its kind industrial scale biorefineries
in the EU based on innovative processes (87.7%);
will contribute to the creation of new jobs in rural and/or coastal areas (85.3%).
The least supported items were:
will contribute to the creation of new and attractive income streams for farmers,
foresters and aquaculture (81.5%);
will help ensure development of biobased industries in away that is compatible

with food security objectives (82.7%).
Results clearly indicate that the private sector is more confident about the socioeconomic
effects of aPPP than the academic and the public sectors: the percentage of strongly
52
agree+agree expressed by respondents from the private sector is by far the highest in all
the items but one; will enable agreater use of renewable biomaterials in awide range of
products received slightly more support from the academic sector (94.3 vs 93.9%).
Table14 Achievement of socioeconomic impacts: research and innovation work done in

the context of aPPP on biobased industries (%):
Noopinion
Disagree
disagree
Strongly
Strongly
Neutral
Agree
agree
Items
Total
will help ensure
development of biobased
industries in away that is 0.6 2.5 11.4 29.3 53.4 2.8 100.0
compatible with food security
objectives
will help ensure that
biobased industries develop
0.5 2.0 5.6 36.4 54.2 1.3 100.0
in line with EU objectives on
sustainability
will contribute to
developing technologies
that allow the conversion/
upgrading of existing plants 0.5 1.6 7.1 33.4 55.3 2.1 100.0
to use new types of biomass
input and / or to manufacture
new products
will increase the chances
of setting up first of its kind
industrial scale biorefineries 0.5 1.3 8.2 31.3 56.4 2.3 100.0
in the EU based on innovative
processes
will contribute to the
competitiveness of biobased
0.3 2.2 6.7 29.5 60.0 1.3 100.0
industries in the EU at
aglobal level
development of more
0.5 2.5 11.0 35.0 49.4 1.6 100.0
effective biomass supply
chains in the EU
creation of new and
attractive income streams 0.2 2.7 13.0 29.8 51.7 2.6 100.0
for farmers, foresters and
aquaculture
53
I M PA C T S

creation of new jobs in rural 0.3 3.0 8.6 28.1 57.2 2.8 100.0
and/or coastal areas
will contribute to achieving
EU greenhouse gas emission 0.3 3.6 10.5 28.2 55.2 2.2 100.0
reduction objectives
will enable agreater use
of renewable biomaterials in 0.2 0.8 5.0 26.8 65.5 1.7 100.0
awide range of products
will help in achieving EU
ambitions with regard to
biobased products from
biomass in away that is 0.6 1.7 6.7 29.9 58.3 2.8 100.0
environmentally sustainable
and compatible with food/
feed security
will help to increase overall
investments in research and
0.2 1.6 5.6 29.0 62.4 1.4 100.0
innovation activities in the EU
in the sectors concerned
NB:n= Strongly agree more than 50%;n= neutral more than 10%.
54
Figure23 Achievement of socioeconomic impacts: research and innovation work done in

the context of aPPP on biobased industries (%; strongly agree+agree)
Items
will enable a greater use of renewable

biomaterials in a wide range of products 92.3
will help to increase overall investments in research and

innovation activities in the EU in the sectors concerned 91.4
will help ensure that bio-based industries develop

in line with EU objectives on sustainability 90.6
will contribute to the competitiveness of

bio-based industries in the EU at a global level 89.5
will contribute to developing technologies that allow the

conversion/upgrading of existing plants to use new types 88.7
of biomass input and / or to manufacture new products.
will help in achieving EU ambitions with regard to bio-based

products from biomass in a way that is environmentally 88.2
sustainable and compatible with food/feed security
will increase the chances of setting up "first of its kind"

industrial scale biorefineries 87.7
in the EU based on innovative processes
will contribute to the creation of new jobs

in rural and/or coastal areas 85.3
will contribute to the development of more

effective biomass supply chains in the EU 84.4
will contribute to achieving EU greenhouse

gas emission reduction objectives 83.4
will help ensure development of bio-based industries

in a way that is compatible with food security objectives 82.7
will contribute to the creation of new and attractive

income streams for farmers, foresters and aquaculture 81.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
55
I M PA C T S
Figure 24 Achievement of socioeconomic impacts: research and innovation work done

in the context of aPPP on biobased industries (%; strongly agree+agree;
differences by stakeholders)
Items
88.3
will help ensure development of bio-based industries 70.7
in a way that is compatible with food security objectives 76.8
76.9
93.7
will help ensure that bio-based industries develop 87.9
in line with EU objectives on sustainability 76.8
84.6
will contribute to developing technologies 90.0

that allow the conversion/upgrading of existing plants 87.9
to use new types of biomass input and / 85.7
or to manufacture new products. 69.2
will increase the chances of setting up "first of its kind" 91.5

83.4
industrial scale biorefineries in the EU based 76.8
on innovative processes 69.2
91.5
will contribute to the competitiveness of 88.5
bio-based industries in the EU at a global level 83.9
61.5
87.9
will contribute to the development of 80.3
more effective biomass supply chains in the EU 73.2
69.2
will contribute to the creation of new and attractive 84.2

76.4
income streams for farmers, foresters and 78.6
aquaculture 69.2
89.6
will contribute to the creation of new jobs 79.6
in rural and/or coastal areas 75.0
61.5
88.1
will contribute to achieving EU greenhouse 77.1
gas emission reduction objectives 71.4
61.5
93.9
will enable a greater use of renewable 94.3
biomaterials in a wide range of products 80.4
69.2
will help in achieving EU ambitions with regard 91.5

to bio-based products from biomass in a way that is 84.1
environmentally sustainable and compatible 78.6
with food/feed security 76.9
will help to increase overall investments in research 93.9

87.3
and innovation activities in the EU in the sectors 89.3
concerned 69.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
European Commission
Biobased industries: towards apublicprivate partnership under Horizon 2020?

Results of the online public consultation
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2013 55 pp. 17.6 x25 cm
ISBN 978-92-79-28799-2
doi:10.2777/72672
How to obtain EU publications
Free publications:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
at the European Unions representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on
the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Priced publications:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union
and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union):
via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
KI-32-13-096-EN-C
The Europe 2020 strategy highlights the building of
abioeconomy by 2020 as a deliverable of its flagship
initiative Innovation Union. Accordingly, the Commission
has recently presented the communication Innovating
forsustainable growth : A bioeconomy for Europe
(COM(2012) 60 final). Together with Horizon 2020, the
upcoming next Unions Framework programme for Research
and Innovation, these EU policies promote technological
and sustainability leadership as a lever for industrial
competitiveness on aglobal scale. Based on previous
experience, public-private partnerships could contribute
to facilitating and speeding-up innovation in the EU while
reducing time-to-markets of new products and services.
This publication reports upon the results of an online public
consultation, conducted by the European Commission in the
second part of 2012, regarding the question Bio-based
industries, towards a public-private partnership under
Horizon 2020?.
Studies and reports
doi:10.2777/72672

Bio Based Industries en

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Bio Based Industries en

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Bio-based industries,

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers

Freephone number (*):

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013

European Union, 2013

Cover Image carballo, #42544342, 2013. Source: Fotolia.com.

3. Identification of the problems17

4. European added value35

5. Objectives of EUlevel intervention43

Biobased industries, at the heart of the bioeconomy

fostering the move towards azero waste society (90.4%);

securing asufficient supply of food and biomass (88.3%);

integrated, sustainable agricultural, aquatic and ecosystem services (89.9%);

strengthening the research and innovation base (85.7%).

ingredients for pharmaceuticals or cosmetics, advanced biofuels) from renewable biological

respondents profile: information about respondents according to their type of

identification of the problems: this section addresses the respondents perception

towards aPPP?: considerations about the implementation of research and

the DirectoratesGeneral (DGs) involved in the interservice group;

the FP7 KnowledgeBased Bioeconomy (KBBE) Programme Committee;

the European Bioplastics Association;

the ERMAs (European Renewable Resources and Materials Associations);

the European Technology Platform for Sustainable Chemistry;

the ForestBased sector Technology Platform;

The Plants for the Future Technology Platform;

CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council);

CEPI (Confederation of European Paper Industries);

COPA COGECA (European Farmers and European Agricultural Cooperatives

The ESA (European Seed Association).

Figure 1 Concept map of public consultation

Bio-based industries, towards

Tackling the Added value of EU Towards a PPP?

The final sample is therefore composed of 638 respondents.

2.1. Respondents profile

Figure 2 Are you answering as an individual or on behalf of an organisation or an

Table 1 Geographical contributions

Figure3 Geographical contributions grouped according to EU aggregation (n = 638)

2.1.1. Respondents answering as individuals

Table2 If you are responding as an individual

Table3 Main professional field of respondents answering as individuals (multiresponse)

2.1.2. Respondents answering on behalf of an organisation or an institution

Table 4 If you are responding on behalf of organisation or an institution (n = 299)

I represent an industry association or achamber

Table5 Main professional field of respondents on behalf of an organisation or an insti-

2.1.3. The whole sample

The majority of respondents worked in aprivate organisation (64.6%), whereas 24.6%

Table6 Type of organisation

Table7 Main professional field of respondents (whole sample; multiresponse) (n = 638;

Figure4 Type of production (n= 638)

3.1. Overall views on the competitiveness of the

primary production (strongly agree+agree = 54.5%);

extraction and processing of renewable biological resources into valueadded

extraction and processing of renewable biological resources into biofuels (neutral =

EU measures for market development, harmonisation and standardisation in the

commercialisation of valueadded products produced from renewable biological

EU logistics and storage

Extraction and processing of

Extraction and processing of renewable

Commercialisation of value-added products

European Union, 2013

3. Identification of the problems17

4. European added value35

5. Objectives of EUlevel intervention43

Figure 1 Concept map of public consultation

Figure 2 Are you answering as an individual or on behalf of an organisation or an

Table 1 Geographical contributions

Figure3 Geographical contributions grouped according to EU aggregation (n = 638)

Table2 If you are responding as an individual

Table3 Main professional field of respondents answering as individuals (multiresponse)

Table 4 If you are responding on behalf of organisation or an institution (n = 299)

Table5 Main professional field of respondents on behalf of an organisation or an insti-

Table6 Type of organisation

Table7 Main professional field of respondents (whole sample; multiresponse) (n = 638;

Figure4 Type of production (n= 638)

Table9 The European biobased industries: strengths and weaknesses

Figure11 Actions required for Europe to be successful in enhancing the innovation