recommendations of the bio-economy council · gistic effects, such as the promotion of quantitative...
TRANSCRIPT
Priorities in Bio-economic Research
Recommendations of the Bio-economy Council
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 1 04.07.11 10:50
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 2 04.07.11 10:50
Priorities in Bio-economic Research
Recommendations of the Bio-economy Council
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 3 04.07.11 10:50
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 4 04.07.11 10:50
4 | 5
List of contents
Summary 6
I. Background – The thematic recommendations of the Bio-economy Council in its report “Bio-economy Innovation” 8
II. Description of the prioritisation procedure 13
III. Prioritisation results and interpretation 15
Table 1: Primary and most urgent research topics 15
Appendix 19
Table 2: Prioritisation of research topics specifi ed in the report “Bio-economy Innovation” and details of time frames and funding 19
Table 3: Prioritisation criteria 27
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 5 04.07.11 10:50
Summary
In this paper, the Bio-economy Council defi nes the priorities with regard to relevance and urgency of the research topics identifi ed in its report “Bio-economy Innovation” and makes recommendations with regard to time scales and fi nancial backing. The primary objectives are to increase the volume of biomass available for various applications and to use the limited natural resources effi ciently in order to fully exploit potential and to reduce the likelihood of newly competing demands arising, as for example, between those of the bio-energy and foodstuff industries.
In its report “Bio-economy Innovation” the Council identifi ed research topics that it con-sidered should form part of a knowledge-based bio-economy. In its initial report, it defi ned three interdisciplinary recommendations and provided a detailed structural guideline. At the time of the publication of the report in September 2010, the Council was already plan-ning a further prioritisation review of the identifi ed research topics for 2011. The results of its prioritisation review are set out in this paper. The Council also herewith brings its research recommendations into line with the “National Bio-economy Research Strategy 2030” (Nationale Forschungsstrategie BioÖkonomie 2030) of the Federal Government.
Of the total of 35 topics, the Council has identifi ed 14 that are of particular relevance and should be initiated as a matter of priority. These include four of particularly urgent rel-evance:
– A basic prerequisite needed to establish a sustainable bio-economy and thus a research project that must be implemented with primary priority is the targeted breeding of crop plants and livestock to increase yield or output and to provide these with specifi c characteristics, and the corresponding adaptation of production systems so as to realise the full genetic potential.
– The development of innovative technologies, improvements to processes and increas-ing economic effi ciency along value creation chains should form the second focus of ef-forts. These will help reduce high losses along value chains and make the bio-economy more consumer-orientated.
– Innovations in biomass-based energy production, conversion and storage are a third essential concern, whereby it is important to ensure that competition with the produc-tion of food and animal feeds is reduced to minimum.
– The fourth focus must be on research into soil as a resource: in view of the increasing demand for biomass, ever greater reliance is being placed on soil productivity. Research into the long term preservation of agricultural land in suffi cient quantity and quality must thus receive priority support.
Summary
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 6 04.07.11 10:50
6 | 7
The Bio-economy Council wishes to make it clear at this point that it considers all 35 topics as relevant. In this paper, the individual urgency and extent to which they require funding are defi ned. In addition, the Council concludes that there are certain fundamental projects, such as research into artifi cial photosynthesis and synthetic biology, which have strategic and long-term importance and that must be implemented as a matter of urgency. This also applies to multidisciplinary topics which can be expected to generate major syner-gistic effects, such as the promotion of quantitative economic analyses and scenarios to-wards an adequate science policy counselling in the domain of the bio-economy.
In order to ensure that the groundwork for the realisation of the required research and innovation is in place, the Council expressly recommends that existing structures and framework conditions be modifi ed to the new requirements of the bio-economy. The Bio-economy Council thus recommends that a National Bio-economy Platform be set up to carry out the coordination work and to provide impetus for the corresponding conversion processes with the relevant actors.
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 7 04.07.11 10:50
I. Background – The thematic recommendations of the Bio-economy Council in its report “Bio-economy Innovation” 1
In its 2010 report, the Bio-Economy Council provided a detailed and extensive review of the bio-economy, and defi ned the term as follows:
The bio-economy encompasses all those sectors and their related services which produce, process or use biological resources in whatever form.
The bio-economy combines highly research-intensive economic activities in agriculture, forestry and the food sector with the innovative use of renewable raw materials for mate-rial and energy use. Because of this integrative function, the bio-economy will be impor-tant to Germany’s future as a centre of business and technology.
The bio-economy’s potential for innovation, which needs to be strategically harnessed by the scientifi c and business communities, lies in the development of new types of products and production techniques, the creation and exploitation of synergies as well as in raising the resource effi ciency of the various interrelated value chains: from the production of biomass in agriculture and forestry to the end products in the food and energy sector and areas of industry such as the chemical, textile, paper and pharmaceutical sectors. This is all to be based on the most up-to-date knowledge about the fundamental processes with-in plants, animals and microorganisms.
The greatest challenges of our time can only be addressed and translated successfully into economic and social value if we manage to combine more closely the key technologies of the 21st century in the biological and life sciences with the agricultural sciences 2 and engi-neering and turn these into successful innovations. More than ever, business and science now need to act together as a unifi ed “system”. By bringing together the various areas within science and business, which today still operate for the most part within their own sectors, Germany will become more competitive, and her leading position as a centre of business and technology will be reinforced. A better economic database to record the rap-idly developing bio-economy is also needed to underpin this strategic alignment.
I. Background – The thematic recommendations in “Bio-economy Innovation”
1 This overview is based on the summary of the Council‘s report 2010 “Bio-economy Innovation – Research and technolo-gical Development to ensure food security, the sustainable use of resources and competitiveness”.
2 The recommendations made with regard to agriculture and agricultural sciences in this report are to be in general understood to also apply to forestry and forestry science.
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 8 04.07.11 10:50
8 | 9
To help formulate such a research strategy, the Bio-economy Council outlined three key recommendations in its report, organised by subject area, thereby providing each of the research fi elds with detailed recommendations for a programme. These are followed by a further recommendation on structural issues.
The following measures are specifi ed:
1. Development of effi cient value chains, processes and products2. Ensuring global food security, promoting health and assumption by Germany of its
responsibility for global issues3. Sustainable use of natural resources4. Appropriate integration of the bio-economic approach in the system.
Re. 1. Development of effi cient value chains, processes and products:
It is essential for the optimal development of all technologically feasible and economi-cally relevant value chains that the processes and the resulting high-value products and energy sources are resource-effi cient and cost-effective. One of the key innovations of bio-economic research will be not only to develop individual innovative value chains but also to link these chains in the system.
The breeding of plants and animals with higher yields/capacity and specifi c characteris-tics, including the ingredients for healthy nutrition, are central to a bio-economic research strategy seeking to optimise value chains.
Sustainable economic activity is dependent on adequate provision and the effi cient man-agement of biomass in a way that also protects resources. Research into how the material uses of biomass can be extended by a combination of biotechnological and chemical con-version processes, as well as the use of improved enzyme systems to digest biomass and waste products, will deliver important contributions to effi ciency. The fi eld of industrial biotechnology must also focus on further developing its underlying research in order to maintain – and, where necessary, improve – the high level of innovation that currently ex-ists. Innovative biotechnological processes can reduce the consumption of raw materials and energy, and decrease the generation of undesirable by-products, secondary products and emissions.
Strategic development in the bio-economy should have a sound scientifi c basis and be geared towards the long term. To this end, the necessary socio-economic research and analytical basis must be strengthened. For example, dynamic system models should be used to investigate alternative scenarios to the bio-economy taking into account socio-economic perspectives.
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 9 04.07.11 10:50
Re. 2. Ensuring global food security, promoting health and assuming Germany‘s responsibility for global issues:
Important value chains of the bio-economy can be found in the food sector. Our ability to feed the world’s population is dependent on the effi ciency and the sustainability of these value chains, while their product and processing quality correlates directly with human health and the quality of life. In this context, German research also has the responsibility to provide support to emerging and developing nations to secure suffi cient volumes of good quality food for their populations and to counter the volatility of food prices. Local analyses of production systems that draw international comparisons are needed, espe-cially in the sector of small farmers in developing and emerging nations, as this sector plays a key role in feeding the world’s population.
To meet the growing need for food, feed and raw materials for productive or energy use, and to strike a balance in the competition for biomass, there must be a substantial in-crease in the yields of food and feed plants, as well as in the productivity of livestock farm-ing. Research geared towards increasing the health-boosting properties of foods and the awareness of healthy nutritional lifestyles must also be prioritised.
Re. 3. Sustainable use of natural resources:
The geo-resources of soil and water, nutrients and the biological diversity of plants, ani-mals and microorganisms form the basis for bio-economic value creation. As the availabil-ity of these resources is limited, it is vital that we conserve them and use them sustainably. There must be better understanding of sustainable land use, soil quality and ecosystem services, and new verifi ed fi ndings must be translated more quickly into practice. Techno-logical solutions must be found to cope with changes in water availability and to improve the use of fertilisers and nutrients. This means developing optimised farming techniques and more effi cient crop varieties that are more drought-tolerant and effi cient in their use of nutrients. There must also be consideration of the regionally specifi c effects of climate change.
On the basis of the principle of resource effi ciency, all potential uses of biomass must be prioritised and optimised. There is no doubt that a greater use of bio-based products can help the world meet climate targets as well as the aim of “combating hunger and poverty” as defi ned by the UN Millennium Goals.
For the strategic orientation of this bio-economic research, there needs to be greater focus on the economics of resource use, including institutional regulations.
I. Background – The thematic recommendations in “Bio-economy Innovation”
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 10 04.07.11 10:50
10 | 11
Re. 4. Appropriate integration of the bio-economic approach in the system:
Existing structures and parameters must be adapted to the new requirements so that the topics listed in the three research areas can be worked on effectively and put into practice.
It is important that research funding be interlinked more closely and overall funding vol-umes increased: the research infrastructure must continue to be adapted accordingly. Re-cent studies indicate that greater investment in research and development is absolutely essential if important agricultural resources are to be available in suffi cient quantities, and that this must contribute towards ensuring global food security.
It is essential that future research funding is allocated not just to research in the natu-ral sciences and engineering, but also to the economic and social sciences as well. The maximum potential of the bio-economy can only be realised by means of these interdis-ciplinary approaches. On the one hand, we need to establish an economics of technologi-cal development, which can deliver as rapidly as possible an assessment of the competi-tiveness of and suggestions for sustainable technological approaches. On the other hand, socio-economic research needs to analyse how the effi ciency of the bio-economy can be improved by innovative control and incentive mechanisms.
Taking into account the points outlined above, the Bio-economy Council thus strongly re-commended the establishment of an interdepartmental national bio-economy research programme to allow the pooling and better coordination of research funding from the Federal Government. This recommendation has been adopted by the Federal Government and was given form in November 2010 as the “National Bio-economy Research Strategy 2030” (Nationale Forschungsstrategie BioÖkonomie 2030). In the following proposals for prioritisation, the Council has thus also organised its recommendations in line with this national research strategy.
Another prerequisite for the successful development of the bio-economy is the close link-ing of private research activity with that in the public sector. Legal uncertainties which hinder the commercial use of new research fi ndings must be resolved. Cooperation and the synergy between public research institutions and industrial fi rms of different sizes and in the various business sectors are essential. New types of structures such as clusters and innovation alliances, e.g. open innovation projects and ‘unusual’ alliances between sectors that have seldom collaborated in the past, will play an important role here. In its recommendations, the Council also indicates those research areas in which larger private sector involvement can be expected and, conversely, those in which contributions from the private sector will be less pronounced.
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 11 04.07.11 10:50
The bio-economy and its related research are not restricted to the national level. Particu-larly when international, primary objectives or global resources are at stake, Germany must act in conjunction with other countries. The Bio-economy Council believes that the German bio-economy and national bio-economic research must make greater efforts to integrate themselves strategically and work as partners on the international stage. Also important here are uniform, transnational principles, e.g. for the import of biomass and licensing of corresponding crops for farming. In technological decision-making, such as over the use of genetically modifi ed crops, scientifi c assessment should not only con-sider the risks of use, but also those of non-use.
There needs to be more openness towards and communication with the public as far as the subjects of bio-economic research and its potential to secure sustainability, innovation and employment within Green Growth strategies are concerned. Ultimately, it is up to the business community to introduce new products and processes, and to ensure that markets develop positively. In this area, there must be greater use of existing market knowledge to shape the strategic orientation of research programmes. Any system of government incentives and funding instruments ought to be no more than temporary.
A fundamental requirement of the bio-economy concept is extensive collaboration across disciplines and sectors. It is thus necessary to bring together the various scientifi c commu-nities with the involvement of the business sector in order to achieve the desired enhance-ment of our knowledge base. In conclusion, the Council thinks it is crucial that the politi-cal, scientifi c and business communities cooperate more closely than in the past and agree on the measures that need to be taken in the pre-competition stage. The Bio-economy Council thus recommends that a National Bio-economy Platform be set up to implement the necessary tasks of coordination. It is hoped that the prioritisation recommendations presented here will prove to be of help in this task.
I. Background – The thematic recommendations in “Bio-economy Innovation”
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 12 04.07.11 10:50
12 | 13
II. Description of the prioritisation procedure
In order to prepare its prioritisation recommendations, the Council formed an internal ad hoc work group consisting of four of its members. 3 The work group was also able to call on the expertise of the spokespersons of the work groups Soil, Plants, Animals and Biotechno-logy and other members of the Bio-economy Council in the initial review phases.
The prioritisation review was undertaken in the following stages:
The Council fi rst discussed and agreed to the prioritisation criteria (see Table 3 in the Appendix). The scale used to evaluate the individual research topics ranged from 1 (low signifi cance) to 5 (high signifi cance) for each of the four criteria – economic, environmen-tal, socio-cultural and scientifi c dimensions.
Working on the basis of this matrix, the spokespersons of the various work groups pre-pared initial prioritisation assessments with the help of their work groups, which were reviewed and thus taken into account by the ad hoc work group.
At the same time as the spokespersons were preparing their prioritisation proposals, the research topics were evaluated using the same criteria independently by each individual member of the ad hoc work group in an anonymous procedure. Each topic was subjected to an overall review and was ranked in groups from I to IV by relevance. Relevance group I represents topics with a particularly high priority, group II consists of high priority topics, group III of moderate priority topics and group IV of low priority topics. However, it must be borne in mind that even those topics allocated to group IV are still relevant over the long term and require support in the view of the Council.
Those topics that received divergent gradings were assigned a priority in a mutual con-sultation process conducted within the ad hoc group. The results of the proposed priori-tisations by subject were discussed in detail by the Council during its sittings on 7 March 2011 and 10 June 2011 and subsequently approved with minor changes (see Table 2 in the Appendix).
The Council also decided to outline in more detail time scales for the implementation and the fi nancial requirements for the realisation of the topics specifi ed in the report “Bio-economy Innovation”.
3 Joachim von Braun (coordinator), Thomas Hirth, Stefan Marcinowski and Alfred Pühler
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 13 04.07.11 10:50
The public sector funding required for each research topic was categorised as small (up to €3 million annually), medium (€3 – €10 million annually) or large (€10 – 30 million annu-ally). None of the research topics was assigned to an originally proposed category - “very large” (i.e. greater than €30 million annually), although the Council believes that the re-search topic “biomass-based energy sources” requires funding on this scale. The Council has appointed a new work group that will be considering this topic area and will propose further details of the research required here. The estimated contributions that can be ex-pected to be made by the private sector towards these projects were also assessed as small, moderately large and large.
With regard to time scale, the research projects were classifi ed as short term (requiring funding for up to four years), medium term (requiring funding for four to ten years) and long term (requiring funding for more than ten years). In addition, certain projects were earmarked that need to be undertaken and funded as a matter of urgency.
The Bio-economy Council once again emphasises that it considers that all research topics that were recommended in its report are of relevance, and differ only with regard to the weighting of aspects, such as the required volume of funding and urgency of implementa-tion. The Council has explicitly taken this factor into account in presenting these proposals.
In addition to the topics outlined in the report “Bio-economy Innovation”, the Council has also considered the areas of activity defi ned in the “National Bio-economy Research Strategy 2030” of the Federal Government (see Table 2 in the Appendix) in its prioritisation review and has consequently revised some aspects of the Council report that required cla-rifi cation.
II. Description of the prioritisation procedure
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 14 04.07.11 10:50
14 | 15
III. Prioritisation results and interpretation
The research topics that are considered to be of “primary” importance and that need to be initiated as a matter of urgency are listed in Table 1. These “primary” research topics are those that were allocated to relevance group I or II on a prioritisation by subject scale of I to IV.
Table 1: Primary and most urgent research topics
Evaluation by topic area:I = Particularly high priority, II = High priority,*= funding required as a matter of urgency
Recommendation (R) 1:Develop effi cient value chains, processes and products required for a successful bio-economy
R 1-2 IINew and improved processing techniques to produce the desired products in greater volumes and purity, but also alternative processes, such as the integra-tion of separation processes at the reaction stage, to reduce production costs (process-integrated processing)
R 1-3 I*Breeding of crops and livestock for greater yields or output and specifi c characte-ristics (including plant ingredients for healthy diet) and adapting production systems to exploit the genetic potential
R 1-5 II*Methods and techniques of multiple use and coupled use, development and es-tablishment of biorefi nery plants; greater emphasis on pilot and demonstration plants from the perspective of sustainability
R 1-8 IIDevelopment and production of new high-value products (e.g. pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, nutritional supplements, special chemicals)
R 1-12 II*Consumer-related aspects
R 1-14 IIInnovations in agriculture and forestry (precision farming, satellite- and com-puter-controlled distribution systems for water, nutrients and crop protection products; harvesting technologies, innovative animal husbandry techniques)
Evaluation by topic area
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 15 04.07.11 10:50
III. Prioritisation results and interpretation
Recommendation 2: Ensure global food security, promote health and assume global responsibility
R 2-1 II*Localised analyses of production systems in their international context (with particular focus on small farmers), evaluation of their sustainability and stra-tegies for improvement, including the reduction of losses in the marketing and consumption system
R 2-4 II*Development of higher-yielding crops that are more resistant to stress (with particular focus on wheat and legumes); use and further development of marker-assisted selection (MAS) and automated high-throughput techniques
R 2-5 II*Optimisation of plant ingredients and animal products for health purposes (e.g. improvement of micronutrient contents and reduction of heavy metal uptake, mycotoxins, predictive breeding)
R 2-6 IISelection and propagation of productive, robust and disease-resistant livestock
R 2-7 IIImprovement in animal health and development of effi cient strategies for combating animal epidemics (zoonoses); human animal husbandry and feeding methods
R 2-8 II*Development of high output organisms by targeted manipulation of entire me-tabolic pathways using modern technologies (system biotechnology, genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, metabolic pathway engineering, fl uxomics)
R 2-9 I*Innovative technologies and improved methods for reducing post-harvesting losses in the value creation chain
Evaluation by topic area
Evaluation by topic area:I = Particularly high priority, II = High priority,*= funding required as a matter of urgency
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 16 04.07.11 10:50
16 | 17
Recommendation 3: Ensure global food security, promote health and assume global responsibility
R 3-1 I*Soil quality, land use, ecosystem services (prioritising land use; national and inter-national regulations on land and water rights; progress in agricultural technology; improving monitoring and data; soil aspects of organic farming)
R 3-2 IIWater use, water effi ciency, water quality (locally adapted schemes for water storage and irrigation; agronomic adaptation measures, soil analysis and infor-mation systems; plant breeding), biological approaches to water purifi cation on the ground
R 3-3 II*Targeted use and recovery of nutrients (interactions between plant roots, soil and microorganisms; optimisation of cultivation techniques and fertilisation; closing material cycles; recovery of phosphorus in particular; development of plant sys-tems that reduce ecological footprints, e.g. phytase maize as an animal feed)
R 3-5 II*Adaptation to climate change (plant and animal breeding; climate-friendly ani-mal husbandry and crop cultivation; weather forecasting; agronomic measures, e.g. mixed cropping, agro-forestry systems), adaptation of forestry (REDD), carbon storage in soils and incentive mechanisms
R 3-7 II*Quantitative analysis of genotype-environment interaction at the mechanical level, in the high throughout situation and its application in the fi eld (breeding nursery); sensor and concept development; expansion of the German plant phenotyping network
R 3-8 I*Sources of bio-energy (conversion processes, demonstration plants, biogas concepts, storage concepts, use of biomass without competing with food security needs)
Recommendation 4: Appropriate integration of the bio-economic approach in the system
R 4 -1 II*Implementation of structural measures (network formation, competence centres)
R 4 -2 IIResearch into communication options
Evaluation by topic area
Evaluation by topic area:I = Particularly high priority, II = High priority,*= funding required as a matter of urgency
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 17 04.07.11 10:50
III. Prioritisation results and interpretation
An overview of prioritisation results, time scales and funding requirements is provided in Table 2 in the Appendix. In conclusion, the contents can be summarised as follows:
1. In its prioritisation review, the Bio-economy Council considered a total of 35 topics. It has assigned a particularly high priority to four of these topics and high priority to 17 topics (Table 1). Ten topics are categorised as having moderate priority while four have low priority (Table 2 in the Appendix).
2. The Council estimates contributions of the private sector will tend to be low in the case of 14 topics, moderately large in the case of eight topics and large in the case of 13 topics (see Table 2 in the Appendix).
3. In addition, the Council concludes that there are certain fundamental aspects that have strategic and long-term importance and that must be considered as a matter of urgen-cy. This applies, for example, to research into artifi cial photosynthesis and synthetic biology.
4. This also applies to multidisciplinary topics which can be expected to generate major synergistic effects. During the prioritisation review and a comparison with the Nati-onal Research Strategy (whose primary strategic aims are largely in conformity with the recommendations of the Bio-economy Council), the Council identifi ed certain topics that it considers to be of generalized interdisciplinary signifi cance (see Table 2 in the Appendix).
5. In order to ensure that future prioritisation reviews can be evidence- and results-based, there must be greater focus on research into strategy and foresight modelling and the generation of a corresponding statistical database.
In order to put in place the groundwork for the realisation of the required research and innovation, the Council recommends that existing structures and framework conditions be modifi ed to the new requirements of the bio-economy. The topics relating to instituti-onal and organisational innovation (recommendation 4: “Appropriate integration of the bio-economic approach in the system”) have a high priority, but with the exception of the topics that require additional research or funding, these have not been considered to the same extent here as were the topics involving research. The Bio-economy Council is con-sidering the initiation of a separate implementation policy for these in cooperation with the relevant actors.
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 18 04.07.11 10:50
Eval
uati
on b
y su
bjec
t are
a:
I (pa
rtic
ular
ly h
igh)
to IV
Tim
e sc
ale:
D
urat
ion
(yea
rs):
S =
-4
| M
= 4
-1
0 |
L =
>1
0 |
Com
men
cem
ent:*
= to
be
init
iate
d as
a m
atte
r of u
rgen
cy
Fund
ing:
To
tal v
olum
es (a
ppro
x. €
mill
ion
per a
nnum
): S
= -
3 |
M =
3-
10
| L
= 1
0 -
30
| V
= >
30
Priv
ate
sect
or in
volv
emen
t: s
= sm
all
| m
= m
oder
atel
y |
l =
larg
e
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in th
e “N
atio
nal B
io-e
cono
my
Rese
arch
Str
ateg
y 20
30”
(NRS
): 1
= E
nsur
e w
orld
wid
e fo
od s
ecur
ity
I = In
terd
isci
plin
ary
acti
viti
es2
= M
ake
agri
cult
ure
sust
aina
ble
GT
= G
ener
alis
ed to
pics
wit
h in
terd
isci
plin
ary
rele
vanc
e3
= P
rodu
ce h
ealt
hy a
nd s
afe
food
stuf
fs
4 =
Use
rene
wab
le re
sour
ces
for i
ndus
tria
l pur
pose
s 5
= E
xten
d th
e us
e of
bio
mas
s as
a s
ourc
e of
ene
rgy
18 | 19
Reco
mm
enda
tion
1:D
evel
op e
ffi c
ient
val
ue c
hain
s, p
roce
sses
and
pro
duct
s re
quir
ed fo
r a s
ucce
ssfu
l bio
-eco
nom
y
R 1-
1 II
I M
L
l 4
Expa
nsio
n of
the
mat
eria
l use
s of
bio
mas
s us
ing
a co
mbi
nati
on o
f bio
tech
nolo
gica
l and
che
mi-
cal c
onve
rsio
n pr
oces
ses;
new
and
impr
oved
enz
yme
syst
ems
to c
onve
rt b
iom
ass
(incl
udin
g th
e us
e of
was
te)
R 1-
2 II
M
L
l 4
New
and
impr
oved
pro
cess
ing
tech
niqu
es to
pro
duce
the
desi
red
prod
ucts
in g
reat
er v
olum
es
and
puri
ty, b
ut a
lso
alte
rnat
ive
proc
esse
s, s
uch
as th
e in
tegr
atio
n of
sep
arat
ion
proc
esse
s at
the
reac
tion
sta
ge, t
o re
duce
pro
duct
ion
cost
s (p
roce
ss-in
tegr
ated
pro
cess
ing)
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in
the
NRS
Fund
ing
Tim
e sc
ale
Eval
ua-
tion
by
subj
ect
area
App
endi
x
Tabl
e 2:
Pri
orit
isat
ion
of re
sear
ch to
pics
spe
cifi
ed in
the
repo
rt “
Bio-
econ
omy
Inno
vati
on”
and
deta
ils
of ti
me
fram
es a
nd fu
ndin
g
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 19 04.07.11 10:50
Appendix
Reco
mm
enda
tion
1:D
evel
op e
ffi c
ient
val
ue c
hain
s, p
roce
sses
and
pro
duct
s re
quir
ed fo
r a s
ucce
ssfu
l bio
-eco
nom
y
R 1-
3 I
L*
L l
2
Bree
ding
of c
rops
and
live
stoc
k fo
r gre
ater
yie
lds
or o
utpu
t and
spe
cifi c
cha
ract
eris
tics
(inc
lu-
ding
pla
nt in
gred
ient
s fo
r hea
lthy
die
t) a
nd a
dapt
ing
prod
ucti
on s
yste
ms
to e
xplo
it th
e ge
neti
c po
tent
ial
R 1-
4 IV
M
M
l 5
Furt
her d
evel
opm
ent o
f ene
rgy
conv
ersi
on p
roce
sses
R 1-
5 II
M
* L m
4
Met
hods
and
tech
niqu
es o
f mul
tipl
e us
e an
d co
uple
d us
e, d
evel
opm
ent a
nd e
stab
lishm
ent
of b
iore
fi ner
y pl
ants
; gre
ater
em
phas
is o
n pi
lot a
nd d
emon
stra
tion
pla
nts
from
the
pers
pect
ive
of s
usta
inab
ility
R 1-
6 II
I L
L m
GT
Synt
hetic
bio
logy
: exp
andi
ng th
e ap
plic
atio
n ra
nge
of sy
nthe
tic g
enes
and
gen
omes
, gen
ome
engi
neer
ing
(gen
etic
mod
ifi ca
tion
of m
any
gene
s at t
he sa
me
time)
, des
ign
of n
ew m
etab
olic
pa
thw
ays;
des
ign
of a
dapt
ed m
inim
al ce
lls fo
r ind
ustr
ial u
ses
R 1-
7 IV
L
M s
5
Rese
arch
into
the
basi
s of
alt
erna
tive
ene
rgy
sour
ces
such
as
alga
e (o
ptim
isat
ion
of o
rgan
ism
s,
proc
ess
tech
niqu
es a
nd u
se) a
nd a
rtifi
cial
pho
tosy
nthe
sis
syst
ems
(bio
batt
erie
s)4
R 1-
8 II
S
L l
4
Dev
elop
men
t and
pro
duct
ion
of n
ew h
igh-
valu
e pr
oduc
ts (e
.g. p
harm
aceu
tica
ls, c
osm
etic
s, fo
od
supp
lem
ents
, spe
cial
che
mic
als)
R 1-
9 IV
M
M
s 2
Inte
grat
ed b
iolo
gica
l pro
duct
ion
syst
ems
(agr
o-fo
rest
ry s
yste
ms,
com
bina
tion
of c
rop
prod
uc-
tion
and
aqu
acul
ture
s)
R 1-
10
III
S M
s 2
Sust
aina
bilit
y of
var
ious
pro
duct
ion
tech
niqu
es (c
ompa
rati
ve a
naly
ses
of s
ocio
-eco
nom
ic
and
ecol
ogic
al fa
ctor
s at
dif
fere
nt lo
cati
ons;
impr
ovin
g su
stai
nabi
lity
of p
rodu
ctio
n sy
stem
s)
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in
the
NRS
Fund
ing
Tim
e sc
ale
Eval
ua-
tion
by
subj
ect
area
4 In
the
case
of r
esea
rch
into
art
ifi ci
al p
hoto
synt
hesi
s in
par
ticu
lar,
dove
taili
ng w
ith
othe
r clu
ster
s of
the
high
-tec
h st
rate
gy is
nec
essa
ry (n
anot
echn
olog
y, c
atal
ysis
, org
anic
ele
ctro
nics
, mat
eria
ls s
cien
ce).
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 20 04.07.11 10:50
Reco
mm
enda
tion
1:D
evel
op e
ffi c
ient
val
ue c
hain
s, p
roce
sses
and
pro
duct
s re
quir
ed fo
r a s
ucce
ssfu
l bio
-eco
nom
y
R 1-
11
III
S S s
G
TSt
rate
gy d
evel
opm
ent (
e.g.
dev
elop
men
t of d
ynam
ic s
yste
m m
odel
s) a
nd re
sear
ch in
to
inst
itut
iona
l mea
sure
s to
incr
ease
the
com
peti
tive
ness
of t
he b
io-e
cono
my
R 1-
12
II
M*
M m
3
Cons
umer
-rel
ated
asp
ects
R 1-
13
III
S S
s G
TSt
anda
rdis
atio
n an
d ce
rtifi
cati
on
R 1-
14
II
M
M l
2
Inno
vati
ons
in a
gric
ultu
re a
nd fo
rest
ry (p
reci
sion
farm
ing,
sat
ellit
e- a
nd c
ompu
ter-
cont
rolle
d di
stri
buti
on s
yste
ms
for w
ater
, nut
rien
ts a
nd c
rop
prot
ecti
on p
rodu
cts;
har
vest
ing
tech
nolo
gies
, in
nova
tive
ani
mal
hus
band
ry te
chni
ques
)
20 | 21
Eval
uati
on b
y su
bjec
t are
a:
I (pa
rtic
ular
ly h
igh)
to IV
Tim
e sc
ale:
D
urat
ion
(yea
rs):
S =
-4
| M
= 4
-1
0 |
L =
>1
0 |
Com
men
cem
ent:*
= to
be
init
iate
d as
a m
atte
r of u
rgen
cy
Fund
ing:
To
tal v
olum
es (a
ppro
x. €
mill
ion
per a
nnum
): S
= -
3 |
M =
3-
10
| L
= 1
0 -
30
| V
= >
30
Priv
ate
sect
or in
volv
emen
t: s
= sm
all
| m
= m
oder
atel
y |
l =
larg
e
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in th
e “N
atio
nal B
io-e
cono
my
Rese
arch
Str
ateg
y 20
30”
(NRS
): 1
= E
nsur
e w
orld
wid
e fo
od s
ecur
ity
I = In
terd
isci
plin
ary
acti
viti
es2
= M
ake
agri
cult
ure
sust
aina
ble
GT
= G
ener
alis
ed to
pics
wit
h in
terd
isci
plin
ary
rele
vanc
e3
= P
rodu
ce h
ealt
hy a
nd s
afe
food
stuf
fs
4 =
Use
rene
wab
le re
sour
ces
for i
ndus
tria
l pur
pose
s 5
= E
xten
d th
e us
e of
bio
mas
s as
a s
ourc
e of
ene
rgy
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in
the
NRS
Fund
ing
Tim
e sc
ale
Eval
ua-
tion
by
subj
ect
area
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 21 04.07.11 10:50
Appendix
Reco
mm
enda
tion
2:
Ensu
ring
glo
bal f
ood
secu
rity
, pro
mot
ing
heal
th a
nd a
ssum
ptio
n by
Ger
man
y of
its
resp
onsi
bili
ty fo
r glo
bal i
ssue
s
R 2-
1 II
M
* M
s 1
Loca
lised
ana
lyse
s of
pro
duct
ion
syst
ems
in th
eir i
nter
nati
onal
con
text
(wit
h pa
rtic
ular
focu
s on
sm
all f
arm
ers)
, eva
luat
ion
of th
eir s
usta
inab
ility
and
str
ateg
ies
for i
mpr
ovem
ent,
incl
udin
g th
e re
duct
ion
of lo
sses
in th
e m
arke
ting
and
con
sum
ptio
n sy
stem
R 2-
2 II
I S
S s
1
Ana
lyse
s of
opt
ions
for e
nsur
ing
glob
al fo
od s
ecur
ity
and
limit
ing
the
vola
tilit
y of
food
pri
ces,
in
clud
ing
regi
onal
and
glo
bal s
tora
ge
R 2-
3 IV
L
L l
3
Incr
ease
in th
e he
alth
ben
efi t
s of
food
s (e
.g. p
roce
ssed
food
s);
prom
otio
n of
hea
lthy
die
ts
R 2-
4 II
L *
L l
2
Dev
elop
men
t of h
ighe
r-yi
eldi
ng c
rops
that
are
mor
e re
sist
ant t
o st
ress
(wit
h pa
rtic
ular
focu
s on
whe
at a
nd le
gum
es);
use
and
furt
her d
evel
opm
ent o
f mar
ker-
assi
sted
sel
ecti
on (M
AS)
and
au
tom
ated
hig
h-th
roug
hput
tech
niqu
es
R 2-
5 II
M
* M
m
3
Opt
imis
atio
n of
pla
nt in
gred
ient
s an
d an
imal
pro
duct
s fo
r hea
lth
purp
oses
(e.g
. im
prov
emen
t of
mic
ronu
trie
nt c
onte
nts
and
redu
ctio
n of
hea
vy m
etal
upt
ake,
myc
otox
ins,
pre
dict
ive
bree
ding
)
R 2-
6 II
M
M
l 2
Sele
ctio
n an
d pr
opag
atio
n of
pro
duct
ive,
robu
st a
nd d
isea
se-r
esis
tant
live
stoc
k
R 2-
7 II
M
M
l 2
Impr
ovem
ent i
n an
imal
hea
lth
and
deve
lopm
ent o
f effi
cie
nt s
trat
egie
s fo
r com
bati
ng a
nim
al
epid
emic
s (z
oono
ses)
; hum
an a
nim
al h
usba
ndry
and
feed
ing
met
hods
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in
the
NRS
Fund
ing
Tim
e sc
ale
Eval
ua-
tion
by
subj
ect
area
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 22 04.07.11 10:50
Reco
mm
enda
tion
2:
Ensu
ring
glo
bal f
ood
secu
rity
, pro
mot
ing
heal
th a
nd a
ssum
ptio
n by
Ger
man
y of
its
resp
onsi
bili
ty fo
r glo
bal i
ssue
s
R 2-
8 II
L*
L
l G
TD
evel
opm
ent o
f hig
h ou
tput
org
anis
ms
by ta
rget
ed m
anip
ulat
ion
of c
ompl
ete
met
abol
ic
path
way
s us
ing
mod
ern
tech
nolo
gies
(sys
tem
bio
tech
nolo
gy, g
enom
ics,
pro
teom
ics,
met
abol
o-m
ics,
met
abol
ic p
athw
ay e
ngin
eeri
ng, fl
uxo
mic
s)
R 2-
9 I
M*
M m
1
Inno
vati
ve te
chno
logi
es a
nd im
prov
ed m
etho
ds fo
r red
ucin
g po
st-h
arve
stin
g lo
sses
in th
e va
lue
crea
tion
cha
in
Eval
uati
on b
y su
bjec
t are
a:
I (pa
rtic
ular
ly h
igh)
to IV
Tim
e sc
ale:
D
urat
ion
(yea
rs):
S =
-4
| M
= 4
-1
0 |
L =
>1
0 |
Com
men
cem
ent:*
= to
be
init
iate
d as
a m
atte
r of u
rgen
cy
Fund
ing:
To
tal v
olum
es (a
ppro
x. €
mill
ion
per a
nnum
): S
= -
3 |
M =
3-
10
| L
= 1
0 -
30
| V
= >
30
Priv
ate
sect
or in
volv
emen
t: s
= sm
all
| m
= m
oder
atel
y |
l =
larg
e
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in th
e “N
atio
nal B
io-e
cono
my
Rese
arch
Str
ateg
y 20
30”
(NRS
): 1
= E
nsur
e w
orld
wid
e fo
od s
ecur
ity
I = In
terd
isci
plin
ary
acti
viti
es2
= M
ake
agri
cult
ure
sust
aina
ble
GT
= G
ener
alis
ed to
pics
wit
h in
terd
isci
plin
ary
rele
vanc
e3
= P
rodu
ce h
ealt
hy a
nd s
afe
food
stuf
fs
4 =
Use
rene
wab
le re
sour
ces
for i
ndus
tria
l pur
pose
s 5
= E
xten
d th
e us
e of
bio
mas
s as
a s
ourc
e of
ene
rgy
22 | 23
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in
the
NRS
Fund
ing
Tim
e sc
ale
Eval
ua-
tion
by
subj
ect
area
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 23 04.07.11 10:50
Appendix
Reco
mm
enda
tion
3:
Sust
aina
ble
use
of n
atur
al re
sour
ces
in th
e bi
o-ec
onom
y
R 3-
1 I
L*
M s
2
Soil
qual
ity,
land
use
, eco
syst
em s
ervi
ces
(pri
orit
isin
g la
nd u
se; n
atio
nal a
nd in
tern
atio
nal
regu
lati
ons
on la
nd a
nd w
ater
righ
ts; p
rogr
ess
in a
gric
ultu
ral t
echn
olog
y;
impr
ovin
g m
onit
orin
g an
d da
ta; s
oil a
spec
ts o
f org
anic
farm
ing)
R 3-
2 II
L
M s
2
Wat
er u
se, w
ater
effi
cie
ncy,
wat
er q
ualit
y (lo
cally
ada
pted
sch
emes
for w
ater
sto
rage
and
irri
-ga
tion
; agr
onom
ic a
dapt
atio
n m
easu
res,
soi
l ana
lysi
s an
d in
form
atio
n sy
stem
s, p
lant
bre
edin
g),
biol
ogic
al a
ppro
ache
s to
wat
er p
urifi
cati
on o
n th
e gr
ound
R 3-
3
II
L*
M m
2
Targ
eted
use
and
reco
very
of n
utri
ents
(int
erac
tion
bet
wee
n pl
ant r
oots
, soi
l and
mic
roor
ga-
nism
s; o
ptim
isat
ion
of c
ulti
vati
on te
chni
ques
and
fert
ilisa
tion
; clo
sing
mat
eria
l cyc
les;
reco
very
of
pho
spho
rus
in p
arti
cula
r; de
velo
pmen
t of p
lant
sys
tem
s th
at re
duce
eco
logi
cal f
ootp
rint
s, e
.g.
phyt
ase
mai
ze a
s an
ani
mal
feed
)
R 3-
4 II
I L
M m
G
TSa
fegu
ardi
ng th
e ge
neti
c re
sour
ces
of p
lant
s, a
nim
als
and
mic
roor
gani
sms,
and
effi
cie
nt
use
of th
ese
(bio
dive
rsit
y, c
ell f
acto
ry s
yste
ms;
sys
tem
s bi
olog
y, s
ynth
etic
bio
logy
); m
etag
enom
e ba
nks
R 3-
5 II
L*
L
s 1
Ada
ptat
ion
to c
limat
e ch
ange
(pla
nt a
nd a
nim
al b
reed
ing;
clim
ate-
frie
ndly
ani
mal
hu
sban
dry
and
crop
cul
tiva
tion
; wea
ther
fore
cast
ing;
agr
onom
ic m
easu
res,
e.g
. mix
ed
crop
ping
, agr
o-fo
rest
ry s
yste
ms)
, ada
ptat
ion
of fo
rest
ry (R
EDD
), ca
rbon
sto
rage
in s
oils
and
in
cent
ive
mec
hani
sms
R 3-
6 II
I M
M
s 1
Econ
omic
s of
reso
urce
use
(com
peti
tion
bet
wee
n us
es fo
r lan
d an
d w
ater
, ‘vi
rtua
l wat
er‘,
ecob
alan
cing
), in
stit
utio
nal a
rran
gem
ents
for s
uppo
rtin
g in
nova
tion
s (in
clud
ing
colle
ctiv
e ac
tion
for w
ater
use
and
eco
syst
em s
ervi
ces)
; and
ada
ptat
ion
thro
ugh
acti
on
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in
the
NRS
Fund
ing
Tim
e sc
ale
Eval
ua-
tion
by
subj
ect
area
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 24 04.07.11 10:50
24 | 25
Reco
mm
enda
tion
3:
Sust
aina
ble
use
of n
atur
al re
sour
ces
in th
e bi
o-ec
onom
y
R 3-
7 II
M
* M
s Ü
Qua
ntit
ativ
e an
alys
is o
f gen
otyp
e-en
viro
nmen
t int
erac
tion
at t
he m
echa
nica
l lev
el, i
n th
e hi
gh
thro
ugho
ut s
itua
tion
and
its
appl
icat
ion
in th
e fi e
ld (b
reed
ing
nurs
ery)
; sen
sor a
nd c
once
pt
deve
lopm
ent;
expa
nsio
n of
the
Ger
man
pla
nt p
heno
typi
ng n
etw
ork
R 3-
8 I
L*
L l
5So
urce
s of
bio
-ene
rgy
(con
vers
ion
proc
esse
s, d
emon
stra
tion
pla
nts,
bio
gas
conc
epts
, sto
rage
co
ncep
ts, u
se o
f bio
mas
s w
itho
ut c
ompe
ting
wit
h fo
od s
ecur
ity
need
s)
R 3-
9 II
I M
L
l 2
Inte
grat
ed p
lant
pro
tect
ion
syst
ems
Eval
uati
on b
y su
bjec
t are
a:
I (pa
rtic
ular
ly h
igh)
to IV
Tim
e sc
ale:
D
urat
ion
(yea
rs):
S =
-4
| M
= 4
-1
0 |
L =
>1
0 |
Com
men
cem
ent:*
= to
be
init
iate
d as
a m
atte
r of u
rgen
cy
Fund
ing:
To
tal v
olum
es (a
ppro
x. €
mill
ion
per a
nnum
): S
= -
3 |
M =
3-
10
| L
= 1
0 -
30
| V
= >
30
Priv
ate
sect
or in
volv
emen
t: s
= sm
all
| m
= m
oder
atel
y |
l =
larg
e
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in th
e ”N
atio
nal B
io-e
cono
my
Rese
arch
Str
ateg
y 20
30”
(NRS
): 1
= E
nsur
e w
orld
wid
e fo
od s
ecur
ity
I = In
terd
isci
plin
ary
acti
viti
es2
= M
ake
agri
cult
ure
sust
aina
ble
GT
= G
ener
alis
ed to
pics
wit
h in
terd
isci
plin
ary
rele
vanc
e3
= P
rodu
ce h
ealt
hy a
nd s
afe
food
stuf
fs
4 =
Use
rene
wab
le re
sour
ces
for i
ndus
tria
l pur
pose
s 5
= E
xten
d th
e us
e of
bio
mas
s as
a s
ourc
e of
ene
rgy
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in
the
NRS
Fund
ing
Tim
e sc
ale
Eval
ua-
tion
by
subj
ect
area
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 25 04.07.11 10:50
Appendix
Reco
mm
enda
tion
4:
App
ropr
iate
inte
grat
ion
of th
e bi
o-ec
onom
icap
proa
ch in
the
syst
em
R 4-
1 II
S *
S
s I
Impl
emen
tati
on o
f str
uctu
ral m
easu
res
(net
wor
k fo
rmat
ion,
com
pete
nce
cent
res)
R 4-
2 II
S
S s
IRe
sear
ch in
to c
omm
unic
atio
n op
tion
s
R 4-
3 II
I M
S m
I
Rese
arch
to id
enti
fy a
nd re
mov
e ba
rrie
rs to
inno
vati
on
Eval
uati
on b
y su
bjec
t are
a:
I (pa
rtic
ular
ly h
igh)
to IV
Tim
e sc
ale:
D
urat
ion
(yea
rs):
S =
-4
| M
= 4
-1
0 |
L =
>1
0 |
Com
men
cem
ent:*
= to
be
init
iate
d as
a m
atte
r of u
rgen
cy
Fund
ing:
To
tal v
olum
es (a
ppro
x. €
mill
ion
per a
nnum
): S
= -
3 |
M =
3-
10
| L
= 1
0 -
30
| V
= >
30
Priv
ate
sect
or in
volv
emen
t: s
= sm
all
| m
= m
oder
atel
y |
l =
larg
e
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in th
e “N
atio
nal B
io-e
cono
my
Rese
arch
Str
ateg
y 20
30”
(NRS
): 1
= E
nsur
e w
orld
wid
e fo
od s
ecur
ity
I = In
terd
isci
plin
ary
acti
viti
es2
= M
ake
agri
cult
ure
sust
aina
ble
GT
= G
ener
alis
ed to
pics
wit
h in
terd
isci
plin
ary
rele
vanc
e3
= P
rodu
ce h
ealt
hy a
nd s
afe
food
stuf
fs
4 =
Use
rene
wab
le re
sour
ces
for i
ndus
tria
l pur
pose
s 5
= E
xten
d th
e us
e of
bio
mas
s as
a s
ourc
e of
ene
rgy
Conf
orm
ity
wit
h ar
eas
of a
ctiv
ity
defi
ned
in
the
NRS
Fund
ing
Tim
e sc
ale
Eval
ua-
tion
by
subj
ect
area
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 26 04.07.11 10:50
26 | 27
Econ
omic
dim
ensi
ons
– V
alue
cre
atio
n fo
r Ger
man
y –
Empl
oym
ent
– G
row
th/l
eapf
rog
effe
ct–
Com
peti
tive
sit
uati
on (o
verh
eads
, str
engt
h, s
truc
ture
s)–
Out
lay
vers
us p
roba
bilit
y of
real
isat
ion
(mar
ket r
eadi
ness
)
Envi
ronm
enta
l dim
ensi
ons
– Co
ntri
buti
on to
clim
ate
prot
ecti
on–
Cont
ribu
tion
to re
sour
ce c
onse
rvat
ion
(raw
mat
eria
ls a
nd e
nerg
y)–
Effe
cts
on e
cosy
stem
s an
d bi
odiv
ersi
ty
Soci
o-cu
ltur
al d
imen
sion
s–
Hig
h va
lue,
long
term
jobs
– Ef
fect
s on
geo
grap
hica
l loc
atio
ns (r
ural
are
as/u
rban
isat
ion)
– Co
nsid
erat
ion
of g
loba
l res
pons
ibili
ty a
nd g
loba
l eff
ects
– Et
hica
l val
ues
– K
now
ledg
e an
d ed
ucat
ion
Scie
ntifi
c d
imen
sion
s–
Com
peti
tive
sit
uati
on (o
verh
eads
, str
engt
hs, s
truc
ture
s, in
tern
atio
nal p
artn
ers)
– Le
apfr
og e
ffec
t for
inno
vati
on–
Via
bilit
y an
d fe
asib
le d
urat
ion,
tech
nica
l pra
ctic
abili
ty/i
mpl
emen
tati
on
Tabl
e 3:
Pri
orit
isat
ion
crit
eria
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 27 04.07.11 10:50
Members of the Bio-economy Research and Technology Council
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Reinhard F. Hüttl (Chairman)Chair of the Executive Board of the Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, President of acatech, Professor of Soil Protection and Recultivation at Brandenburg Technical University in Cottbus Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Andreas J. Büchting (Deputy Chairman)Chairman of the Supervisory Board KWS SAAT AG
Prof. Dr. Bernd Müller-Röber (Deputy Chairman)Professor of Molecular Biology, Max-Planck-Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology and University of Potsdam
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Joachim von Braun (Deputy Chairman)Director of the Centre for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn
Prof. Dr. Achim BachemChairman of the Board of Directors, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
Dr. Helmut BornSecretary-General of the German Association of Farmers e.V.
Prof. Dr. Hannelore DanielMunich Technical University (TUM), Chair of Nutritional Physiology
Prof. Dr. Utz-Hellmuth FelchtManaging Director, One Equity Partners Europe, Munich, Member of the acatech Executive Board
Prof. Dr. Thomas HirthHead of the Fraunhofer Institute for Interfacial Engineering and Biotechnology (IGB) and the Institute for Interfacial Engineering at the University of Stuttgart
Prof. Dr. Folkhard IsermeyerPresident of the Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute (vTI) Braunschweig, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 28 04.07.11 10:50
Dr. Stefan MarcinowskiBoard member at BASF SE, Chairman of the Board of the Association of German Biotechnology Industries (DIB)
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Thomas C. MettenleiterPresident of the Friedrich-Loeffl er-Institute (FLI), Riems, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health
Prof. Dr. Alfred Pühler CeBiTec, Bielefeld University
Prof. Dr. Manfred SchwerinProfessor of Animal Breeding, Rostock University and Director of the Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Dummerstof
Prof. Dr. Wiltrud TreffenfeldtDirector Bioprocess R&D, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, USA
Prof. Dr. Fritz VahrenholtChief Executive Offi cer, RWE Innogy GmbH
Dr. Holger Zinke Chairman, BRAIN AG
Dr. Christian Patermann (permanent guest)NRW Government Advisor on Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy
Prof. Dr. Alexander Zehnder (permanent guest)Director of the Water Research Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
28 | 29
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 29 04.07.11 10:50
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 30 04.07.11 10:50
PUBLICATION DETAILS
Published by Bio-economy Research and Technology Council (BÖR)© BÖR, Berlin (2011)
Design and layout byOswald + Martin Werbeagentur, Berlin
Printed byBrandenburgische Universitätsdruckerei
ISSN 1869-1404, ISBN 978-3-942044-17-2(print version), ISBN 978-3-942044-20-2 (online version)The German National Library has registered this publication in the German National Bibliography; for detailed bibliographic information, go to http://dnb.d-nb.de.
With particular thanks to the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) for its funding support and
acatech (the German Academy of Science and Engineering) for its administrative help.
The Bio-economy Council’s work is supported by an administrative offi ce:
Dr. Claus Gerhard Bannick (Head)
Dr. Andrea George (academic research assistant)
Dr. Katja Leicht (academic research assistant)
Thordis Möller (academic research assistant)
Petra Ortiz Arrebato (assistant)
Dipl.-Biol. Elke Witt (academic research assistant)
We should also like to thank the following students for their work at the administrative offi ce:
Julian Braun and Adrian Luncke.
Thanks also to Christoph Uhlhaas for his editorial input.
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 31 04.07.11 10:50
Issued byBio-economy Research and Technology Council (Forschungs- und Technologierat Bioökonomie) BÖR© BÖR, Berlin 2011
ContactBio-economy Research and Technology CouncilCharlottenstrasse 35-3610117 BerlinTel.: +49 30 767718911Fax: +49 30 767718912E-Mail: [email protected]: www.biooekonomierat.de
rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 32 04.07.11 10:50