1 science technology and innovation in the chemicals sector: the role of suschem andrea tilche...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Science Technology and Innovationin the chemicals sector:
the role of SusChem
Andrea Tilche
European CommissionDG Research
Head of the Unit « Environmental Technologies and Pollution Prevention »
2
Why does R&D matter?
• 3% Action Plan (2003);
• Each Member State has set its own target for increased R&D intensity;
• Green Paper on ERA (2007);
3
The landscape is
changing
4 EU-27 (1) US JP CN KR Others
12.7
25.029.1
3.6
3.5
34.4
38.4
2.9
11.4
15.9
10.1
13.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
%
1993 2005
World shares of expenditure on R&D
5
Exports of High - tech products
EU-27 (1)
JP
CN
US
KR
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
%
6
China leads computing exports
EU-27 (1)
JP
CN
US
KR
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
%
7
EU R&D-intensity remains at structural lower level
8
Stagnating R&D intensity in the EU
JP
KR
US
EU-27EU-25
CN
RU
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
R&
D in
ten
sity
(G
ER
D a
s %
of
GD
P)
9
Although some MS recorded impressive progress
EU-25EU-27
CZ
DKDE
AT
FI
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
%
Progress not monopoly of ‘catching-up’ countries (e.g.CZ)
Also high R&D intensive countries were able to further increase their high R&D intensity
10
R&D intensity: 4 groups of countries
R&D intensity
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UK
EU-27
SI
SK
EU-27
CZ
NL
DK
UK
EL
MT
FI
ES AT
RO IT
DE
LV
PL
IE
LU
PT
BG
FR
HU
EE
CY
LT
SEBE
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0
R&D intensity in 2005
Gro
wth
of
R&
D i
nte
ns
ity
, 2
00
0-2
00
5
Falling behind Losing momentum
Pulling aheadCatching up
11
Distance-to-target for each individual Member State
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0
EU-27 (1)
Romania
Cyprus
Slovakia
Poland
Latvia
Malta
Greece
Lithuania
Portugal
Hungary
Estonia
Italy
Spain
Slovenia
Ireland
Czech Republic
Luxembourg
UK
Netherlands
Belgium
France
Austria
Denmark
Germany
Finland
Sweden
Situation in 2005 Target 2010
12
The gap is mainly in the private sector
13
Is low R&D-intensity a result of lack of
dynamism of EU’s industrial structure ?
14
• 85% gap is due to low business investment
• structural differences between EU-US – medium-tech industries dominate in the EU
15
Sectoral composition of R&D in EU and US (2005)
16
BERD(Business enterprise expenditure on R&D)
and Value Added
17
BERD as % of Value Added
18
BERD of SMEs
However, R&D intensity is 0.34% in the EU and 0.68% (the double) in the US
19
Share of World top 1000 Companies (in terms of market
capitalisation) created since 1980
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
EU US
Substantial differences in growth path of high-tech SME’s …
70% of these US large Cies created after 1980 are active in ICT sectors
20
Public and private R&D are fully
complementary
21
Countries with high involvement of private sector in funding of R&D have also the highest levels of government-funded R&D
DK
UK
FISE
BG
FR
AT
SIPL
EU-27
CZ
BE
LT
EL
MT
HU
ES
LU
PT
IT
CY
EE
NL
SK
DE
IE
LV
RO
IS
IL
NO
TR
CH
HR
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5
GERD financed by business sector (as % of GDP)
GE
RD
fin
an
ce
d b
y g
ov
ern
me
nt
(as
% o
f G
DP
)
22
Research Excellence: EU remains second behind the US, but
scores relatively well in traditional disciplines
23
Research excellence: the EU is world’s first producer of scientific knowledge
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,8
2,0
1,7
3,6
2,8
4,4
3,8
9,4
33,6
39,3
1,2
1,6
1,7
1,8
2,4
2,7
2,8
2,9
4,5
6,4
8,7
32,8
38,1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Israel
Taiwan
Brazil
Sw itzerland
India
Republic of Korea
Russia
Australia
Canada
China (2)
Japan
US
EU-25
2000 2004
24
Citation index
25
However, …
Other parts of the world are getting to be more specialised in chemistry
26
Knowledge flows from Science to
Technology weaker in the EU
27
Technological innovations rely more on US science than on EU science
29,8
22,3
53,4
64,2
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
EPO patents USPTO patents
%
EU-25EU-25 US US
This graph:
Share of EU and US scientific publications cited in biotech patents
Data in other technological fields show similar patterns
28
From Science to high-tech, high-growth
industries: the case of nanotechnology
29
Public funding of nanotech R&D similar or higher than competitors
Figure I.6.1 Public and private funding of nanotechnology R&D, 2006
665
1275
1490500
975 1091
1150 1931
1704
631
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
EU US Japan Others
US
$ (m
illio
ns)
EC / US federal Government Private
30
Nanotech companies are bigger in the US
Average size of Nanotech companies in leading countries (turnover in US$ million)
31
How to reverse this trend?
• INNOVATION is the only European asset that can make the difference
• Open innovation schemes• More investments in high-tech sectors• Start-up programmes in Universities
linked to chemical entrepreneurship programmes
• Promotion of Public-Private-Partnerships• Better exploitation of funding
opportunities along the innovation chain
• Focus on excellence – clusters and regions
32
Technology platforms: a key instrument for a new competitiveness policy• They build strategic partnerships between the public and
private sector, the academia, the civil society• Through this, they should reduce the risk in investing on
research, creating a better environment for the increase of private investments
• They provide roadmaps for planning “incremental” innovation
• They act as fora for strategic thinking towards “radical” innovation
• And improve the diffusion of sustainable technologies also suggesting how to overcome regulatory barriers, to define new procurement rules, economic instruments, etc.
33
How Technology Platforms may contribute to FP7
• Technology Platforms are generating the political momentum for a stronger industrial participation in the Framework Programme
• Several TPs, among which the SusChem, are cited in the FP and in the SP text as one of the sources of the FP7 research agenda
• Major contributions are given in the phase of preparation of the work programmes
34
The importance of SusChem
• It was able to mobilise stakeholders around key objectives
• It produced important and substantial documents, from the vision, to the strategic research agenda, to the implementation plan
• It should evolve through a more capillar organisation at national/regional level, in order to better involve SMEs and local actors
• It should extend its scope towards innovation leadership issues (possible recommendation from the HLG)
