recommendations of the bio-economy council · gistic effects, such as the promotion of quantitative...

Priorities in Bio-economic Research

Recommendations of the Bio-economy Council

rz_boer_broschuere_priorisierung_E.indd 1 04.07.11 10:50

Priorities in Bio-economic Research

Recommendations of the Bio-economy Council


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.



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.


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.



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


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


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



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




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





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.


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


recommendations of the bio-economy council · gistic effects, such as the promotion of quantitative...

Documents