Posts Tagged ‘energy’

EFP Brief No. 257: Creating Prospective Value Chains for Renewable Road Transport Energy Sources

Tuesday, September 16th, 2014

If the Nordic energy and transport sectors are to meet the 2050 energy and climate policy targets, major systemic chang-es are necessary. The transition requires cooperation between public and private actors. The approach outlined in the paper combines elements from the fields of system level changes (transitions), value chain analysis and forward looking policy design. It presents a novel, policy relevant application with a set of practical tools to support development of im-plementation strategies and policy programmes in the fields of energy and transport.

A Major Transition is Necessary

Sustainable energy technologies are driven especially by the climate change challenge, which necessitates paradigm shift also in global energy production and consumption structures. Currently, about 20 % of the Nordic CO2 emissions are due to transport sector. If the Nordic energy and transport systems are to meet the 2050 energy and climate policy goals, a major transition is necessary. Along with new technologies, changes are required also in other societal sectors such as business models and consumer habits. The transition requires cooperation between public and private actors. Political decisions should create potential to enterprises which can provide renewable energy solutions in a way that they attract also consumers and transporters of goods.

In order to be able to make wise political decisions we need foresight actions to get an idea about the future trends and needs, and possible ways of shaping the future. We believe that, for the most part, actors create the future and therefore the state of the transport system is a result of the measures and actions carried out by the producers, operators and users of the system. Therefore we need knowledge and understanding about the actors who are important in the processes. In our understanding actors are outlined in value chains.

A new Approach to Value Chains

The focus in this brief is on developing tools to understand, create and analyse prospective value chains up to the year 2050. With ‘value chain’ we mean a chain of activities needed in order to deliver a specific valuable product and service for the market, incl. activities related to energy sources or feedstock production; energy production; distribution and transportation; retail; consumption; regulation and governance; and research and development. In our case the value chains arise from three alternative, but partly overlapping technology platforms, namely electricity, biofuels and hydrogen.

The motivation for this foresight exercise is to produce knowledge for future decision making and policy support in order to create enabling ground for sustainable energy solutions for the future transport sector. Traditionally value chains are considered in rather short term business opportunity analyses. In our case, we need to outline the value chains in the far future.

The brief is based on the preliminary results of the TOP-NEST project WP4. The task of WP4 is to identify prospective value chains in order to outline roadmap and policy recommendations in the later phases of the project.

Functions of Foresight and Policy-making

The impact of foresight on policy-making has been discussed among foresight experts practitioners (e.g. Georghiou & Keenan 2006, Da Costa et. al. 2008, Weber et.al. 2009, Könnölä e.al. 2009, 2011). One aspect of this discussion is to consider the functions of foresight in policy-making. The functions of foresight can be summarized into three major functions, which are 1) informing, 2) facilitation, and 3) guiding.

The informing function of foresight is generation of insights regarding the dynamics of change, future challenges and policy options, along with new ideas, and transmitting them to policymakers as an input to policy conceptualisation and design.

Facilitation of policy implementation gets it motivation from the changing nature of policy-making. There has been a shift from linear models of policy-making, consisting of successive phases such as formulation, implementation and evaluation phases, into cyclic models, where evaluations are supposed to feed back into the policy formation and implementation phases (Weber et. al 2009; Da Costa et. al 2008). This kind of thinking puts more emphasis on interactions, learning, and decentralised and networked characters of political decision-making and implementation.

The effectiveness of policy depends also on the involvement of a broader range of actors, and therefore also, the role of government shifts from being a central steering entity to that of a moderator of collective decision-making processes. To meet the requirements of the new mode of operation one needs foresight instrument.

Policy guiding refers to the capacities of foresight to support strategy formation or policy definition. In its best foresight exercises may bring to light the inadequacy of the current policy system to address the major challenges that society is facing (Da Costa et al. 2008).

Our approach combines analysis of system level changes (transitions) and value chain analysis with foresight approach. We apply multilevel perspective model (Geels 2005) to define the prerequisites of the transfer of the complex transport system, and value chain analysis in order to concretise the changes needed. With these elements we try to inform, facilitate and guide policy-making.

Multi-level Perspectives of the Energy and Transport Systems

Figure 1 presents the three basic components of the transport system: users, vehicles and transport infrastructure. The use of vehicles involves behavioural and business models, and different types of solutions are available concerning issues such as vehicle ownership (adapted from Auvinen and Tuominen, 2012). The illustration presents also the main elements of the energy system (primary energy sources, production and storage), which are linked to the transport system mainly through energy and transport infrastructures and are crucial for transport operations.

The state of the transport system is a result of the measures and actions carried out by the producers, operators and users of the system. Producers and operators are organisations or companies, which can be categorised according to their main duties, such as: policy formulation, infrastructure construction and maintenance, production and operation of services for the transport system, and production of transport-related services (e.g. vehicle manufacturing and fuels). Individual people, actually the whole population, are the users of the passenger transport system. In freight transport, users are companies and organisations in the fields of industry, transport and commerce (Tuominen et al. 2007). Value chains are composed from these different actors.

257_bild1

Figure 1. Transport and energy systems in multi-level perspective model. The transfer process requires changes in all levels heading to the same direction.

From Future Wheel to Technology Platforms and Prospective Value Chains

The foresight procedure consists of three stages (see Figure 2):

257_bild2

Figure 2. A procedure for prospective value chain analysis.

The starting point of the process (Step 1) is to create an idea of the context were the prospective value chains will operate. For this pourpose, various foresight methods, such as Futures Wheel, and scenario methodology can be used. We formulated four different scenarios for 2050, which are described briefly below (Figure 3).

257_bild3

Figure3. The principle of scenario creation and the four transport scenarios formulated for 2050.

The goal of the second step is to identify the value network actors and analyse their individual interests, and connections between different actors, if possible, in all different scenarios. The analysis covers value chain activities from energy sources and feedstock production to energy production, distribution and transport, retail and consumption. Also regulation, governance and R&D actors are included in the analysis.

All possible actors are listed and their opportunities and advantages, as well as supportive needs are analysed. Opportunities refer to the possibilities to make profit in the value network (How the actor benefits from the value network?), and advantage refers to created value by the actor (What is the added value the actor produces to its customer or in the network?). The analysis of the supportive activities is needed to recognize the connection between different actors. Figure 4 gives an example of the value network illustration.

257_bild4

Figure 4. Value network of a biodiesel example based on tall oil.

The third step includes outlining of the prospective value chains. In this stage, couple of aspects need to be taken into consideration. Different technology platforms will co-exist in the future and different futures create different opportunities and development possibilities for different technology platforms. Therefore, one needs to describe the level of technological development of the given technology platform in the outline of the value chain. In other words, the outline of the value chain works only in selected scenario, and the level of technological development of a single technology platform is different in different scenarios.

Participative Workshops Informing, Facilitating and Guiding Policy-making

Future value chains and future actors within have to be recognised in order to find out prerequisites of the future actions. The proposed approach may act as a checklist for the key issues to be covered in outlining prospective value chains in the road transport context.

The process integrates methods from different theoretical starting points: foresight, multi-level perspective and value chain theories. It also integrates energy and transport systems, and expands the context far to the future. The process is not yet complete but the work will continue in the TOP-NEST project up to the 2014.

To outline future actors is a challenging task. At this stage of the process development we have noticed that the most challenging part is to be able to imagine potential new actors and to create potential new relationships between the actors in a strongly path dependent situation, as is a biodiesel case. We assume that for instance in testing this procedure in hydrogen technology system the challenge may be slightly easier, because path-dependency is not strong.

Another challenge is to get relevant stakeholders to either participate the workshops or give interviews. The workshops or interviews shall include stakeholders at least from the industry, ministries, NGO’s e.g. nature protection organisations, vehicle industry and associations as well as researchers. The issue to be discussed is so large including energy, transport and transition policies, that the discussion would take time. There may also be confidentiality problems concerning new emerging technologies.

We believe that the prospective value chain analysis helps us to figure out landscape level constraints, like values and global trends, niche level options, as well as the needs which guide us to change or maintain the existing regime. Value chain analysis gives us views about the future and about the potential paths and constraints to help making wise political decisions.

 

Authors: Nina Wessberg, nina.wessberg@vtt.fi, Anna Leinonen, anna.leinonen@vtt.fi, Anu Tuominen, anu.tuominen@vtt.fi, Annele Eerola, annele.eerola@vtt.fi ,Simon Bolwig, sibo@dtu.dk
Sponsors: NER (TOP-NEST project http://www.topnest.no/ )
Type: Nordic foresight exercise
Organizer: VTT, nina.wessberg@vtt.fi
Duration: 2011-2015
Budget: € 402,000
Time Horizon: 2050
Date of Brief: July 2014

Download EFP Brief No. 257_Prospective Value Chains

Sources and References

Auvinen, H. & Tuominen, A. 2012, Safe and secure transport system 2100. Vision. VTT Technology 5 (2012).

Da Costa, O., Warnke, P., Cagnin, C., Scapolo, F. (2008) The impact of foresight on policy-making: insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process. Technology analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 369-387.

Geels, F.W. 2005, “Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co

evolutionary multi-level perspective”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 681-696.

Georghiou, L., Keenan, M. (2006) Evaluation of national foresight activities: Assessing rationale, process and impact. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, vol. 73, pp. 761-777.

Könnölä, T., Scapolo, F., Desruelle, P., Mu, R. (2011) Foresight tackling societal challenges: Impacts and implications on policy-making. Futures vol. 43. pp. 252-264.

Tuominen, A., Järvi, T., Räsänen, J., Sirkiä, A. and Himanen, V. (2007) Common preferences of different

user segments as basis for intelligent transport system: case study – Finland. IET Intell. Transp. Syst.,

2007, 1, (2), pp. 59–68.

Tuominen, A., Wessberg, N., Leinonen, A., Eerola, A. and Bolwig, S. (2014). Creating prospective value chains for renewable road transport energy sources up to 2050 in Nordic Countries. Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris.

Weber, M., Kubeczko, K., Kaufmann, A., Grunewald, B. (2009) Trade-offs between policy impacts of future-oriented analysis: experiences from the innovation policy foresight and strategy process of the city of Vienna. Technology analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 21, No. 8. pp. 953-969.

Wessberg, N., Leinonen, A., Tuominen, A., Eerola, A. and Bolwig, S. (2013) Creating prospective value chains for renewable road trasport energy sources up to 2050 in Nordic Countries. International Foresight Academic Seminar in Switzerland, Sept 16-18, 2013.

EFP Brief No. 238: Research Agenda Dutch Mobility System, Energy System and Built Environment 2040

Friday, December 21st, 2012

Scenario forecasts for the Dutch mobility system, energy system and built environment in 2040 were performed to investigate which knowledge TNO should develop to support and stimulate future innovation in these fields. Three scenario studies were conducted to investigate the Dutch built environment, the Dutch energy system and the Dutch mobility system. The results serve to strengthen the TNO strategy statement.

Identifying Dutch Research Priorities for Future Mobility, Energy and Built Environment

Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO is an independent research organisation whose expertise and research make an important contribution to the competitiveness of companies and organisations, to the economy and to the quality of society as a whole. It’s activities are split into seven thematic domains; healthy living, industrial innovation, defence, safety and security, energy, transport and mobility, built environment and information society.

 TNO needs to update it’s strategy every four years to announce which societal issues it will address in their next strategy period and how it will apply the funds which are administered by the Dutch government. In order to formulate a strategy that is robust for future developments TNO used scenario planning in order to test its strategy against multiple possible future

Creating a Shared Vision

The objective of the scenario study is threefold:

1) to find what knowledge should be developed to deal with future challenges,

2) to test the TNO strategy against future scenario’s

3) to find the most important factors influencing the development of technologies in mobility, energy and the built environment and

4) to create a shared vision on future development amongst the participants.

Scenario Method

For the future forecast TNO applied a scenario method which is based on the original work of Kees van der Heijden for Shell (Heijden, 1996). For each of the three subjects a separate study was performed, consisting of a series of three workshops. Within these workshops the participants identified the main uncertainties in the future developments in the respective fields. Subsequently, these fields were clustered and scored for importance and level of uncertainty. Based on the two most important/uncertain uncertainties the participants developed four scenarios to describe the possible future outcomes.

In the scenario process an average of 25 TNO specialists per subject participated in the scenario development process. Selection of participants was based on coverage of all relevant expertise within the subject, furthermore participants were selected for their ability to overview developments in the entire field. Specialist were available on: key (emergent) technologies, finance, economy, policy, rules and regulations and international relations.

 

Clusters of Uncertainties

In the first workshop the participants were asked to name the most uncertain factors which would determine the future developments in energy, mobility and the built environment. The results were clustered into 6-15 clusters of uncertainties. Which clusters of uncertainties were most influential and uncertain was determined by popular vote and discussion.

For each subject the project the following major uncertainties were identified:

Mobility

Strong governmental control vs. market driven and an individual society vs. a collective society.

Energy

Governmental control vs. market driven and lack of international cooperation vs. strong international cooperation.

Built environment

An individual risk prone society vs. a collective risk averse society and spread low economic growth vs. concentrated high economic growth.

Within the projects the experts developed two or four scenarios in group discussions. These scenarios are based on the two uncertainties that are considered most uncertain/influential for the subject. In the following sections the results of the scenario studies for the three subjects will be discussed separately. First the scenarios are described, then aspects which are relevant for all different scenarios or vary between scenarios are discussed and finally a draft technological research agenda is compiled.

Mobility: Four Scenarios Discussing the Shades of Governmental Control and Societal Involvement

Scenario I: Driven by individualism, the government limits is effort to a small number of activities that protect the rights of its citizens. The government facilitates market activities by providing a stable environment for economic growth. The scenario shows high economic competition, with a European home-market.

Scenario II: The government is strict, yet righteous. The government uses her influence through laws and setting norms and standards that are based on firm societal support. – after all, these are made in the public interest. Laws and regulations are firmly maintained.

Scenario III: The government has a minor role, market forces are trusted upon to ensure innovation. This way people can vote with their wallets.

Scenario IV: The influence of the government on societal issues is limited. Society is too complex and interests too divers to find a common ground for governmental action. Collective values are shared by joining communities that share our values and warrant your interest.

 

Mobility in the Context of the Four Scenarios

The developments in the mobility system are very uncertain. All scenarios are equally conceivable. Therefore, a strategy should be developed that is able to cope with different future developments.

Future developments in transport are highly dependent on the available infrastructure, vehicle- and fuel developments and the effect transport has on the environment and society.

All scenarios point to mobility that is concentrated on roads. Congestion will be a lasting problem. External effects are tackled with technological solutions.

Biofuels, hydrogen and electricity will play a more important role in mobility.

 

Scenario Specific Findings

  • In some scenarios a European network of high-speed rail connections is developed.
  • Solutions to congestion are scenario specific: optimisation of infrastructure usage, transport services or smart logistics.
  • Also solution to externalities are scenario specific, ranging from efficient driving mechanisms to capture of pollutants.
  • Transport- and travel volume are scenario dependent and depend on price. This price may increase, because of internalisation of external cost and high fuel prices, or drop because of more fuel efficient techniques.
  • The degree to which biofuels, hydrogen and electricity will play a more important role in mobility is dependent on the role of the government.

For TNO’S future Technological Research Agenda these findings imply that further knowledge is needed about:

  • Energy efficient vehicles;
  • Alternative driving mechanisms;
  • ITS systems for:
    • Managing mobility issues
    • Managing traffic
      • Communication between vehicles for increased safety and traffic flow enhancement;
    • Impact assessment of infrastructure;
    • Robust infrastructure;
    • Reliability of infrastructure;

Energy: Two Scenarios Discussing the Shades of Governmental Control and International Cooperation

Scenario I: Countries form a collective to face the global challenges, such as climate change. The national government firmly takes the initiative for bringing (sustainable) change.

Scenario II: : International governments and organizations are suspicious of each other. Countries compete for available energy sources. The national government is reactive and aimed at facilitating change processes initiated by industries and NGO’s.

Energy in the Context of the Two Scenarios

The entire built environment will be transformed to become energy neutral. More energy production will take place locally with solar (pv and warmth), Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage (ATES) and geothermic energy.

Fossil fuels will remain an important source of energy. Whereas, biofuels and hydrogen will only play a small role in the Dutch energy system.

Scenario specific findings

  • The degree to which societal costs are included in the price for fossil fuels is largely dependent on the degree of governmental control.
  • The choice for climate change mitigation or adaptation is largely dependent on the degree of governmental control and international cooperation.
  • The degree to which local energy systems are developed collectively or independently is largely dependent on the degree of governmental control.
  • The emergence of a international smart grid and large scale energy storage capacity is largely dependent on the degree of international cooperation.
  • The large scale deployment of carbon capture and storage is largely dependent on the degree of international cooperation.
  • The substitution of oil by coal of gas is largely dependent on the degree of governmental control

Accordingly, in the energy sector, TNO will need knowledge to boost their Technological Research Agenda. Knowledge is needed about:

  • ways to include new technology in existing products;
  • insulation;
  • separate transport systems for inside and outside cities;
  • preparing the electricity network for larger fluctuations in supply and demand;
  • large scale storage of electricity and warmth;
  • small scale storage of electricity and warmth;
  • how to deal with the interaction between local networks, national networks and international networks of electricity, gas, warmth and CO2;
  • implementation of renewable energy systems;
  • mass-production of renewable energy systems.

Built environment: Four Scenarios Discussing the Shades of Collectiveness and Economic Prosperity

Scenario I: It is a self-service economy. Small government has prevailed. The economy is in a recession, especially in cities, resulting in more regional economic activity.

Scenario II: People strive for individual gain, and are willing to take risks. The Netherlands is a flourishing and innovative country. The economic growth is concentrated around the Randstad and a limited number of other cities.

Scenario III: People are more dependent on each other because of the fragile economic situation.

Scenario IV: Economic prosperity leads to collective appreciation of wellbeing.

Built Environment in the Context of the Four Scenarios

End consumers will get more influence in the building process. Buildings will have to become more adaptable during the different phases of life and individual needs. Elderly people will become a more important target group.

Scenario specific findings

Dense urban environments and intensive land use are themes which are important in the two scenarios with a concentration of economic activity in the Randstad area. In order to tackle the aspects identified in the scenarios, TNO will need knowledge with regard to the Technological Research Agenda on:

  • ways to increase flexibility in the use of buildings;
  • conceptual building methods;
  • re-use of building materials;
  • social-, construction-, traffic- and fire safety;
  • ways to become climate proof;
  • closure of material cycles (urban mining);
  • virtual building;
  • technologies for local energy generation and storage;
  • the effects of climate change;
  • intensive land use.

TNO Strategy Update Every Four Years

In order to formulate a strategy that is robust for future developments TNO used scenario planning in order to test its strategy against multiple possible future. TNO needs to update it’s strategy every four years to announce which societal issues it will address in their next strategy period and how it will apply the funds which are administered by the Dutch government.

 

Authors: Dr. J. van der Vlies      jaap.vandervlies@tno.nl

Drs. G.G.C. Mulder      guus.mulder@tno.nl

Sponsors: Dr. H.M.E. Miedema
Type: National foresight exercise, single issue
Organizer: Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO
Duration: Feb-Sept 2009 Budget: 35 kEuro Time Horizon: 2040 Date of Brief: March 2011  

 

Download EFP Brief No. 238_Dutch Research Agenda.

Sources and References

Heijden (1996), Scenarios – The art of strategic conversation, second edition, John Wiley & Sons, 2005, West Sussex.

EFP Brief No. 235: Nanotechnology for Podlaskie 2020

Friday, December 21st, 2012

The general purpose of the project was to elaborate a strategy of nanotechnology development up to 2020 based on the desired priority directions of the Polish Podlaskie province development oriented towards the application of nanotechnologies and the identification of the key nanotechnology research trajectories.

Nanotechnology to Boost Disadvated Region

The project Technological foresight NT FOR Podlaskie 2020. Regional strategy of nanotechnology development was granted the financial support from the EU Operational Program „Innovative Economy 2007-2013” (Priority 1: „Research and development of new technologies”, Measure 1.1.: „Support for scientific research for the building of knowledge based economy”, Sub-measure 1.1.1: „Research projects with the use of foresight method”.)

The project is an attempt of breakthrough technologies promotion in situation when the development of the traditional sectors does not contribute to regional growth. It is located in one of the least economically developed regions of Poland (and of the European Union) with a low level of population’s economic welfare, little business competitiveness and low innovation intensity in the spheres of technology, processes and products. The project is based on the feed forward logic which assumes that the future changes of the environment will be effectively forestalled owing to the project results. This should allow the region to chart the development trajectory which doesn’t imitate others but heads in the direction where the leaders will be in the future. The assumed goals of the programme are:

  • elaborate a strategy of nanotechnology development in Podlaskie province till 2020
  • identify and mapp critical nanotechnologies up to 2020
  • identify the most important factors influencing the development of nanotechnologies
  • put forward scenarios of nanotechnology development
  • stimulate the process of regional vision building between the key stakeholders.

Nanotech Research Defined by Six Panels

Six panels defined the research priorities for the project:

  1. Nanotechnologies in Podlaskie economy (RF1)
  2. Nanotechnology research for Podlaskie developement (RF2)
  3. Key factors of nanotechnology development (RF3)

In addition to the three content-oriented panels another three focusses on methodologies: STEEPVL and SWOT panel (SSP), Technology mapping and Key technologies panel (TMKTP), Scenarios and Roadmapping panel (SRP) (figure 1).

The results of the six panels are integrated by the Key Research Team (KRT) which is also a platform of interaction and knowledge transfer between the panels.

From STEEPVL Analysis to Strategy

The methodology of the project is based on the intuitive logics school of scenario construction and comprises the following research methods and techniques: STEEPVL analysis, SWOT analysis, technology maping, key technologies, scenario method, roadmapping (figure 2). The main research methods are supported by brainstorming, moderated discussion and bibliometrics.

The selection of methods and techniques was conditioned by the aim of the project, planned funds, research duration and availability of data – both quantitative and qualitative.

One of the innovative elements of the project is the implementation of the concept of triangulation to experts’ recruitment in the aspect of researcher triangulation, data triangulation and theoretical triangulation.

Researcher triangulation was manifested in the project by the involvement of experts representing varied professional background, sex and age. Special attention was paid to the recruitment of women and young people (under 35) (min. 30%).

Data triangulation was achieved by involving experts representing different institutions as well as by drawing information about the factors shaping nanotechnology development via experts’ opinions verified by the existing published works (reports, books, publications, Internet sources on nanotechnologies).

Theoretical triangulation consisted in the involvement of experts representing different research fields, but still salient to the nanotechnology development in Podlaskie province.

Other innovative element of the project was the application of the two-dimensional assessment of STEEPVL factors taking into account (1) the influence and importance of factors and (2) the application of factor analysis in order to reduce the number of considered factors that shape the nanotechnology development.

Great attention in the project was paid to the development of technology mapping methodology, to the identification and the assessment of wild cards methodology and to roadmapping methodology.

Scenarios of Nanotechnology Development in Podlaskie Province

 

As a result of the conducted sequence of procedures four scenarios of nanotechnology development in Podlaskie province were developed. They were constructed along two axes, one of which related to the level of R&D in the region and the other to the level of collaboration among the actors from business, science and administration spheres (fig. 3).

Basic characteristics of the produced scenarios are presented in table 1. Further in the process, each scenario was enriched with a detailed description of the remaining 19 STEEPVL factors. Short descriptive visions were also written in each of the four cases.

  1. Megatrends

Scenarios formulation was preceded by a detailed characteristics of megatrends influencing the nanotechnology development. Following megatrends were identified:

  • technological progress,
  • ageing population,
  • increasing importance of alternative energy sources,
  • intensified activity of the states in the realm of security,
  • new patterns of social inequality,
  • shaping of the new economy,

All megatrends were further divided into branching trends.

  1. Priority technology groups

Additionally, seven priority technology groups for the Podlaskie region were identified by the experts:

  • nanomaterials and nanosurfaces in medical equipment (T20),
  • composite materials for dentist fillings (T17),
  • powder technologies in plastic, paint and varnish production (T31),
  • surface nanotechnologies in biomedicine (T21),
  • nanotechnology for cutting instruments and wood processing (T3),
  • nanotechnology for specialised textiles (T24),
  • nano-structuring of metals (T38).

The leading project experts attempted to embed the priority nanotechnologies into four scenarios by assessing the chances of each technology’s development in the context of a particular scenario. The results of that exercise are presented in fig. 4.

According to experts’ opinions in conditions of high R&D potential for nanotechnology and effective regional collaboration of business, science and administration, very high chances of development have five out of seven technologies, namely: powder technologies in plastic, paint and varnish production (T31), composite materials for dentist fillings (T17), surface nanotechnologies in biomedicine (T21), nanotechnology for cutting instruments and wood processing (T3), nanomaterials and nanosurfaces in medical equipment (T20). In S2 scenario high chances of development have only nanotechnologies for specialised textiles (T24). The situation in S2 and S3 scenarios changes fundamentally as there are no nanotechnologies of high chances of development.

For each identified key technology a roadmap of its development was elaborated comprising layers such as: resources, R&D, technology and applications.

Increasing R&D and Strengthening the Network

Technology foresight NT FOR PODLASKIE 2020. Regional strategy of nanotechnology development has allowed to identify the most important factors of the nanotechnology development in the region. In the course of the project, the participating experts identified key technologies that might contribute to creating a competitive advantage of the province. The scenarios presented will be the basis for developing the roadmaps of nanotechnology development and eventually for formulating a regional strategy to that end.
 
As the results of the project have shown so far, increasing the region’s R&D potential and strengthening the networks of entrepreneurs, scientists and authorities would create an environment most conducive to the development of nanotechnology in Podlaskie province. These two key factors therefore will be the vital elementsof the nanotechnology development strategy to be formulated at a later stage. The strategy, according to the project organisers, will set the direction for the introduction of nanotechnology into the economy of Podlaskie province and provide a sound proposal for a path towards the sustainable development of the region.
Authors: Anna Kononiuk a.kononiuk@pb.edu.pl

Lukasz Nazarko l.nazarko@pb.edu.pl

Joanicjusz Nazarko j.nazarko@pb.edu.pl

Joanna Ejdys j.ejdys@pb.edu.pl

Katarzyna Halicka k.halicka@pb.edu.pl

Urszula Glinska u.glinska@pb.edu.pl

Alicja Gudanowska a.gudanowska@pb.edu.pl

Sponsors: European Regional Development Fund, Operational Program „Innovative Economy 2007-2013”

Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Polish Republic

Type: regional/technological foresight exercise
Organizer: Bialystok University of Technology

Joanna Ejdys j.ejdys@pb.edu.pl

Joanicjusz Nazarko j.nazarko@pb.edu.pl

Duration: Apr 2009-Jun 2013 Budget: 588,256 € Time Horizon: 2020 Date of Brief: Aug. 2012  

Download: EFP Brief No. 235_Nanotechnology for Podlaskie 2020.

Sources and References

Feasibility study of Technology foresight „NT FOR Podlaskie 2020”. Regional strategy of nanotechnology developement [Studium wykonalności projektu Foresight technologicznyNT FOR Podlaskie 2020”. Regionalna strategia rozwoju nanotechnologii], Białystok 2008.

EFP Brief No. 228: Visions for Horizon 2020 from Copenhagen Research Forum

Friday, November 23rd, 2012

In January 2012, the Copenhagen Research Forum (CRF) gathered 80 European scientists to discuss the societal chal-lenges to be addressed by Horizon 2020, the next framework programme for European research and innovation, and consider how research could contribute the best solutions. This EFP brief explains the process behind the CRF and gives a summary of recommendations. It ends with a discussion on cross-disciplinarity and strategic partnerships as tools for organising research in order to solve complex societal challenges.

Visions for Horizon 2020 – from Copenhagen Research Forum

The EU Commission’s proposal for a new framework programme, Horizon 2020, is devoted to strengthening the strategic organisation of European research and innovation. The ambition is to mobilise excellent scientists across various branches of knowledge in order to provide solutions for complex societal challenges.

The Copenhagen Research Forum (CRF) set out to assemble a broad spectrum of leading European scientists to give their view on the Commission’s choice of societal challenges and possible ways of implementing Horizon 2020 as a means of tackling them. Approximately 600 scientists contributed throughout the process.

The CRF recommendations clearly affirm the EU Commission’s selection of societal challenges as well as the idea of supporting cross-disciplinary collaboration as a means to address crosscutting problems within and across challenges. The recommendations also send a strong signal of support for a framework where excellence, cross-disciplinarity and simplicity in administrative processes are key components.

The following pages provide an overview of the process behind the CRF, the main recommendations as well as a discussion of new instruments to be implemented to support cross-disciplinarity.

The CRF Process

The main idea behind CRF was to involve a broad spectrum of Europe’s top-level researchers in the making of Horizon 2020 since part of its preparation would take place during the Danish EU presidency in the first half of 2012.

The University of Copenhagen, Technical University of Denmark and the Capital Region of Denmark wanted the scientific community to provide unbiased input to Horizon 2020, with the aim of making Horizon 2020 as attractive as possible to researchers working in the areas covered by the six societal challenges. Professor Liselotte Højgaard was appointed as Chair of CRF.

The concept was finalised in the summer of 2011. The key issue was that CRF should convey ideas, visions and comments from outstanding researchers, all of whom were invited personally to join CRF. A full list of names of conference participants may be found in the CRF report (see link on the last page).

The process comprised several steps and organisational roles:

Chairship – This involved contacting researchers for the six groups and establishing a chairship comprised of one Dane and one European researcher for each challenge:

  • Health: Professor Liselotte Højgaard MD, DMSc and Professor Deborah Smith.
  • Food & Agriculture: Professor Peter Olesen and Director Kees de Gooijer.
  • Energy: Dr. Jørgen Kjems and Professor Kjell Hugo Bendiksen.
  • Transport: Head of Dept. Niels Buus Kristensen and Programme Director Dr. Christian Piehler.
  • Climate & Resources: Professor Katherine Richardson and Professor Johan Rockström.
  • Society: Professor Ole Wæver and Professor Loet Leydesdorff.

The six panel chairships were asked to invite up to 100 researchers to offer their views in a virtual discussion forum. Out of the invitees, 15 researchers from each group were also asked to meet at a workshop conference in Copenhagen on 16 January 2012 shortly after the Danish EU presidency began.

Virtual discussion forum – Divided equally between the six societal challenges, the 600 researchers were invited to comment on the draft text of Horizon 2020. The researchers were asked to contribute personal visions for the future as well as point out needs and possible solutions. They were also asked to suggest and comment on the technologies and the priorities within the given challenge as well as consider the instruments and implementation needed to ensure success as seen from a scientific perspective. Lastly, they were requested to contribute their ideas on how to secure the link between research and the innovation perspective stressed in Horizon 2020. All of the input was collected in a draft report that formed the basis of the aforementioned conference in Copenhagen.

Conference – On 16 January 2012, the six panels met and discussed the draft report, offering comments and adding new ideas inspired by the input collected in the virtual discussion forum. The aim was to reach agreement on (1) the views and recommendations in each of the six panels, (2) a joint statement during plenary sessions expressing the view on scientific issues cutting across all six challenges and (3) recommendations for the implementation of a challenge-oriented framework as a basis for excellent research and far-reaching solutions.

The Danish Minister of Science, Innovation and Higher Education, Morten Østergaard, attended the conference.

Outcome – The conference resulted in a condensed report offering ideas and solutions that could help form Horizon 2020 from a scientific point of view. The conclusions were presented to the European community in an open dialogue as explained in the following.

Dissemination – The CRF recommendations were presented to the EU Council of Ministers’ meeting in Copenhagen on 1 February 2012 and subsequently to the European Commission, the European Parliament as well as directly to Director General for DG Research and Innovation, Robert Jan Smits. The dissemination activities were closely connected to the Danish EU presidency.

In the following section, we provide key statements from the CRF panels’ recommendations. A full version can be found in the report.

Key CRF Recommendations for Each Societal Challenge

Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing
  • Biomedical research and its implementation in clinical practice must be supported and accelerated. This requires a paradigm shift towards personalised medicine.
  • The global revolution in biomedicine is providing new technologies. Utilising those technologies requires vast efforts to expand and implement them.
  • A European platform engaging all key stakeholders to ensure discovery and delivery of these technologies will be crucial.
  • Establishment of a European Strategic Action for Healthier Citizens is also recommended to assist in strategic long-term healthcare research and planning, including preventive measures and the spread of best practice across Europe.

Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture, Marine and Maritime Research and the Bio-economy

  • Overriding challenges of increasing demand, competition for land use and other resource scarcities create massive pressure to produce significantly more per unit of a given resource.
  • Food, agriculture and land use must be seen in a complex and multi-directional value chain encompassing climate, available resources, environmental sustainability, transport, energy and health perspectives, not to mention social and economic requirements.
  • Key objectives are reductions in food waste and water consumption, valorisation of all bio-resources, including municipal bio-waste and agro- and bio-industrial side streams as well as the recycling of sufficient amounts of carbon and phosphor to maintain soil vitality.
  • Increasing prevalence of diet-related diseases and disorders calls for a balanced healthcare concept more geared towards prevention.
  • There is a need to create a collaborative innovation culture linking researchers, companies (especially SMEs), university education, NGOs and governments.
Secure, Clean and Efficient Energy
  • Horizon 2020 priorities should build on (1) a revised Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan), including a critical update of technology road maps and (2) a new, complementary systemic approach to combine technological, economical, political, social and cultural research to facilitate the transformation of the energy system as a whole.
  • Collaboration of social sciences and humanities with ‘hard sciences’ must be recognised as necessary and organised and funded accordingly to meet the challenges at the system level.
  • Coupling of educational efforts with research and innovation is critical for realising the ambitious plans for technology implementation and the overall system transition agenda.
  • Direct mobilisation of universities in addressing systemic challenges should be given high priority.
Smart, Green and Integrated Transport
  • The complexity of transport challenges requires closer cooperation across scientific domains and integration across universities, research institutions and industry than in the past.
  • Meeting the challenge of developing smart and green transport systems requires not only technological solutions but also a better understanding of transport behaviour and the use of innovative and effective policy instruments.
  • This calls for a more pronounced role for the social sciences than in previous framework programmes as well as for strengthening the integration of scientific domains.
  • Technological innovation will still be of paramount importance, including cleaner and safer vehicles for all transportation modes, cost-effective alternative fuels, advanced ICT for personalised real-time travel information with modal integration, metropolitan traffic management and smart payment systems.


Climate Action,Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials
  • Climate change constitutes one of the most urgent global resource challenges facing society, where the resource in question is our atmosphere as a receptacle for greenhouse gas wastes.
  • Development of actions and strategies for dealing with this challenge can potentially provide models for dealing with resource scarcity issues (biodiversity, ecosystem services, water, phosphorous, ores and metals etc.).
  • A general paradigm for dealing with resource scarcity is reducing the need for – and more efficient use of – the resource, combined with the adaptation of human activities to changed conditions and/or the recognition of resource scarcity.
  • In dealing with resource scarcity in general and the climate in particular, a major challenge is to channel the knowledge gained on the mechanisms of the Earth’s system into political and societal action. This requires cross-disciplinary approaches that integrate natural sciences with other disciplines.
  • The focus of Horizon 2020 should thus be to underpin societal responses to climate challenges by including research on systemic interaction, collecting baseline information and establishing monitoring activities of different mitigation and adaptation approaches.
Inclusive, Innovative and Secure Societies
  • The focus on ‘inclusive, innovative and secure societies’ provides a highly welcome challenge to the social sciences and humanities (SSH).
  • The Horizon 2020 proposal tends to focus on ‘hard’ technologies, especially statistics, assessments and measures of efficiency (evidence-based lessons), with a corresponding tendency to employ a technocratic definition of the nature of the challenges (e.g. in the security part, critical infrastructure protection is prioritised over international politics).
  • This represents a limited political and social vision that underestimates the power of citizens and communities to contribute to the realisation of inclusion, innovation and security.
  • Corresponding to a vision comprising a broader mobilisation of societal energies are forms of research that employ a wider selection of methodologies and theories to study the dynamics of society as productive and generative, rather than as the site of problems to be solved.
  • SSH can play key roles in the other societal challenges as well. It is important that researchers in the SSH engage scholars in the hard sciences in a joint effort to cultivate research-based innovation regarding the way expertise and democracy interact.

Excellence,Cross-disciplinarity and Simplicity

The ambition of using societal challenges as a means to organise European research requires new approaches. The message from CRF is to pursue this through a combination of excellence, cross-disciplinarity and administrative simplicity.

The CRF report signals a strong will among scientists to enter into cross-disciplinary collaborations in order to address complex challenges for which no single discipline has the solution. But this must not violate an equally strong need for administrative simplification and a continued effort to support excellence in all research activities. Without excellence as a fundamental requirement in all programmes, the cross-disciplinary ambition may become a hollow and strange add-on to ‘real’ science. Whenever a problem calls for a disciplinary approach, this should not be substituted with cross-disciplinarity. Timely application of new approaches must be a key priority.

Strategic Partnerships as Tools for Organising Cross-disciplinary Collaboration?

One of the ways in which cross-disciplinarity may enter the Horizon 2020 programme could be by establishing strategic partnerships devoted to delivering solutions to complex challenges. Strategic partnerships could be a way for the Horizon 2020 programme to nurture new constellations of fields of expertise without establishing very detailed road maps or other guidelines ‘from above’. It would be important to involve industrial and civil society actors in the formulation of strategic objectives in order to ensure that strategic partnerships become platforms for linking strategic priorities from science, policy, industry and other actors and that these partnerships organise collaboration accordingly.

A key feature of implementing strategic partnerships should be to provide them with sufficient operational freedom so as to secure flexibility and entrepreneurship in how partnerships pursue their goals at the project level.

Strategic partnerships should be an invitation and challenge to European research to explore new models of collaboration. This corresponds also with a clear recommendation from the CRF advocating the setup of strategic platforms connecting long-term visions with mid- and short-term investments in a dynamic way.

The advantage of a partnership-based organisation of strategic research is that it allows coordinating a variety of fields and actors while creatively linking actors who would otherwise not establish collaborative ties. Coordination and connection are thus key aspects of well-functioning strategic partnerships – but only if the model builds on principles that afford strategic partnerships sufficient degrees of freedom in organising collaboration projects. Otherwise, the risk of reproducing fragmentation and the resulting problems known from FP7 cooperation will be substantial.

The CRF epitomises an interest among scientists to engage in shaping the framework conditions of research and innovation. Beyond the scope of specific recommendations, the CRF may serve as a source of inspiration for how to establish a direct dialogue between the scientific community and policymakers.

The CRF report was followed up by a ‘CRF II’ process during which the chairship of CRF put together a set of recommendations for the implementation of Horizon 2020 in light of the CRF report. The resulting paper (Højgaard, L. et al. [2012a]) focuses on recommendations for implementing measures to promote excellence, cross-disciplinarity, simplicity and impact. The recommendations for implementation along with the CRF report can be found at the CRF homepage (crf2012.org).

Authors: Brenneche, Nicolaj Tofte                   ntb.lpf@cbs.dk

Højgaard, Liselotte      liselotte.hoejgaard@regionh.dk

Sponsors: Capital Region of Denmark

Technical University of Denmark

University of Copenhagen

Type: European research and innovation policy, Horizon 2020
Organizer: Capital Region of Denmark, Technical University of Denmark, University of Copenhagen

Contact: Anne Line Mikkelsen, amik@adm.dtu.dk

Duration: 2011 – 2012
Budget: n.a.
Time Horizon: 2020
Date of Brief: November 2012

Download: EFP Brief No. 228_Visions for Horizon 2020.

Sources and References

Højgaard, L. et al (2012): Visions for Horizon 2020 – from Copenhagen Research Forum.

Højgaard, L. et al (2012a): Copenhagen Research Forum II. Recommendations for an optimized implementation of Horizon 2020.

Both are available at www.crf2012.org.

EFP Brief No. 190: Agriculture and the Challenges of Energy

Wednesday, August 10th, 2011

Energy in agriculture is all too often seen as a purely cyclical issue whereas it brings more complex challenges in terms of economic stability for agricultural holdings, impacts on the environment and climate, on food supply chains and spatial planning. The present brief describes the main results of a prospective study led by the Centre for Studies and Strategic Foresight (at the French Ministry of Agriculture). A group of experts used the scenario method to imagine possible futures of the agriculture-energy system in 2030 and help identify priorities and options for public action.

Energy at the Heart of French Agriculture

Energy is of major importance for the future of agriculture in France although it receives relatively little analytical attention. Control of energy consumption is an economic issue for agricultural holdings, which consume energy both directly (fuel oil, electricity and natural gas) and indirectly (energy for the manufacture and shipment of farm inputs). All in all, French farming consumes around 11 Mtoe (million tonnes of oil equivalent) a year: 5.3 Mtoe directly and an estimated 5.4 Mtoe indirectly. Taking all French holdings together, expenditure on fuel and lubricants represents 8.3% of intermediate consumption, 13.1% of the costs of fertilisers and 21.6% of livestock feed. The share of energy consumption in production costs varies widely according to the type of production: 23% of intermediate consumption relates to fertilisers and soil improvement for cereal and protein crops; 67% results from feed purchased for granivorous livestock holdings between 2005 and 2008. For an identical output, there are wide variations in energy costs at the farm level depending on production systems and practices. The prices for these inputs may also vary widely, reflecting those of fossil fuels. A high oil price may therefore have major consequences for the economic balance of holdings: the double burden of low farm prices and high energy prices may cause unavoidable and difficult situations. The issue of energy also involves logistics, the organisation of agricultural supply chains and the distribution pattern of farming activities across regions. This is so because the distances separating production areas, consumption areas and sources of input supply are reflected in energy consumption.

Moreover, energy and climate are intertwined issues. Agriculture could contribute to national targets for containing global warming by cutting its emissions, producing renewable energy and sequestering carbon in soil. On the other hand, ambitious climate and environment policies may increase fossil fuel prices.

A Collective and Systemic Approach for the Scenario Method

Since the interaction between agriculture and energy is complex, this subject was addressed using a collective approach based on the scenario method.

The ‘Agriculture Energy 2030’ group involved around forty participants with a wide range of skills and backgrounds from concerned ministries (Agriculture and Fisheries, Sustainable Development), public agencies (ANR, ADEME, FranceAgriMer), technical institutes (CTIFL, IFIP, Institut de l’élevage), the farming world (FNCIVAM, FNCUMA, SAF), research bodies (CEMAGREF, INRA), civil society (FNE) and the private sector (Total, ANIA).

This foresight exercise is centred on agriculture. It leaves out both fisheries and forestry, and the agrifood and retail distribution industries are only marginally considered in the exercise. In addition, climate change is only considered for its direct link with energy, that is, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by direct and indirect energy consumption and renewable energy production. Issues relating to biomaterial and bioproduct production have also been considered in the core analysis. Finally, the analysis restricts itself to mainland France because the French overseas territories have very specific agricultural and energy features of their own.

The choice of time frame to 2030 is a trade-off between the desire to capture cyclical effects and the necessity of working with a manageable, not too distant time scale. Within this basic framework, the Agriculture Energy 2030 group identified five components made up of 33 variables relevant to explaining the possible futures of the agriculture-energy system.

A study card was created for each variable to set a number of hypotheses as to its future development. This exploratory work was based on the identification of past trends, emerging trends and the main areas of uncertainty to be considered when looking forward into the future. Proceeding very conventionally, these hypotheses were combined for each component to produce micro-scenarios, which were then combined to generate global scenarios. For greater consistency and to cast a more informative light on the issues surrounding agriculture and energy, the global scenarios were quantified using a model (Climagri) to estimate French farming production, energy consumption and GHG emissions by 2030. These scenarios are not predictions of the future and reflect even less the preferences of the expert group or the French Ministry of Agriculture. They were used as conjectures to alert actors and decision-makers.

A Set of Four Scenarios to Highlight Energy Challenges in Agriculture

Scenario 1: Regionalisation and frugality to confront the crisis

A profound energy crisis undermines conventional business models. The international context is tense and focused on protection of domestic markets. Around 2020, the management of public policies is entrusted to a greater extent to regional authorities, which are seen to be closer to the development issues of their territories. By 2030, the agricultural world has changed profoundly and faces a number of external constraints: energy prices at sustained high levels, a budget crisis and loss of legitimacy of the central government, a withdrawal to home regions and a contraction in international trade. Agriculture adapts as a matter of urgency, employing a strategy focused on the local level, accompanied by major institutional reform.

The growing self-sufficiency of production systems inevitably involves input reduction, more extensive livestock farming and diversification. The search for complementarity between crops and livestock or between types of crops across holdings and regions becomes a general reality. By 2030, this transformation is not harmonised across the French territory and there are major regional disparities. Lower levels of specialisation and production lead to a limited export capacity. French farming makes major cuts in its energy consumption (down by 32%). Renewable energy produced on the farm supplies additional income, but its development depends on local potential and dynamics. Extensive use is made of biomethanation and wood-for-energy, but expansion of biofuels is held back by high agricultural prices.

Scenario 2: Twin-track agriculture and energy realism

Against a backdrop of high energy price volatility and further trade liberalisation, public support for agriculture declines with a refocusing on remuneration for the public goods provided by agriculture. These changes have very different impacts on holdings depending on whether or not they meet local demand for the local supply and provision of public amenities. Two forms of agriculture exist side by side in 2030:

– “Business Farming” (mainly on the plains of the Northern , Western and Central France): these farms manage to be competitive and to position themselves on export markets. Intensification and restructuring result in a high-precision, high-input farming system. Energy use is optimised on these farms as a response to economic drivers. Energy optimisation is benefited by private-sector market supply of technology and counselling services.

– “Multifunctional agriculture”: these farms diversify their activity and are remunerated for the environmental services they provide (water, biodiversity, landscape, carbon storage). Their main activities are extensive livestock, organic and mixed crop-livestock farming. Such holdings adopt strategies focused on self-sufficiency and low energy use close to those in Scenario 1.

Overall, there is little change in energy consumption. Renewable energy production expands moderately, with investments being held back by price volatility. Biofuel production is more strongly developed in integrated and innovative industrial sectors.

Scenario 3: Health-centred agriculture with no major energy constraints

In 2030, urban consumers are more numerous and more influential. With the backing of the large retail chains, they have succeeded in imposing a major reduction in the use of pesticides by agriculture on grounds of the protection of human health rather than protection of the environment. In the absence of major energy constraints and strong environmental policies, urban sprawl continues to expand. Agricultural supply chains are shaped by their downstream components, with quality schemes and mandatory specifications becoming highly prescriptive with regard to reduced pesticide use. Producers adjust more or less. Some sectors are negatively affected by this new constraint. The most isolated rural regions experience significant abandonment of agriculture. Conversely, the major cities invest in periurban farming to meet the demand for open spaces and local food supply. A specialised and technically sophisticated agricultural model involving integrated pest management has developed. It aims at high production levels and at abating pesticide use at the same time. In parallel, organic farming develops significantly. The absence of any major constraint in terms of policy or energy pricing results in a slight fall in overall energy consumption since production inputs are partially substituted by efficiency gains in machinery. The production of biofuels expands strongly, driven by the early arrival of second generation technologies.

Scenario 4: Ecological agriculture and energy savings

Approaching 2015, the need to make sharp reductions in the environmental impact of human activity leads to a consensus both in the developed world and slowly in the emerging countries. European households adapt their consumption patterns out of concern for preservation of the environment and in response to prices that now include the environmental cost of products. The implementation in 2016 of a common EU-US CO2 market with border adjustment mechanisms triggers a massive shift towards ecological modernisation. In this context, agriculture evolves toward new production models with smaller environmental impacts; the trend is supported by a reformed agricultural policy. This change, however, is both difficult and gradual. The initial resistance of the farming world delays the behavioural changes. Major mutations in the whole agri-food system are also required. From 2020 on, French agriculture becomes ‘ecologically intensive’ on the wide cereal-growing plains of the country: for example, crop diversification, general use of nitrogen-fixing crops at the beginning of rotation sequences and no-tillage become common. In hilly and mountainous lands, farmers are paid for environmental services and are encouraged to meet self-sufficiency at the farm (diversified systems based on mixed crop-livestock farming) or across whole regions (complementarity between farms). Biomethanation and renewable energy production are strongly developed.

Future Requirements for Policy

The expert group sketched out ‘come what may’ strategies that can be expected to remain valid in any future context. The use of fertilisers is a core element of energy balance, and the technical means for reducing nitrogen inputs are well known (long crop rotation sequences and diversified crop choices, use of green manure, organic sources of nitrogen and so on). Their general adoption requires awareness-raising and educational efforts directed at the farmers along with networking to support farmers in exchanging experiences. The need for changes may call for the use of strong normative or economic instruments.

The Agriculture Energy 2030 group has highlighted the advantages of biomethanation, on condition that the digestates are correctly recycled. The structuring and development of the relevant sector supply chains are major issues. Digestate centrifugation is one of the most promising avenues because it allows an easily transported solid phase rich in nutrients (ammonia, phosphate, potassium) to be isolated, along with a liquid phase that is rich in nitrogen but which must be used in nearby areas (spreading). Official approval for the products obtained in this way could provide a major boost.

Another advantage of biomethanation is the production of renewable energy (electricity and heat). The existing support schemes for the installation of digesters on farms should be accompanied by biogas purchase prices to offer greater incentives and forward visibility to investors.

Preference for local supply of protein for animal feed was seen as an advantageous strategy. The goal is to reduce the transportation of these inputs through on-farm production or local supply and to give preference to protein sources requiring low levels of inputs for their production. Grass-based livestock farming particularly deserves to be encouraged given its self-sufficiency and the numerous amenities it provides. Strategies aimed at expanding the use of grass in livestock farming and introducing legumes into pastures are of interest and should receive appropriate technical assistance.

Agricultural machinery constitutes a major area for fuel savings and a lever for change, which could be easily used. Investment in proper adjustment and maintenance of tractors, replacement of machinery and reductions in engine power should receive financial support while giving priority to pooled uses. Elimination of the need to till the soil (notably by means of zero-tillage) could be explored for the reduction of fuel consumption. Extensive effort on training and research is, however, required.

Innovation in the organisation of the agricultural sector to improve energy balances across production regions is needed. The group recommends that production systems should be diversified and products traded between holdings. Support would be appropriate for farmers committing to innovative modes of production (e.g., crop-livestock complementarity, organic farming, high environmental value) through proactive policies on land and installations, especially in the most specialised regions. In addition, the provision of technical and financial support for the development of on-farm primary processing of water-rich products could help reduce transport-related energy consumption while at the same time diversifying farmers’ income sources.

There is nevertheless a need to study case by case the energy efficiency and economic viability of this kind of development, which requires major investments and increases farm workload. The development of on-farm storage facilities and conservation technologies helps reduce wastage and thus provides another tool for action. Lastly, there are avenues to be explored for the improvement of the energy performance of short supply chains: delivery pooling, modal transfer, avoidance of empty return trips and so on.

  • The development of renewable energy production must be supported and channelled. Renewable energy, other than biomass can provide additional income, depending on farmers’ investment capacity and local potential. Moderate purchase prices should help avoid excessive speculation and the risk of unbridled development of installations on agricultural land. Where biofuels are concerned, public support should favour the most competitive and best environmentally performing sectors. Such targeting of support would help ensure that budget leeway can be found to increase R&D efforts and assist investment in second-generation technologies. Support of this kind should be made conditional on compliance with demanding sustainability criteria. The rising importance of ligno-cellulosic biofuels will also require sustainable management and the mobilisation of large quantities of biomass. Farm fuel taxation might also be revised in order to offer greater incentives for fuel economy.
  • Reduction of the energy consumption of buildings is a necessity for the high direct energy consuming sectors. Large-scale investment should, for instance, be provided for the modification and effective insulation of buildings, the installation of heat economisers or biomass boilers and for lighting optimisation. Financial support in the form of grants or loans could be provided on condition of complying with thermal standards for buildings. A wide-ranging scheme could be implemented along the same lines as the PMPOA (French programme for the control of pollution of agricultural origin). Lastly, priorities for agronomic research and the dissemination of innovation in agriculture were highlighted. Indeed, considerable uncertainty remains and more knowledge should be gained on indirect energy consumption (especially for animal feedstuffs), end-to-end energy balances in agricultural supply chains, the logistics of agricultural and food products and the energy content of those logistics. In particular, current work on the development of short marketing chains for agricultural products should not neglect this aspect. Generally speaking, comparisons of the energy balances of different agricultural holdings must be continued and improved to help understand discrepan-cies in levels of consumption and energy efficiency in different production systems.

Varietal improvement should focus on the development of high-yield protein crops and less nitrogen-dependant cereals and oilseeds. Alongside this, research into production systems should address low-energy systems (e.g., integrated production, grass-based systems) and alternatives to tillage. Support for organic farming should go hand in hand with research into increased yields and methods for reducing direct energy consumption.

Innovation transfer is the keystone of any successful strategy. Governance of R&D should be broadened, for example, by involving practitioners in the R&D organisations. Developing a network of experimental farms is also essential for the definition and transfer of innovative techniques and technical benchmarks. Lastly, several factors are holding back useful initiatives to sustainably improve the energy efficiency of agricultural holdings and supply chains: energy price volatility, low taxation on energy products in agriculture and lack of knowledge. Efforts to communicate, raise awareness and provide training must accompany any action.

Authors: Thuriane Mahé                               thuriane.mahe@agriculture.gouv.fr

Julien Vert                                      julien.vert@agriculture.gouv.fr

Fabienne Portet                              fabienne.portet@agriculture.gouv.fr

Sponsors: Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries, Rural Affairs and Spatial Planning
Type: National foresight exercise
Organizer: Centre for Studies and Strategic Foresight (CEP)
Duration: Jun 09-Dec10 Budget: N/A Time Horizon: 2030 Date of Brief: July 2011

 

Download EFP Brief No 190_Agriculture and Energy_2030

Sources and References

Vert J., Portet F., (coord.), Prospective Agriculture Énergie 2030. L’agriculture face aux défis énergétiques, Centre d’Études et de Prospective, SSP, Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, 2010 (in French).

Prospective analysis Agriculture Energy 2030 (in English), see http://agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/CEP_Agriculture_Energy_2030_Synthesis_English.pdf.

For further information on this project, see http://agriculture.gouv.fr/agriculture-energie-2030,1440.

EFP Brief No. 189: Foresight for EU-Russia R&D and Innovation Cooperation

Wednesday, August 10th, 2011

R&D and innovation cooperation between the EU, its member states (MS), the countries associated (AC) to the FP7 and Russia is developing dynamically at the multilateral as well as bilateral levels. In this context and within the framework of the EU-FP7 funded ERA.Net RUS project, a foresight exercise is being implemented. Structural and thematic scenarios for a sustainable R&D and innovation cooperation between the countries involved will be developed with the time horizon of 2020. The foresight results will lay the groundwork for a joint R&D and innovation funding programme and will be fed into the policy making process on R&D and innovation cooperation between the EU, the EU MS/AC and Russia.

Russia: Priority on Innovation

Support for innovation has come high on the policy agenda both in the European Union (e.g., Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union) and in Russia (e.g., Skolkovo Innovation Project). While the EU strives to further strengthen its innovative capacities, Russia needs to catch up on innovation and acquire related know-how. At the same time, cooperation in R&D and innovation has been developing dynamically over the past years between Russia, the EU, its member states (MS)[1] and the countries associated (AC)[2] to the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for RTD (FP7). Cooperation is ongoing on a broad scale both multilaterally and bilaterally.

EU-Russia R&D and Innovation Cooperation

At the multilateral EU level, the EU’s Framework Programme for RTD and the EURATOM Framework Programme are the main cooperation forums. Russia has consistently been one of the most active participants in the Framework Programmes (FPs) among all countries not being EU member states or countries associated to the FPs. Through joint calls for RTD projects launched by the EU and Russia within the FPs (“coordinated calls”) in various scientific fields (e.g., aeronautics, nanotechnology, energy, fission, etc.), cooperation has been intensified. Russia has funded its teams participating in these projects using its own national resources. This has strengthened ownership and perceptions of cooperation on a par, a fact especially important for Russia.

The EU and its Member States: Main Partners for Russian R&D

A next step in rapprochement with the EU would be an association of Russia to the Framework Programmes. Russia expressed its interest in becoming associated in 2008, which was inspired by the fact that the EU countries are Russia’s main cooperation partners and is underscored by a policy to internationalise and increase competition within the Russian R&D and innovation system. However, association to the FPs is discussed controversially both in Russia and the EU. Consequently, negotiations have advanced only slowly so far. Meanwhile new cooperation tools are in the process of being established through ERA.Net RUS, a European Research Area Network project (ERA-NET) funded by the EU within the FP7. ERA.Net RUS aims at coordinating bilateral funding programmes and has resulted in calls for R&D as well as innovation projects, which were launched in February and March 2011. These calls are jointly funded and managed by funding bodies of the EU MS/AC and Russia.

In the innovation sphere, the joint EU-Russian initiative of a “modernisation partnership” was agreed upon in spring 2010 between the European Commission President Barroso and the Russian President Medvedev. The partnership’s priority is on facilitating trade and investment and intensifying economic relations. But it also includes innovation, research and development, and space as priority areas.

Bilateral Cooperations with EU Countries

At the bilateral level, Russia has established several joint R&D and innovation funding programmes with European partners. Russia has concluded bilateral science and technology agreements with a broad range of EU member states and countries associated to the FP. According to the Russian Ministry of Education and Science, the Russian Federation has active agreements in place with thirteen out of the twenty-seven EU member states (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom) and with four countries associated to FP7 (Israel, FYR of Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey).[3] Similarly, agreements have been established between research funding institutions, for instance, between the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and its European counterparts. At the level of research organisations, especially the Russian Academy of Sciences has a dense network of cooperation agreements with academies in the EU MS/AC. However, not all of these agreements have resulted in substantial cooperation in the form of joint funding of R&D projects or more comprehensive joint funding programmes.

Opening-up of Russian R&D and Innovation

On the Russian side, we observe a trend towards international cooperation, which is stimulated through various recently introduced programmes. In the field of innovation, President Medvedev’s key project “Skolkovo” will be established with international partners. In the Skolkovo innovation zone, specific privileges for research and business cooperation will be granted to facilitate the development of high-tech businesses. In recent years, Russia has not only started to attract emigrated Russian scientists to work with research groups back in their former home country but is now also actively reaching out to foreign scientists. In June 2010, the Russian Ministry of Education and Science launched the programme “Attracting leading scientists to Russian universities”, which aims at stimulating and internationalising research activities. This scheme comes with solid funding of approximately € 3.5 million per project. The Russian technology platforms represent another recent initiative open for international participation aimed at bridging the gap between academia, industries and government, inspired to a large extent by the European experience.

Inhibitors and Uncertainties of Cooperation

There are, however, serious barriers that hamper cooperation. Bureaucratic procedures, uncertainty about protection of property and intellectual property rights (IPR) together with the unreliability of the judicial system limit the expansion of R&D and especially innovation cooperation. Exchange of scientific material and equipment with Russia is complicated and may be costly because of taxation and customs duties. Lack of funding for joint projects, housing problems and harsh living conditions in Russia are additional factors. Another relevant issue concerns the fact that changes in R&D and innovation are mainly driven by the state. Private business takes only limited initiative in this field on its own. The share of the state budget distributed on a competitive basis (е.g., by R&D financing agencies such as the Russian Foundation for Basic Research) is also stagnating.

The further development of the cooperation process is fraught with uncertainty. While there are positive signals indicating a dynamic development of cooperation, such as new funding schemes within the ERA.Net RUS project, the strengthening of bilateral cooperation and the trend of Russia opening up to cooperation, we also observe some signs of stagnation. This concerns, for example, a lengthy negotiation process about the possible association of Russia to the FP. Moreover, uncertainties surrounding politics in the EU and Russia as well as in the international arena always have the potential for disrupting a further rapprochement.

Foresight to Provide Analytical Basis for Further Cooperation

In this context of developing EU-Russia R&D and innovation relationships, a foresight exercise running from 2010-2012 is being implemented as part of the ERA.Net RUS project. The foresight activities will provide an analytical basis for a future sustainable cooperation policy in R&D and innovation between the EU MS/AC and Russia. At the core of the foresight process is the preparation of structural and thematic scenarios for R&D and innovation cooperation with a time horizon of 2020. The development of this cooperation will be supported through foresight and directed towards addressing social and economic challenges that the EU and Russia both must face in the future.

The ERA.Net RUS project consortium is composed of funding agencies interested in joint support schemes for R&D and innovation between the EU MS/AC and Russia. Moreover, the consortium includes research organisations experienced in foresight research as well as in research on EU S&T policy and on the Russian and international S&T systems. The ERA.Net RUS foresight task is coordinated by the Centre for Social Innovation (ZSI) in Austria. Institutions collaborating on this foresight exercise are the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), located in Spain, the Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Moscow and the International Centre for Innovations in Science, Technology and Education (ICISTE) in Russia.

In the first phase of the ERA.Net RUS project from 2009-2010, the project consortium performed substantial analytical work. A broad range of reports was prepared, dealing with the Russian S&T system and its funding, with Russian participation in ERA.Nets and with bilateral cooperation. The analyses were supported by a focus group meeting with scientists, which assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the Russian S&T funding system. In addition, a comprehensive survey was conducted among all relevant European and Russian funding organisations to take stock of the bilateral R&D and innovation funding instruments that are already in place. (Links to the documents are provided in the section Sources and References below.)

Search for Promising Fields and Institutional Solutions

This preparatory work provided solid foundations and valuable input for the foresight exercise. A planning workshop was held in September 2010 with the partner institutions involved. The planning had to take into account the two-pronged approach to be applied in the ERA.Net RUS foresight: On the one hand, a structural scenario was to be elaborated, focusing on institutional solutions and instruments for strengthening the cooperation. The scenario was to suggest options for a sustainable joint funding programme between the EU MS/AC and Russia to support R&D and innovation. On the other hand, a thematic foresight was to be conducted to single out promising thematic fields for cooperative efforts to advance science and innovation.

The next step of the exercise was a “creativity workshop” held at IPTS in December 2010 to give room to discuss the critical variables and define the dimensions of the structural scenarios of cooperation. A joint scenario grid was established and scenarios located in the grid. On this basis, five small expert groups developed different scenarios and sketched out first scenario descriptions.

The structural scenario development will be continued by elaborating four selected scenarios in more detail. The foresight partners will outline one optimistic, one pessimistic and two intermediate scenarios through storytelling. Expert workshops with policy makers, representatives of funding organisations and researchers will then be conducted to validate the scenarios and flesh them out in more detail. The workshops will be linked to expert group meetings on international S&T cooperation at the EU level and to a meeting of funding agencies involved in the ERA.Net RUS calls (“The Group of ERA.Net RUS Funding Parties”).

In addition, expert interviews with policy makers will support the scenario development process. The interviews will be relevant, in particular, for the structural set-up of cooperation.

The scenario workshops will provide discursive spaces for policy makers, experts and researchers in R&D and innovation cooperation and thus promote building partnerships among the stakeholders involved by facilitating the exchange of information and the identification of converging and diverging views on the structural set-up and thematic orientation of R&D and innovation cooperation. The ERA.Net RUS project setting greatly facilitates access to these experts: policy makers as well as relevant experts of the funding organisations are participating in the project and are therefore committed to supporting the foresight exercise. In the analytical phase of the project, all relevant funding organisations involved in R&D and innovation cooperation between the regions were questioned on their bilateral cooperation. These experts have been made aware of the project and will also be involved in the foresight-related surveys.

In parallel to the structural scenario development, thematic priorities relevant for both the EU MS/AC and Russia will be singled out through a meta-analysis of thematic foresight studies conducted for the EU, in selected EU member states and in Russia. An online survey will be implemented subsequently, which will address European and Russian scientists to validate and refine the thematic priorities for future EU-Russia R&D and innovation cooperation. First results indicate that there is wide agreement on the relevance of such broad topics as energy, transport, health and nanotechnologies.

The elaborated structural and thematic scenarios will then be tested employing a Delphi survey. Delphi expert questioning will be applied to assess the probability and desirability of the resulting scenarios as well as their relevance for value creation, policy development and R&D advancement. Finally, both the structural scenarios and thematic priorities identified will be tested again by involving relevant stakeholder groups.

Expected Advice for Future Policy Making

The foresight results will be fed into the policy making process on R&D and innovation cooperation between EU member states, the countries associated to FP7 and Russia. The results will provide the basis for developing a joint R&D and innovation funding programme and for coordinating R&D and innovation efforts to more successfully face the common social and economic challenges of tomorrow. This can be expected to provide highly relevant input for ERA.Net RUS follow-up activities once the calls and projects funded within this framework will have been implemented and the project will be nearing its end at the beginning of 2013. In this context, the new EU funding programme Horizon 2020 and the new Russian major public funding programme scheduled for 2013/14 must be considered critical factors affecting the scenarios. The opportunities they offer for EU-Russia R&D and innovation cooperation and for Russia to become associated to parts of the EU funding programme will influence the scenarios of cooperation and funding.

The scenarios will be presented in a report, and a conference will serve to disseminate them to policy-makers and other stakeholders. An action plan to establish a joint programme will offer concrete options for implementation.

[1] Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom

[2] Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Faroe Islands, FYR of Macedonaia, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey

[3] See www.mon.gov.ru, last accessed 1 April 2011. Previously existing active agreements with Austria, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland are currently in the process of renewal.

Authors: Manfred Spiesberger                          spiesberger@zsi.at

Klaus Schuch                                    schuch@zsi.at

Vicente Carabias-Barcelo                  vicente.carabias-barcelo@ec.europa.eu

Karel Haegeman                                karel-herman.haegeman@ec.europa.eu

Alexander Sokolov                             sokolov@hse.ru

Sponsors: European Union, Seventh Framework Programme for RTD (FP7) – ERA.Net RUS project
Type: International FTA exercise
Organizer: Centre for Social Innovation, Manfred Spiesberger, spiesberger@zsi.at – ERA.Net RUS foresight task coordinator
Duration: 2010-2012 Budget: ~€ 400k Time Horizon: 2020 Date of Brief: June 2011  

 

Download EFP Brief No 189_EU-Russia RD Cooperation

Sources and References

ERA.Net RUS analytical reports (accessible at the project website www.eranet-rus.eu):

  • The Russian S&T system (2010)
  • The Russian S&T funding system from the perspective of international cooperation (2010)
  • State of the art and perspectives of bilateral S&T programmes between EU MS/AC and Russia (2010)
  • Experiences from Russian participation in ERA-NETs and from ongoing international ERA-NETs (2010)

EFP Brief No. 181: Technologies for EU Minerals Supply

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

This exercise was part of an EU FP7 Blue Skies Project aimed at piloting, developing and testing in real situations a foresight methodology designed to bring together key stakeholders for the purpose of exploring longer term challenges and building a shared vision that could guide the development of the relevant European research agenda. This approach was applied to the theme of “Breakthrough technologies for the security of supply of critical minerals and metals in the EU economy”.

The Minerals Challenge

Minerals and metals are essential to almost every aspect of modern life and every economic sector. Aerospace, agriculture, culture, defence, energy, environmental protection, health, housing, transport and water supply are all highly dependent upon them. Plans for economic recovery and the development of new industries also depend on their availability – for example “green” energy production from solar cells and wind turbines, the green car of tomorrow and many more all require a range of rare minerals and metals for their production.

Although essential to our economies, development of this sector has been neglected in Western Europe during the past 25 years. This was mainly because of the very low price of these commodities – a consequence of abundant reserves discovered in the 1970s. As a result, the mining and metallurgical industry as well as related research and education almost disappeared from the present European Union, making our economies totally dependent upon imports.

Demand for these minerals and metals is likely to increase dramatically. Much of this new demand will come from rapidly growing, highly populated emerging countries, such as China, which have attracted large parts of the world industrial production due to cheap labour, regardless of raw minerals and energy issues. Already strong competition for access to natural resources, including mineral resources vital to any economy, is likely to accelerate further in the coming years with possible severe environmental and social impacts. The EU economy is more than any other exposed to these developments, as it produces very little of the minerals it consumes and almost none of the critical minerals it needs to develop its green technologies.

Against this background, the creation of a new research and innovation context in Europe has become essential, not only to reduce the EU’s dependence on imported minerals and metals but also to chart the road ahead, to develop a win-win cooperation with developing countries and to stimulate the competitiveness of EU technology, products and service providers to the global economy.

However, these solutions can take a long time to be implemented, and it is important to identify today’s priorities for knowledge generation and innovation so that action can begin. This in turn creates a need for a foresight approach that brings together the knowledge and interests of the main stakeholders. It is in this context that the FarHorizon project invited leading experts in the area from government agencies, industry and academia to take part in a success scenario workshop. The aims of the exercise were

  • to identify the key challenges for raw materials supply in Europe;
  • to identify breakthrough technologies or other innovations that could transform the picture, including substitution, new sources, ways to change demand and new applications; and
  • to define in broad terms the research and innovation strategies needed to develop and make use of such technologies.

Success Scenario Approach

The “Success Scenario Approach” is an action-based approach where senior stakeholders develop a shared vision of what success in the area would look like, together with appropriate goals and indicators, which provide the starting point for developing a roadmap to get there. The purpose of having such a vision of success is to set a ‘stretch target’ for all the stakeholders. The discussion and debate forming an integral part of the process leads to developing a mutual understanding and a common platform of knowledge that helps to align the actors for action.

Important outcomes of these workshops are the insights they provide in terms of the level of maturity in policy design and development and the viability and robustness of long-term policy scenarios to guide policy-making. The workshops also provide indications on whether there is a need for further discussion to refine thinking and policy design and/or to bring additional stakeholders into the discussion.

The theme was developed in partnership with the French geosciences institution BRGM. The workshop brought together twenty representatives of scientific organisations, industry and government agencies to identify the role of technology in addressing the socioeconomic and political challenges facing Europe in this sector. Briefs on key issues were prepared before the workshop, and participants took part in an exercise to identify key drivers using the STEEPV framework (social, technological, environmental, economic, political and values). Common themes were increasing demand and growing sustainability requirements. Geopolitical themes were also touched upon.

The basic structure was to identify the key challenges facing the sector and then to explore the potential role of breakthrough technologies in addressing those challenges. A third main session examined the key elements needed for a sectoral strategy for innovation.

The figure below gives an outline of the methodology:

Challenges in Three Dimensions

Informed by the drivers, participants were tasked to identify the key challenges for raw materials supply in Europe and to prioritise these. If these challenges can be met, we can expect to achieve a situation as defined by the successful vision for the sector in 2030 and realise its benefits to Europe. Three dimensions of the challenge were addressed:

Geology and Minerals Intelligence

  1. Access to data on mining, production and geology
  2. Knowledge of deeper resources
  3. Better knowledge due to improved models of how deposits are produced
  4. Better exploration
  5. Systematic data sharing
  6. Exploitation of ‘exhausted’ mines

Mining, Ore Processing and Metallurgy

  1. Exploiting deeper deposits
  2. Accessing seabed deposits
  3. Better health and safety; prediction of seismic events and natural or man-made hazards
  4. Using less water and energy
  5. Reducing CO2 footprint
  6. By-product handling
  7. Social and business organisation

Sustainable Use, Efficiency, Recycling and Re-use

  1. Downstream resource efficiency
  2. Better citizens’ understanding/attitude
  3. Building capabilities and providing training
  4. Transforming waste into mines/urban mining
  5. More systemic view of different critical minerals
  6. Better use of other resources, e.g. water and energy
  7. Global governance of new extractive activities

Against these challenges, breakthroughs were sought in four areas: new applications, substitution, new sources of materials and rare metals, and changes in demand.

Four Key Actions toward a Comprehensive Policy for Securing Raw Materials Supply

Policy recommendations geared toward securing the supply of raw materials in Europe were summarised in terms of four necessary key actions:

Key Action 1: Establish an integrated strategy for raw materials supply and support it by providing continuous funding.

Research in the area of raw materials supply needs to be clearly linked to creating the right conditions for successful innovation. There is some concern that the European Commission has no competence in minerals as such but rather in matters of environmental protection, trade or economic competitiveness. This limits the development of a holistic, complementary approach needed to tackle the various issues related to securing Europe’s mineral resources supply within the sustainable development context. The sector needs a more horizontal approach – otherwise we may do research, but there is no innovation behind it. An innovation-friendly market can be created by developing stringent environmental and recycling regulations. Europe is at the forefront of a number of technologies in these areas. Regulators need to understand that part of their job is to stimulate innovation if not for today at least for tomorrow. Engaging them in foresight, along with technologists and users, is important for developing this horizon. There is a 7-8 year challenge to develop a new lead market.

Key Action 2: Move from stop and go to a lasting approach with three central aspects for a research, technology and innovation programme.

Support up to now has been project-based and provided only to a limited extent on a stop and go basis while continuous policies and knowledge development would be necessary.

2.1 There are three broad research priorities:

  • Research dealing with mineral resources intelligence. This is research of a totally different kind, i.e. mainly interdisciplinary. It is needed to keep up with a dynamic situation where even what minerals and metals are critical changes over time.
  • Research leading to new or better technologies with a focus upon whatever is needed by industry. The large scale South Korean national initiatives provide a good example of speed, scale and pragmatism and also represent the competition that Europe has to face. The US investment on rare earths in the Ames laboratory is another example.
  • Research on mitigation and understanding of environmental impacts.

2.2 Adopt a holistic approach to the innovation cycle. Support for research should be long-term and structured so that most publicly funded research is open and shared internationally. The full range of mechanisms is needed: basic R&D, integrated projects or their equivalent and joint technology initiatives. However, 80% of the effort should be in large applied projects and the rest focused on longer term work. Partnership with the US, Japan and possibly South Korea could be meaningful in a number of areas.

2.3 Adopt a joint programming approach. Currently there is little or no coordination between European-level and national research. Some governments are in a position to take the initiative in this area – notably Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Finland and Poland.

Key Action 3: Increase the flow of trained people.

A supply of trained people is a significant constraint. The lack of investment in research and teaching in this area over the past 20 years has depleted the availability of expertise to undertake the necessary research and teaching. Training initiatives are needed and within the European framework a pool of excellence should be developed – a platform that coordinates the supply and demand for education and training in the area with some elements being in competition and some complementary. There is also a need to attract interest from researchers outside the area; many of those doing research in this field have a background in the minerals sector, but breakthroughs may be more likely to come from people currently working in other fields.

Key Action 4: Governance issues are critical.

Securing raw materials is a task that goes beyond the competence and capability of the individual member states and is inherently European. Even current European initiatives in other fields are dependent on action in this sector – rare metals are behind all the EU’s proposed Innovation Partnerships. Collaboration beyond Europe is also necessary, but a collective voice for Europe is more likely to be heard in the international arena. There are also opportunities to exert a positive influence to halt environmentally damaging or politically dangerous approaches in other parts of the world, notably in Africa and parts of the CIS. The momentum from the current EU Raw Materials Initiative, aiming to foster and secure supplies and to promote resource efficiency and recycling, needs to be carried forward into the EU’s Eighth Framework Programme, its innovation policies and also its wider policies including those concerning interaction with the African, Caribbean and Pacific States.

Authors: Luke Georghiou luke.georghiou@mbs.ac.uk, Jacques Varet j.varet@brgm.fr, Philippe Larédo philippe.laredo@enpc.fr
Sponsors: EU Commission
Type: EU-level single issue foresight exercise
Organizer: FP7 FarHorizon Project Coordinator: MIOIR, Luke Georghiou Luke.georghiou@mbs.ac.uk
Duration: Sept 08-Feb11 Budget: N/A Time Horizon: 2030 Date of Brief: Apr 2011

 

Download EFP Brief No. 181_Technologies for EU Minerals Supply

Sources and References

Georghiou, L., Varet, J. and Larédo P. (2011), Breakthrough technologies: For the security of supply of critical minerals and metals in the EU, March 2011, http://farhorizon.portals.mbs.ac.uk

European Commission (2010), “Critical Raw Materials for the EU”, Report of the RMSG Ad Hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials, June 2010

European Commission (2011), Tackling the Challenges in Commodity Markets and on Raw Materials, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, 02/02/2011 COM(2011) 0025 final