Transcript WS2 Tilche_ECRN Andrea Tilche

Andrea Tilche
European Commission
DG Research
Head of the Unit « Environmental
Technologies and Pollution Prevention »
Science Technology and Innovation
in the chemicals sector:
the role of SusChem
1
Why does R&D matter?
• 3% Action Plan (2003);
• Each Member State has set its own
target for increased R&D intensity;
• Green Paper on ERA (2007);
2
The landscape is
changing
3
World shares of expenditure on R&D
90
1993
2005
80
15.9
70
13.0
60
50
%
38.4
34.4
40
30
11.4
20
29.1
3.5
25.0
10.1
10
12.7
2.9
3.6
0
EU-27 (1)
US
JP
CN
KR
Others
4
Exports of High - tech products
30
25
US
20
EU-27
%
(1)
CN
15
10
JP
KR
5
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
5
China leads computing exports
30
CN
25
20
US
% 15
10
(1)
EU-27
JP
5
KR
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
6
EU R&D-intensity remains at
structural lower level
7
Stagnating R&D intensity in the EU
3,5
JP
KR
3,0
R&D intensity (GERD as % of GDP)
US
2,5
2,0
EU-27
EU-25
1,5
CN
RU
1,0
0,5
0,0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
8
Although some MS recorded
impressive progress
4,0
FI
3,5
Progress not
monopoly of
‘catching-up’
countries
(e.g.CZ)
DE
DK
2,5
%
Also high R&D
intensive
countries were
able to further
increase their
high R&D
intensity
3,0
2,0
AT
EU-27
EU-25
CZ
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
9
R&D intensity: 4 groups of countries
12
Catching up
Pulling ahead
CY
10
EE
Growth of R&D intensity, 2000-2005
8
6
LT
LV
HU
4
ES
AT
CZ
IE
2
PT
RO
DK
IT
FI
DE
0
NL
EL
LU
BG
PL
-2
EU-27 FR
BE
SE
UK
SI
-4
SK
MT
Losing momentum
Falling behind
-6
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
R&D intensity in 2005
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
10
Distance-to-target for each individual Member
State
Sweden
Finland
Germany
Denmark
Austria
France
Belgium
Netherlands
UK
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
Ireland
Slovenia
Spain
Italy
Estonia
Hungary
Portugal
Lithuania
Greece
Malta
Latvia
Poland
Slovakia
Cyprus
Romania
EU-27 (1)
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
Situation in 2005
2,0
2,5
Target 2010
3,0
3,5
4,0
11
The gap is mainly in
the private sector
12
Is low R&D-intensity a
result of lack of dynamism
of EU’s industrial
structure ?
13
• 85% gap is due to low business
investment
• structural differences between EU-US
– medium-tech industries dominate in
the EU
14
Sectoral composition of
R&D in EU and US (2005)
15
BERD
(Business
enterprise
expenditure on
R&D)
and
Value
Added
16
BERD as % of Value
Added
17
BERD of SMEs
However, R&D intensity
is 0.34% in the EU and
0.68% (the double) in
the US
18
Substantial differences in growth
path of high-tech SME’s …
Share of World top 1000 Companies (in terms of market
capitalisation) created since 1980
25%
20%
70% of these US
large Cies created
after 1980 are active
in ICT sectors
15%
10%
5%
0%
EU
US
19
Public and private
R&D are fully
complementary
20
1,2
IS
IL
Countries with
high involvement
of private sector
in funding of R&D
have also the
highest levels of
governmentfunded R&D
GERD financed by government (as % of GDP)
1,0
SE
AT
FI
FR
0,8
DE
NO
DK
CH
NL EU-27
0,6
CZ
HR
UK
IT
LT
PT
0,4
TR
PL
BG
EL
CY
HU
BE
ES
IE
EE
SI
SK
LV
LU
RO
0,2
MT
0,0
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
GERD financed by business sector (as % of GDP)
21
Research Excellence:
EU remains second
behind the US, but
scores relatively well
in traditional
disciplines
22
Research excellence: the EU is world’s first
producer of scientific knowledge
38,1
39,3
EU-25
32,8
33,6
US
8,7
9,4
Japan
6,4
China (2)
3,8
4,5
4,4
0
Canada
2,9
2,8
Australia
2,8
3,6
Russia
2,7
1,7
Republic of Korea
2,4
2,0
India
1,8
1,8
Sw itzerland
1,7
1,3
Brazil
1,6
1,3
Taiw an
1,2
1,3
Israel
5
10
15
20
2000
25
2004
30
35
40
45
23
Citation
index
24
However, …
Other parts of the
world are getting to
be more specialised
in chemistry
25
Knowledge flows from
Science to
Technology weaker in
the EU
26
Technological innovations rely more
on US science than on EU science
70,0
64,2
60,0
This graph:
53,4
Share of EU and US
scientific publications
cited in biotech patents
50,0
%
40,0
Data in other
technological fields show
similar patterns
29,8
30,0
22,3
20,0
EU-25
US
EU-25
US
10,0
0,0
EPO patents
USPTO patents
27
From Science to hightech, high-growth
industries: the case of
nanotechnology
28
Public funding of nanotech R&D
similar or higher than competitors
Figure I.6.1 Public and private funding of nanotechnology R&D, 2006
4000
3500
3000
US$ (millions)
1150
1931
2500
2000
1704
1500
1490
500
631
1000
1275
500
975
1091
Japan
Others
665
0
EU
US
EC / US federal
Gove rnm ent
Private
29
Nanotech companies are bigger
in the US
Average size of Nanotech companies in leading countries
(turnover in US$ million)
30
How to reverse this
trend?
• INNOVATION is the only European asset
that can make the difference
• Open innovation schemes
• More investments in high-tech sectors
• Start-up programmes in Universities
linked to chemical entrepreneurship
programmes
• Promotion of Public-Private-Partnerships
• Better exploitation of funding
opportunities along the innovation
chain
• Focus on excellence – clusters and
regions
31
Technology platforms: a key
instrument for a new
competitiveness policy
• They build strategic partnerships between the public and
private sector, the academia, the civil society
• Through this, they should reduce the risk in investing on
research, creating a better environment for the increase of
private investments
• They provide roadmaps for planning “incremental”
innovation
• They act as fora for strategic thinking towards “radical”
innovation
• And improve the diffusion of sustainable technologies also
suggesting how to overcome regulatory barriers, to define
new procurement rules, economic instruments, etc.
32
How Technology
Platforms may
contribute to FP7
• Technology Platforms are generating the political
momentum for a stronger industrial participation
in the Framework Programme
• Several TPs, among which the SusChem, are
cited in the FP and in the SP text as one of the
sources of the FP7 research agenda
• Major contributions are given in the phase of
preparation of the work programmes
33
The importance of
SusChem
• It was able to mobilise stakeholders around key
objectives
• It produced important and substantial
documents, from the vision, to the strategic
research agenda, to the implementation plan
• It should evolve through a more capillar
organisation at national/regional level, in order to
better involve SMEs and local actors
• It should extend its scope towards innovation
leadership issues (possible recommendation from
the HLG)
34
Thanks for your attention!
[email protected]