Science Technology and Innovation in the chemicals sector: the role of SusChem

1. Andrea Tilche European Commission DG Research Head of the Unit « Environmental Technologies and Pollution Prevention » Science Technology and Innovationin the chemicals sector:the role of SusChem

2. 3% Action Plan (2003); Each Member State has set its own target for increased R&D intensity; Green Paper on ERA (2007); Why does R&D matter?

3. The landscape is changing

4. World shares of expenditure on R&D 90 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 1993 2005

5. 30 25 US 20 (1) EU-27 CN 15 % 10 JP KR 5 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Exports of High - tech products

6. 30 CN 25 20 US % 15 10 (1) EU-27 JP 5 KR 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 China leads computing exports

7. EU R&D-intensity remains at structural lower level

8. Stagnating R&D intensity in the EU

9. Although some MS recorded impressive progress Progress not monopoly of ‘catching-up’ countries (e.g.CZ) Also high R&D intensive countries were able to further increase their high R&D intensity

10. R&D intensity: 4 groups of countries

11. 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 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 Situation in 2005 Target 2010 Distance-to-target for each individual Member State

12. The gap is mainly in the private sector

13. Is low R&D-intensity a result of lack of dynamism of EU’s industrial structure ?

14. 85% gap is due to low business investment structural differences between EU-US – medium-tech industries dominate in the EU

15. Sectoral composition of R&D in EU and US (2005)

16. BERD(Business enterprise expenditure on R&D)and Value Added

17. BERD as % of Value Added

18. BERD of SMEs However, R&D intensity is 0.34% in the EU and 0.68% (the double) in the US

19. Share of World top 1000 Companies (in terms of market capitalisation) created since 1980 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% EU US Substantial differences in growth path of high-tech SME’s … 70% of these US large Cies created after 1980 are active in ICT sectors

20. Public and private R&D are fully complementary

21. Countries with high involvement of private sector in funding of R&D have also the highest levels of government-funded R&D

22. Research Excellence: EU remains second behind the US, but scores relatively well in traditional disciplines

23. Research excellence: the EU is world’s first producer of scientific knowledge

24. Citation index

25. However, … Other parts of the world are getting to be more specialised in chemistry

26. Knowledge flows from Science to Technology weaker in the EU

27. Technological innovations rely more on US science than on EU science This graph: Share of EU and US scientific publications cited in biotech patents Data in other technological fields show similar patterns

28. From Science to high-tech, high-growth industries: the case of nanotechnology

29. Public funding of nanotech R&D similar or higher than competitors

30. Nanotech companies are bigger in the US Average size of Nanotech companies in leading countries (turnover in US$ million)

31. 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 How to reverse this trend?

32. 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. Technology platforms: a key instrument for a new competitiveness policy

33. 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 How Technology Platforms may contribute to FP7

34. 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) The importance of SusChem

35. Thanks for your attention! andrea.tilche@ec.europa.eu