not the least in the climate change and competition for land use (noncompeting) business models for utilisation of a perspectives. Here, the development and choice of optimal technolo- common knowledge/innovation platforms might be a socio-econom- gies and exploitation strategies should be targeted towards capture of ically valuable example of open innovation. One example could the highest value from each biomass component. Further development be the complementary utilisation of the different value streams from and implementation of advanced bio-refi nery strategies would help to bio-refi nery platforms. secure all economically viable value streams from forestry biomass. In order to balance the increased complexity (including management INSTRUMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION issues) in multidisciplinary approaches with the need to focus the Three types of research and innovation work exist: basic science, research and innovation activities to have timely outputs, a two-tier applied science, and valorisation. All three should work around the strategy might be useful. Here, the interface between the two tiers great challenges ahead. For basic science, this should simply trans- should be at the transition from mode-of-action (delivered primarily late into the defi nition of areas. For applied science (the trans-forma- from basic and applied research) and proof-of-concept (development tion of knowledge into new lead technologies), it should be critically via innovation and demonstration activities). If implemented via two assessed by multi-criteria decision methods, including both economic different instruments they should be closely coordinated and allow feasibility and technical practicability. For valorisation (aimed at the for both parallel and sequential projects while maintaining the con- development of fi rst-of-a-series), a new set of instruments should be nectivity between the two instruments. devised with special emphasis on SMEs. In the interface between scientifi c risk assessment and research and innovation management In the overall picture, the three dimensions of the Horizon 2020 better tools and processes should be developed to connect risk proposal (excellent science, industrial leadership, and societal assessments with risk/benefi t analyses in order to improve commu- challenges) provide a relevant approach which, however, requires nication, transparency and intervention strategies with and towards different instruments to secure optimal societal value creation from concerned stakeholders. research and innovation investments in each dimension. Especially for the societal challenge, the pronounced need for multidisciplinary The complexity of this challenge and the associated multi-directional and cross-cutting approaches emphasises the necessity for develop- value chain from primary production to the needs and opportuni- ment of new and appropriate instruments without increasing the ties from climate, environment, energy and food/feed/health administrative burden. For this purpose the Commission may fi nd perspectives calls for a multidisciplinary and cross-cutting research useful models and concepts already implemented in member states, and innovation approach. This would address and support the such as instruments for academia-industry collaboration including multidirectional value chain potentials from the interactions between both research and innovation. Here, examples could be the Top agriculture sensu lato and health, climate, environment, energy and Institute model (the Netherlands), the CTI model (Switzerland) and transport perspectives. Such an approach would have the potential the recent SPIR model (Denmark) – and also concepts in the EIT/KIC to solve holistic problems much faster than is observed today – and initiative would be relevant. would require larger projects with more partners, more stakeholder involvement, and longer funding periods. Parallel to the holistic ap- Effi ciency requires reduced bureaucracy both in the calls and in proach, clusters of projects grouped around one societal need with the administration of projects. For basic research, larger and more more modest numbers of partners and funding volume need to be long-term programmes (e.g. centres of excellence) involving multiple defi ned. This is especially true for valorisation, where projects with partners could be a more effi cient option – which however has not large numbers of participants are impossible. The applied research been realised until now. Regardless, there is a strong need to reform area can be a mix of both project types. the system in a way that would ease the funding process and at the same time maintain suffi cient quality control of granted projects. Thus, this model combines longer-term projects including a large Procedures should be simplifi ed and diversifi ed over fundamental proportion of fundamental research (and large stakeholders), with and applied sciences, and valorisation. The ERC is known for much projects aimed at translating knowledge and technology platforms slimmer administration processes and it is recommended that the Ho- into innovation activities (including concept implementation and rizon 2020 challenges programme strive to adopt a similar practice. application development) with shorter time-to-market profi les. Such projects could help accelerate innovation activities in general and Stakeholders need to be involved not only in terms of dissemination more specifi cally through higher participation of smaller stakehold- and impact but at all stages of the research. Stakeholders should ers (SMEs, or better: companies up to 500 FTE). Here the possibility include NGOs and the voluntary sector as well as representatives of developing clusters of companies having complementary of government and food and agroindustry who could be involved 36
crf_rapport_rgb_singlepage
To see the actual publication please follow the link above