Final Report Summary - TOBE2014 (Organisation of the EU Bioeconomy Stakeholders Conference - Turin 2014) Executive Summary:The 3rd European Bioeconomy Stakeholders' Conference entitled "From sectors to system, from concept to reality" was organized by the Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union in close cooperation with the European Commission, in Turin on October 8 and 9, 2014. This conference was the continuation of the cycle of Bioeconomy Stakeholders’ Conferences previously held in Copenhagen, in 2012, under the Danish Presidency, and then in Dublin, in 2013, during the Irish Presidency.The main goal of the Conference was to move from strategy to implementation, paving the way for a successful deployment of the Bioeconomy in Europe, fostering an understanding of the bioeconomy as an inter-connected system, to inspire and enable different actors to take further concrete actions and to consolidate its perception as a strategic priority in the current scenario. Building on the main conclusions of the Dublin Conference, this event aimed to debate and in-depth analyze the following areas: • Primary Production: the role of agriculture, forestry and marine resources, Agro-food by-products and waste as additional biomass sources; • Biomass Transformation and Integrated Biorefineries: unlocking the value of natural resources (biorefineries and high added value products; Bioeconomy and food security) and technology integration; • Horizontal key elements needed for a strong Bioeconomy in Europe (Public Private Partnerships, Venture capital and Private investments, non-technological Research Innovation barriers/issues);• Innovation and key supporting measures; • Implementation tools at national and regional level.Over 70 prominent experts intervened in the 18 panel sessions and almost 350 participants have actively taken part in the Conference and many others followed the live streaming. Key stakeholders such as government officials, industry players, NGOs, students, researchers, regional administrators, EU representatives, farmers and their cooperatives, trade unions representatives discussed together important aspects of the European bioeconomy sector and reached important scientific results. Visits to the Conference website during the months following the conference showed a great interest on the subject matter.The following side events have been accepted as part of the programme of the conference:• Startupping in the Bioeconomy organised by Assobiotec-Federchimica, University of Torino, Regione Piemonte, Unione Industriali di Torino, EXPO TO 2015;• FACCE-JPI Governing Board meeting & SCAR meeting “What are the barriers for a growing bioeconomy?” • OECD event: Present and future policy for bio-based production • 2nd Bioeconomy Observatory Stakeholders Roundtable organized by the DG JRC• ERA-NET PLATFORM Outcomes & Outlook workshop• Open day of Matrìca plants in Porto Torres organized by Matrica spa Among them, of particular importance for its relevance and for the role in the dissemination of the Conference results, have been the workshop “The role and impact of science and technology policies on bio-based chemicals and bio-plastics” organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that was held on the last day of the conference and was hosted in the same venue.Project Context and Objectives:On 13 February 2012, the European Commission released a Communication to the European Parliament and the European Council on “Innovating for Sustainable Growth: a Bioeconomy for Europe”. This Communication introduced a Strategy and Action Plan to develop a strong Bioeconomy which will help Europe to live within its limits ensuring sustainable exploitation of biological resources thus allowing the production of more from less. As one of the operational proposals under the Innovation Union and Resource – efficient Europe flagships of the Europe 2020 strategy and Horizon 2020, its main goal is to support the development of the Bioeconomy in Europe throughout specific research activities and programmes launched by the EU and Member States and dissemination and awareness campaign. In this respect the Strategy stresses that participatory models that engage citizens and end-users in order to reinforce the relationship between science, society and policy making are needed. More informed dialogues will in fact allow science and innovation to provide a sound basis for policy making and informed societal choices, while taking into account legitimate societal concerns and needs in the Bioeconomy. A large majority of Europeans agree that science and technology will offer more opportunities for future generations. Yet, a significant information gap between science and society still exists. Citizens need to be engaged in an open and informed dialogue throughout the research and innovation process. They need to be provided with reliable insight into the benefits and risks of innovative technologies and existing practices, and more ample opportunities to debate new findings and their implications. Furthermore, citizens have to be provided with more information about product properties and the impacts of consumption patterns and lifestyle (for instance on the issue of waste), in order to enable responsible and informed choices. Finally, citizens need to be made aware of the opportunities of social innovation and be encouraged to take initiatives. In this framework, between 2012 and 2013, a series of events and Conferences took place both in Brussels and in some of the Member States and several important policy documents were developed at community level. On the 27th March 2012 the first “Bioeconomy Stakeholders Conference” was held in Copenhagen under the Danish Presidency of the EU. Main Conference recommendations, which were elaborated after a fruitful two days discussion with actors from all sectors of the Bioeconomy from Europe and beyond, can be resumed as follows: • to integrate the concept of the Bioeconomy into European policies; • to create a level playing field for the different uses of biomass – such as food, feed, bio-based products and bio-energy – by reviewing incentives and regulatory frameworks; • to create a new partnership between all stakeholders such as citizens, consumers, academia, industries, primary producers, and policy makers; • to continue and implement the activity of the Lead Market Initiative (LMI) and support market pull measures to enhance market uptake of innovative bio-based products; • to embrace the importance of resource efficiency and sustainability, especially regarding soil, water and biodiversity; • to develop common standards for life cycle assessments as well as agreed methodologies for sustainability criteria; • to underline importance of a dedicated PPP/JTI to foster the development of new pilot and demonstration plants and scaling up facilities, in particularly biorefineries. The Conference showcased the most important Bioeconomy initiatives ongoing in several Member States, and the key role of national strategies to leverage on the Bioeconomy potential of local areas. One year later, In February 2013, the European Commission in collaboration with the Irish Presidency hosted the second Stakeholder Conference entitled “Bioeconomy in the EU: achievements and directions for the future”. The following key messages for a Bioeconomy strategy were addressed and debated with civil society, industry, academia and legislators from all over Europe: • multidisciplinary approaches and cross-cutting research are necessary to support growth and innovation in all the Bioeconomy sectors, as more and better integrated skills can permit to better understand the complexities involved, and then to innovate, adopt new technologies, attract investment, and compete in new markets by maintaining the local know-how and competences; • an effective dialogue between industry, academia and end-users are essential to close the industrial research-market gap and maximize the knowledge-based development potential of local regions in the different Bioeconomy sectors; • better knowledge on and a better exploitation of the tools and financial resources made available at EU level; • a stronger policy coordination in a top-to-bottom approach at national, regional and local level is essential at the Member States and Regions levels, to develop national and regional Bioeconomy strategies based on each country, region, industry and stakeholder’s own particular strengths; • a continuous communication and involvement of a broad range of stakeholders in a societal dialogue and the society at large, also via dedicated Panel and stakeholders' dialogue platforms, are essential to ensure legitimate societal concerns are taken into account; • public procurements, novel and tailored efficiency and product quality standards and regulations are necessary for the European Union, Member States and Regions to boost bio-based products and processes. However, smart solutions and innovative technologies to intensify productivity and guarantee a degree of profitability for all the actors along the value chain, and thus the long-term viability of the system as a whole, are also necessary. A mix of existing skills and occupations (e.g. farming, fishing, etc.) have to be integrated and complemented by new high-and low-tech skills in a range of bio-refining and bio-processing technologies. Consequently, educational curricula at the Master and PhD levels have to be revised to meet the demands of the bio and green economies. The Third Bioeconomy Conference, held under the Italian Presidency, has been built upon the main conclusions of the previous events, with particular reference to the Irish Conference. The conference rationale and scope was thus centered on the assumption, substantiated by several scientific papers and policy briefs that our society is entering a new historical phase, where agriculture, environment, their linkages and regulations are changing. This challenges us to modify our production models, which are mainly driven by the logic of cost. There is a need to look for an economic model that not only responds to the logic of generating cash flows, but that also operates at local community level. All the issues were addressed across the whole Bioeconomy value chain, looking for technological challenges and opportunities. The capacities of regions, with a strong Bioeconomy potential to develop smart specialization strategies in this field, were promoted. The Conference also contributed to close the information gap between science and society, since citizens need to be engaged in an open and informed dialogue about Bioeconomy. They need to be provided with reliable insight into the benefits and risks of innovative technologies and existing practices, and more ample opportunities to debate new findings and their implications.During the Conference, a common message that was pointed out by several speakers was that systemic and holistic thinking is fundamental, as there is a striking need to move bioeconomy away from a sectorial perspective. The carbon neutrality of biological resources, their potential for multiple uses, renewability, sustainability and resource efficiency, make the bioeconomy a key opportunity for mitigating and adapting to the challenges of climate and other global changes on our planet. Therefore, the bioeconomy can help Europe to maintain its global competitiveness. Whilst the concept and the term “bioeconomy” is consolidated in the global scenario, there is no single bioeconomy as such, but rather there are, and will be, many different bioeconomies with multiple challenges and responses. The dialogues between the existing and emerging bioeconomy actors worldwide, and with the well-established climate and other relevant initiative and clusters, must be intensified and led in a structured way. Public and private institutions must be involved in proper communication about the meaning and role of the bioeconomy. There is also a need for standards of quality to protect biobased products, as well as market measures to pull innovative products, to level the playing field for biobased products and energy.Bioeconomy embraces broad value chains, hence stronger interactions are necessary between stakeholders, different sectors and disciplines to monitor the biomass, from the harvest to the various final products. The coordination among industrial end users, biorefineries and agro-food entities, is crucial to guarantee sustainable use of soil, maintaining crop yields, continuous biomass and bio-waste availability, and, ultimately, the effective exploitation of the final biobased products within the territorial context and for the benefit of rural areas and communities. The integrated use of different Technological/biotechnological platforms is a prerequisite for the complete and efficient use and multipurpose valorization of biomass, including byproducts or/and waste. Newly conceived integrated biorefineries, which are strongly rooted in rural locations, can revitalize former manufacturing sites which are now facing severe socio-economic deprivation, contributing to the creation of new jobs throughout the value chain. Biorefineries can promote processes of rural innovation in strong synergy with local biodiversity and food production by processing and valorizing renewable raw materials such as waste or biomass from dedicated marginal lands. At the European level, there are valuable examples, such as Matrìca, Novamont and Biochemtex in Italy, demonstrating the feasibility of producing raw materials at competitive costs while re-launching the chemical sector. Project Results:The third European Bioeconomy Stakeholders' Conference hosted 2 plenary lectures along with more than 45 main lectures. Over 70 prominent experts intervened in the 18 panel sessions. Below, the key messages that emerged from the speakers’ contributions and discussion are highlighted. PART I: Understanding the Bioeconomy as an interconnected systemConnecting the challenges: exploring the relationship between the different societal challenges that the bioeconomy can help to address Major messages delivered by the speakers: bio-based economy is a new business model which, without subsidies, provides for more jobs and more benefits for society. The time has come to step out from an economic perspective that only responds to the logic of generating cash flows and to adopt a new model that responds to the basic needs of people. Each innovation must be inspired by science, which allows us to learn from nature and to observe how does nature thrive on chaos. A change in perspective is fundamental, a systemic, not a sectorial, way of thinking is the solution to many challenges. We need to create more resilience in our non bio-based economy, because it allows to gain multiple benefits, that is the systemic approach. But it is not only systemic from a nature point of view, but also from a social point of view. The bio-based industrial products provide a solution to challenges of science and industry alignment. This is a perspective adopted in New Zealand, which opts for production models that preserve the quality of the products and the environment that also reconcile with the international market needs. Food security is the most important societal challenge that we have to face, as it also has implication in the wealth of societies. Thanks to the scientific research, we can improve the quality of life and help the economy. Environmental challenges are slipping into our daily lives, making the rules change. That means that economic models that we have applied so far are not efficient anymore. Major issues arose during the discussion: the bio-based economy will generate competitive business models, capable of eradicating poverty, while generating jobs. We have to start to reuse wastes and to use nature’s principles as basis of our economies. Several examples supporting this theory can be listed, e.g:• the reforestation of a deserted area in Colombia that improved the economy and the way of living of the local population. This intervention created a new form of sustainability that regenerated biodiversity, produced drinking water and sustainably-farmed biodiesel and had a significant positive impact in the health of people, even bringing to the closure of the local hospital; • the reuse of coffee wastes for starting a new bio-based business. From coffee waste it is possible to grow mushrooms, that can be used for making high quality fiber for clothes, for animal feeding, for making insulations or paints. • As an example of extra EU Bioeconomy point of view, New Zealand is already a bio-based economy, it just does not realize it. The most important challenge that new Zealand has to face is maintaining clean water, and building emerging industries while increasing food and fiber productivity. Moreover, as the country is mostly dependent on imports of most chemicals, transport fuels and materials, they are now investing on new ways of exploiting local resources by building new industry clusters outside the dominant primary food producers, like a geothermal energy hub. • Solutions to food scarcity can be addressed by producing more resistant plants that are able to cope with environmental change. Thanks to science findings we are now able to manipulate certain types of genes to produce plants that are more tolerant to biotic stress. Moreover food and health are strongly related, that is why people must be persuaded to adopt healthier and more environmentally-friendly diets. The aim is to increase the quality of life, by preventing illness caused by unhealthy diets, such as the diabetes. • Last year we passed some important milestones: for the first time in millions of years, the concentration of CO2 passed 400 parts per million. We are entering in a new era, where agriculture, environment and common rules are changing. This challenge us to modify our production models, which are driven by costs logics, and that are not suitable anymore because costs that we must take into account are not evident now. Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session:• Global changes can be faced with the start of applying a new way of thinking and a new sustainable economic model, based on a few simple principles: • Learning from nature and not by nature;• Looking at reality will provide us inspiration for change;• Just do it, not lose yourself on feasibility studies;• Invest on new education models that adopt an innovative way of thinking;• Allow diversity to flourish.Main general needs emerged:• Collaboration with the civil society at local level, and with communities in particular, is fundamental. As an example from an extra-EU country, New Zealand government involved students and citizens and asked to them what kind of science they should be doing;• There is a urgent need to increase crop productivity, that means to produce more with less resources;• Increasing importance of global dietary rebalancing;• Importance of water quality, availability and accessibility.• The bioeconomy is fundamental to meet these challenges, and represents a solution to wealth creation, about how we produce a sustainable growth.Connecting the biomass: illustrating the bioeconomy system in action by following the flows of biomass and residues. Food and Feed Major messages delivered by the speakers: • great expectation in bioeconomy applied to the feed and food chain, due to the high added value of these sectors;• need to follow the biomass from the harvest to the different final products;• achievement of a substantially and energetically complete utilization of the biomass;• strong interactions are needed between stakeholders and different sectors and disciplines and along the whole food chain;• use of different technological/biotechnological platforms, important for the complete reuse and recycle of leftovers (for example for Bran Biorefinery);• some species are overfished: we should fish less for fish better;• the need of logo such as FOS (Friend of the Sea) or Dolphin Safe to certify a way of sustainable fisheries; • the return to the techniques of costal fishery can permit a more sustainable fisheries. Altogether, speakers suggested that the achievement of bioeconomy goals requires a major effort towards the harmonization and integration of technological, economic and social innovation, while modeling, forecasting and monitoring the impact of the planned innovation. The European bioeconomy can create a trajectory towards the development of next generation biorefineries integrated in communities, capable of processing their own sustainable resources, looking beyond the competition with those “first mover Countries” (e.g. US, Brazil and China) that aggressively pushed the development of first-generation industrial biorefineries, mainly investing in massive use of food crops.Major issues arose during the discussion: • sound infrastructures are essential for the safe and effective implementation of a biorefinery project;• for an industrial Partner some aspects are fundamental: feasibility, safety, sustainability, yield, cost, profit, future application;• the energy balance/efficiency are also fundamental for the Industry;• the quality of raw material, the absence of chemical and biological contaminants, etc. are of great relevance that may interfere with the proper reuse project;• it is of paramount importance to define what can be the bottlenecks on the re-use and the integrated valorization with nutrients production of food processing by-products and waste as well as of the discharge/waste coming from the fisheries and the fish producing chain ;• A strong demand for collaboration with all stakeholders was solicited to define regulations for more sustainable fisheries.Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session:• a complete utilization of the biomass, which can be transformed into food and feed, will allow us to have greater food security;• the reuse of all available sources of carbon resulting from the food processing will create significant added value in all chains and an increase in jobs and an improved well-being;• bioeconomy will help Europe to maintain its global competitiveness. It has been, however, identified the need for proper communication, involving all public and private institutions, about the meaning and role of the Bioeconomy;• bioeconomy can be considered a major driver of growth and innovation in the food industry, to help to respond to the increased needs of nutrients arising from the growth of population.Connecting the biomass: illustrating the bioeconomy system in action by following the flows of biomass and residues. Chemicals and Energy Major messages delivered by the speakers: • Novamont and Matrìca represent a concrete example of fully integrated biorefinery in Italy. Through integrated biorefineries in the local areas, fed with renewable raw materials such as scraps or dedicated non-crops in strong synergy with local biodiversity and food crops, it is possible to revitalize former manufacturing sites which are facing severe and difficult situations, involving the territory in a process of innovation, and to spur the creation of new jobs all along the value chain. The example of Matrìca and Novamont demonstrates that it is possible to bring in Italy the production of raw materials at competitive costs as well as relaunching the chemical sector. A major effort in this direction is already underway thanks to the investments in research and the construction of new plants and demonstrators. The bioplastics case study and the Italian regulation framework linked to organic waste collection is a powerful example. • Crescentino plant is dedicated to the production of second generation biofuels thorough PROESA technology. With Crescentino operating within design parameters, BetaR has transitioned from a focus on innovation, scale-up and technology de-risking to a focus on exploiting the learning curve, reducing production costs and increasing operational efficiencies. The raw materials used areagricultural residues, such asstraws of cereals sugar cane bagasse and palm empty fruits, and dedicated energy crops: Arundodonax, Napier grass, Switchgrass and Miscanthus. The potential for Europe connected with Proesa technology was described.• BEACON has a network of scientific expertise based at the Universities of Aberystwyth, Bangor, and Swansea in Wales, UK. Through this network, the project is creating new jobs in rural Wales, stimulating inward investment and promoting Welsh scientific excellence at a global level. Specifically, the project team's focus is on biorefining. There are currently over 70 companies actively involved in various supply chains under BEACON, ranging from animal production and grain milling to food production. A network is thus being formed across the supply chain that is promoting the transfer of knowledge between all involved. BEACON has developed biorefinery options based on a number of feedstocks that grow well on marginal land. It has also actively promoted a move to materials using plants and plant residues that will not compete with food crops.Major issues arose during the discussion: • integration model within industrial end users, biorefineries and agriculture, in terms of use of soil, crops yield, biomass and bio-waste availability, and exploitation of the final products; • need for standards of quality that protect biobased products developed in the territories, market measures to pull innovative products, level playing field for Biobased materials and chemicals and energy; • integration in the local and rural areas. • Europe and especially Italy is in the forefront for Bioeconomy sector and in particular for bio-based industries, with flagships, industrial scale production and demonstrators• Need for spurring growth and jobs through innovation, particularly in rural areas, benefiting European farmers and regions, enabling the creation of local agro-industrial value chains and profuse innovation and opportunities for growth to traditional sectors, leading to the production of added value products in synergy with food and feed.• Need for market pull measures creating a level playing field for bio-based chemicals and materials and bioenergy in Europe.Achieving the full potential of the Bioeconomy requires swift and concerted action by all actors across the whole value chain, from agriculture to the end users and the environment, from research and innovation to industrial sector, closing the gap between scientific feasibility and industrial applications and enhancing strategic cooperation between sectors.Part II: Moving from concept to realityCreating the key enabling conditions for the bioeconomy - Human Capital: getting the right people with the right skills for the rights jobs Major messages delivered by the speakers: • development of bioeconomy education programs as add-on competence on excellent disciplinary education;• education programs needed at level of schools, universities and life-long training for experienced scientists and workers;• education and training: professional training, university education, labor education for creating new jobs;• education of people already working in specific sectors.Major issues arose during the discussion:• urgent need to change university behavior, in particular regarding multidisciplinary and industry-contaminated formation;• need of much more experience both at PhD and Master level;• lack of experience in PhD students. The current school programmes are inadequate to give the multidisciplinary formation required by the industries, for making people able as an example to face the "convert biomasses to bioproducts and chemicals" issue;• need for a new academy for the bioeconomy;• need for Industrial PhD courses, multi-disciplinary Masters, short masters, practice schools.Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session:• To map and understand the already existing framework• To draw up an accurate report on the state of the art, in order to start or boost activities and take experience where it already exists and complete/integrate it;• Other important points and needs:• To make some programmes more attractive with a "European label".Creating the key enabling conditions for the bioeconomy - Social Capital: addressing the role and concerns of citizen and consumers Major messages delivered by the speakers: • Social risk perception, mainly in context with food safety and security. Addressed were inter alia:- How does risk perception influence societal acceptance of novel and emerging technologies which may improve food security?- Does a normative societal response to all emerging food technologies exist or is it dependent on a personal perception of risks, benefits and moral issues?• A widely perceived dissociation between science and society has been expressed, emphasizing the need to develop a two-ways dialogue between them, based on the acceptance of the importance of traditional values in food production and consumption, towards the perception of scientists and society as well to be able to fully implement innovation on the basis of tradition.• The development of a biotechnology cluster in Greece and societal involvement therein. The vision of the Bionian Cluster is to bring Greece to the forefront of both Red and Green Biotechnology. Active participation of all stakeholders including society should create effective alliances to generate competitive advantages. Major issues arose during the discussion: • importance of the active involvement of the general public into the progresses of biosciences and the bioeconomy, in order to grant societal acceptance and therefore consumer market development;• inherent complexity of the bioeconomy value chains, not only from the technical/scientific point of view, but also due to the involvement of numerous players all the way down to citizens. Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session: • Public Perception:- Regarding Expert opinions vs. the “General Public” different metrics of perception exist. Whereas experts tend to perceive issues from a “professional” (rational/technical) point of view, with broader audience personal concerns and emotional perspectives gain weight.- Assessment of new technologies, which is made on issues of perceived risks, benefits and moral concerns differs widely not only sector specifically (new technologies for pharmaceutical purposes, plant or food technologies) but also geographically (Europe vs. USA vs. Asia)• Communication:- a dichotomy/dissociation between the scientific world and the rest of the world is still perceived, although science's “ivory tower” is widely regarded as obsolete throughout scientists themselves;- social dialogue between science and the rest of the world has to go two ways and has to be at arm's length/eye level. Scientists are perceived to need to realize the value of traditional methods to be able to implement innovations.Creating the key enabling conditions for the bioeconomy - Financial Capital: ensuring investment fundingMajor messages delivered by the speakers:• the President Jean Claude Juncker intended to allow the mobilization of up to 300 million Euro in additional public and private investment in the real economy over the next three years;• the JTI BBI offers a platform for industry stakeholders to get organized along all the bioeconomy value chains by integrating public and private funds, European and regional investments. All this could lead to the leveraging of additional investments. The underlined that the Biobased industries Joint Undertaking involves a real commitment by Industry and the European Commission. It represents a catalyzer for the development of the bio-based industry. The future is bio-based;• investors in the bioeconomy sector invest more on mature companies (more than three years old) and not on the early stage technology development;• investment in Bioeconomy is about 400 million/y globally. Thus, new and tailored early stage technology and start up investments should be launched;• the Fondazione Cariplo is a philanthropic bank foundation. Because of its mission, the Foundation can tolerate low return of investments. Its main mission is to generate new collaborations among public and private and from here new values and therefore added benefits for the whole society. In more detail, the Foundation mission is to generate a sort of ecosystems for the development of the bioeconomy at regional and global level (a Responsible Research Innovation approach is applied):• seed funds are necessary for boosting the development of new start-up. Major issues arose during the discussion: The main issue arose from the discussion was related to the promotion of early stage investment in Europe. A second issue is related to the development of a suitable entrepreneur environment. A third issue was related to the opportunity to link the development of the Bioeconomy in EU to other common platforms, like the climate change platform. Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session:• a need to increase the visibility of the bioeconomy sector to the investors. Examples of success will be important for this aim;• need to increase Stability of the rules;• improvement of entrepreneurial culture;• improvement of the attitude of the Chemical industry to invest in EU and NOT outside;• hope in the H2020 approach which includes programs for early stage SMEs and encourages cooperation among different kind of industries as well.Creating the key enabling conditions for the bioeconomy - Natural Capital: protecting and exploiting biodiversity Major messages delivered by the speakers:• biological capital is the key of all;• positive relationships between bioeconomy and biodiversity are a perceived need, not yet to be taken for granted;• intensive but sustainable agriculture doesn’t lower biodiversity;• long-term view of opportunities in the bioeconomy and of risks inherent in “business as usual” is required;• multiple sources of added value (“cascading” or multi-purpose biorefinery) may promote a diversity of biomass types and increase resilience and robustness of agricultural systems;• healthy, non-polluted and innovation-ready environments are more productive, especially in the marine sector. Diversity may be at landscape level, not necessarily at plot level;• the marine sector represents one of the most abundant sources of food, biodiversity and energy on the planet; it also has the potential for countless innovations in novel drug production, sustainable industrial process development, ecosystem management and other related fields.Major issues arose during the discussion:• to encourage further exploration of resources and uses;• to increase focus on marine resources: marine biotechnology can make an increasingly important contribution towards meeting the societal challenges and supporting economic recovery and growth, by delivering new knowledge, products and services;• consideration for the public good in policy development: regions of biodiversity ensure future evolutionary processes;• need to reconcile biodiversity, bioeconomy and private investments driven by market demand;• conflict between land use for food purposes and for the purpose of obtaining biomass for energy and industry also involves a new nutrition education (less consumption of meat). Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session: • positive relationships between bioeconomy and biodiversity;• need for a holistic approach to the bioeconomy;• the current EU political framework creates a non-level playing field between bio-based materials and energy;• marine biodiversity is a rich source of bio-products, potentially exploitable in the blue biotech and biobased industry;• EU policies have to encourage further exploration of resources and uses.Master-Classes: practical advice on how to build the bioeconomya) How to mobilize EU funding instruments for the bioeconomyMajor messages delivered by the speakers:The session concerned the usage of public funding (mainly EU) for supporting bioeconomy practical application in the European regions. The regional dimension is crucial, as the bioeconomy has important place related impacts and values:• Bioeconomy implementation requires supports that refer to different stage of technology life-cycle and different component of the work-programme. As an example, it need investments for human capital, start-up, infrastructures, markets and internationalization and other.• At the moment several opportunities exist for enlarging innovative performances for operators in the field of bioeconomy, both at European and national level. In addition, the new programming period for European Structural and Investment Funds, with its growing attention to innovation, offer important possibilities to cofinance bioeconomy programmes. The usage of such opportunities can be made really effective through the detailed knowledge of the different typologies of funds (each with different scope and rules) and of the possibility to integrate them into a unique tailored solution;• In the session the Enabling synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020 and other research, innovation and competitiveness-related Union programmes were presented and discussed;• Guidance for policy-makers and implementing bodies, guide recently published by the European Commission, has been presented:- The guide gives references, definitions and concepts that can help policy makers in considering synergies in their programming documents and users in using such possibility in the right way; An example of application of synergies has been discussed for the establishment of the High Technology Network in the Emilia-Romagna region, in Italy. The HTN is addressed to industrial collaborative research (also in the field of bioeconomy and industrial symbiosis);- An example of application of national and European funds has also been presented with reference to the “Pole de Competitivite” VITAGORA, located in Dijon, France, that includes several companies (SMEs and large) working in the agrifood sector. The specific aim of the pole is to support companies in their international partnership for R&D and their international competitiveness. Several examples of projects have been presented and discussed.- Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session:• The synergies among funds are very promising but difficult to implement, mainly for the different scope and rules of the funds;• There are several opportunities of funding bioeconomy, where information is a key item to get the optimal solution;• The policy makers can decrease the difficulties in implementing synergies through the alignment of times, procedures and tools;• The beneficiaries can improve the quality and dimension of support through the integration of funds (no duplication of them);• The Smart Specialization Strategies can give the opportunity to align ESIF and H2020 from the thematic point of view.b) How to develop coherent public policies for the bioeconomy Major messages delivered by the speakers: • how to develop coherent public policies for the bioeconomy, based on presentation of two case studies:- The South Africa bioeconomy strategy as an example from outside the EU: the case showed the development of a strategy in a rather complex environment, touching several segments, from agriculture to health. It demonstrated the need for coordination and showed a variety of practical actions for implementation;- The Finland bioeconomy strategy as an example from inside the EU: the case showed an example of a strategy focused on a smaller number of sectors, largely based on a renewed exploitation of the forestry sector, which is traditionally well established in Finland. Major issues arose during the discussion:• Are the bioeconomy strategies bringing new money or actually reallocating existing funding?• What were the main challenges in the process of developing the bioeconomy strategy and how can the process be managed?• What are the expected advantages of having a bioeconomy strategy?Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session:• there is a need for multilevel governance in the field of the bioeconomy, from international market competition to local regulation issues;• examples of the process to develop a bioeconomy strategy are of high interest for learning by others;• the development of the strategy requires a lot of discussion about the definition of the bioeconomy and the inclusion/exclusion of specific sectors, even although this may be very time consuming. Dealing with this issue in a participatory way will clarify the remaining part of the process once a common understanding is reached;• the strategies imply to a large extent the reallocation of money, rather than new public spending; this also implies political choices;• the connection between objectives of the strategies and actions to be taken are not always straightforward.c) How to measure progress in Bioeconomy The aim of the specific sub-session was to show and discuss how to measure progress in Bioeconomy. A complementary analysis of the problem from the perspective of two highly authoritative institutions was presented: OECD and the Bioeconomy Observatory of JRC-European Commission.Major messages delivered by the speakers: • there is need of definitions and indicators about the industrial bioeconomy internationally or, at least, multilaterally agreed. New sectors are not yet covered by national statistical offices (NSOs). Neither Eurostat, nor OECD, nor UN agencies can cover the new sector in a consistent way;• possible implications of “lack of data” or “non comparable data” is to start databases on a national level without agreed definitions and indicators can create an irreversible state where no international comparison will be possible. This will lead to the lack of trust in the sector, missing an international level playing field between actors as well as issues for potential investors to assess the potential markets. Furthermore, it will lead to jeopardize discussions or negotiations in international fora (on tariffs, norms, regulations, subsidies);• statistical segments, linked with the life cycle of markets, to encompass:- readiness (e.g. manufacturing, assets, market share, services);- intensity (activities and outputs): Usually covered partly by NSOs and industrial associations, analysts;- impacts (socio-economic and environmental dimensions, sustainability, productivity gains, and net job creations): data are produced by direct market evaluation, indirect methods (cost of replacement) or survey-based techniques;• technicalities to be met: confidentiality, reliability and comparability of databases over time or across countries. • The mission of EU Bioeconomy Observatory: the project was launched by the European Commission Joint Research Centre following the Bioeconomy Strategy and Action Plan. It is expected to create a world-class source of information on the bioeconomy and to supply policy-makers and stakeholders at EU and national level with reference data and analyses, providing a solid basis for policy development and decision-making on the bioeconomy.• Challenges:- different definitions that translate into different scope of monitoring, challenges for data collection, comparison and consistency in different geographies;- sectors: the EU bioeconomy strategy gives a very broad definition of bioeconomy. It embraces various economic sectors, which span from 100% bio-based sectors (e.g. biomass suppliers) to “hybrid” sectors involved in conversion (e.g. Chemicals, Textiles; Plastic). Conversely, there is also a broad range of “bioeconomy-relevant” policy areas;- statistics linking the biomass supply and the biomass demand for different individual uses of biomass (food/feed, energy, industrial uses) are not available; - statistics for bioeconomy-relevant economic activities (e.g "eco-system" services) are not available;- bio-based products are not differentiated from fossil-based products with specific statistical codes;- statistics are produced according to broad socio-economic objectives rather than to sectors of activity: statistics for "public sector R&D investment" in bioeconomy-relevant sectors are not available; - geography: statistics available at national Member States level are not always available at regional level.Major issues arose during the discussion:• need of clear agreed definitions; • multiple, hybrid and new sectors involved in bioeconomy make data collection difficult; • need of coordination of regional, national, EU and international actions; • to address the problem of heterogeneous definitions of bioeconomy goes beyond the mission of EU Bioeconomy Observatory. However, there are a few EU organisms active on that respect, prepared to provide advice and inputs: e.g. SCAR and the Bio-based chemical industrial sector; • concepts like “sustainable” and, more specifically, “sustainable production of biomass” need to be clearly addressed and defined. That is a pre-requisite to legitimate bioeconomy. That issue is particularly relevant within the farmers’ context because of the large demand of biomass inside the EU. • difficulties encountered at regional level in collecting and analysing data reflects all these stakes. Nevertheless, such efforts and contributions are welcome: constructing ad-hoc databases and monitoring bioeconomy is an incremental process because of the novelty and complexity of this “macro sector”.Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session:• Bioeconomy at large and the industrial bioeconomy have not yet received enough attention on a multi-lateral basis (OECD countries) to launch a group on definitions, indicators and data bases. Whether the private sector will take the lead is not clear yet;• measuring progress is therefore limited to ad hoc sources: on/off industry reports or national reports, press releases and collection by the EC Observatory until 2016;• bioeconomy stakeholders self-interests to join forces until critical mass is reached.• Some recommendations arose from the discussion: - development of specific "bio-based" statistics;- reinforcing policy interactions: EU, Member States, Regions, International; - financing efforts for archiving the data and maintaining integrity of the data at national office of statistics or provided to other hosts;- Financing long lasting initiatives is of crucial importance in order to provide authoritative guidelines and coordination.d) How to manage the interface between marine/coastal and land ecosystemsMajor messages delivered by the speakers:• the coastal zone is an area where 40-50% of the EU population is concentrated (<50 km) and where the blue-economy is developing. Nearly 40% of the EU GDP is generated in maritime regions as well as 5.4 million jobs and €500 billion a year. Important bio-economy activities include fisheries, aquaculture and a growing marine biotechnology sector;• the LOICZ project (http://www.loicz.org/) approach is to consider the coastal zone as a social-ecological system. It combines several frameworks for the adaptive management of socio-ecological systems such as the DPSIR, the System Approach Framework (www.coastal-saf.eu) and the Ostrom framework, developed by Elionor Ostrom (Nobel prize winner) for community-based management of common pool resources;• Europe made a lot of efforts at all levels to have sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, but there are opportunities to better boost our ecosystem services and marine productivity;• in the coastal zone, aquaculture and fisheries have to face spatial conflicts with other blue economy sectors such as tourism and blue energy (CoEXist FP7 KBBE project http://www.coexistproject.eu). Thus, this necessitates a coherent space management and the development of adapted decision-making tools if one consider that since September 2011 the steadily growing aquaculture industry has already reached the production volumes of fisheries for human consumption. • The impact of fish farming activities on marine ecosystems is of utmost importance: the use of antibiotics and their usage has been drastically reduced and replaced by vaccines; the intensive organism cultivation on sea ecosystem wild life favors the occurrence of pathogens in cultured seafood. Industry is supporting research to reduce the impact of aquaculture on the environment in particular genetic impact of escapees, disease spread etc.Major issues arose during the discussion:• The land-based human activities, such as agriculture, animal rearing, biomass transformation industries (e.g. paper and food processing), and urban growth have a prominent impact on the coastal zone, as they exert multiple stresses on the coastal environment and ecosystems. • Important fluxes of nutrients, plastic litter and organic and inorganic contaminants are entering the coastal zone and adjacent seas through rivers and atmosphere; the impact of land runoff in coastal areas needs to be further studied and mitigated. • Other stresses include retention of sediments and changes in hydrology due to damming of rivers for agriculture and hydroelectric power generation as well as wetlands and sea grasses which can induce eutrophication and ecotoxicological effects. • The disappearance of wetlands over the past decades affected the delivery of important ecosystem services such as coastal defence, biogeochemical cycling, nursery function for juveniles organisms and oxygenation of coastal waters and this in turn impacted human welfare by affecting aquaculture, fisheries and coastal tourism. • Changes in the use of the coast can be the source of spatial conflicts.• A series of policy instruments such as the urban wastewater Directive, the bathing water Directive, the nitrates Directive, the water framework Directive and the marine strategy framework Directive, the environmental pillar of the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) has been introduced; these and the introduction of lead-free petrol have decreased the fluxes of phosphates to coastal waters and the atmospheric deposition of lead to marine waters.• Further research efforts are needed to determine how to prevent the fluxes of nitrogen and of some priority substances and materials which remain high towards marine ecosystems Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session:• A technical workshop gathering experts from various fields is proposed by the section environmental biotechnology section of the European Federation of Biotechnology, in order to address control and mitigation of agricultural and industrial pollution affecting terrestrial/marine interface in coastal zone. This workshop can aim to deliver a review of efforts (incl. on-going R&D projects) made in the past and presently, more particularly listing the main impacting sources and available mitigation technologies and identify research needs; to compare the status of European R&D in this field with other significant overseas programs, e.g. China (with keynote presentations from Chinese colleagues).PART III: The Bioeconomy as an opportunity for an European Industrial renaissanceSpotlight on the bioeconomy potential of EU regions: The Bioeconomy potential of the Mediterranean region Major messages delivered by the speakers:• The bioeconomy as a whole concept and strategy is not jet a priority for the Med-area. The first priority in the Med-Area agenda is still the food security. Of course we can use bioeconomy as a way to guarantee the food security, but the MEd-Area is not ready for a broad application of bioeconomy. The food security is a serious problem and a problem of great political concern. The Mediterranean countries (north Africans) have a food import dependency, a dependency related to the limited water, high energy cost, low arable land’s rate which is also decreasing day by day. For these reasons there is a great difference between the northern med-area (Italy, Spain, Greek, etc.) and the southern part (Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, etc.) that should be taken into account as it is becoming a great constrain and limit. Starting by the analysis of these problems and limits, we should approach to the bioeconomy by realizing cooperation exploiting the regional and local specificity and priorities which are: precision agricultural technologies, tools and ICT devices; food chain logistics to reduce food lost and waste; quality certification via participatory approach; pre and post-harvest detection of pests/pathogens and control; biotechnology to promote sustainable production; shelf life; organic culture promotion. • The agrifood sector within the bioeconomy sector is one of the most dynamic and important in the EU Mediterranean Countries. • Italian bioeconomy is characterized by an agricultural sector with about 600.000 employers, a turnover 14 billion euros for crop production, 11.4 billion euros for livestock production and 1.18 billion euros for aquaculture; it is the third country in the EU for the food industry and one of the most important for the biorefinery). Italy will invest efforts and resources in the bioeconomy sector by mobilizing/aligning different tools, such the smart specialization strategy, the national Technology Clusters related to the Bioeconomy “Green Chemistry”, “Agri-food” and “Transportation in the marine and maritime sectors”. The clusters on Green Chemistry and Agri-food aim at triggering sustainable economic growth within the rural and local areas as well as in abandoned productive sites. The third promotes a more sustainable exploitation of marine resources, in a Country that counts over 7.500 km of coastal areas. • The technology clusters are working on innovative ideas and products, running networking at the industry, research and the policy level, by combining the local dimension of the bioeconomy with its wider breath of outreach and impact – national, European and international level – in terms of increased competitiveness. The national clusters represent the starting point for an effective cooperation and joint bosting of Bioeconomy around the med-area.Major issues arose during the discussion: • Food security is the core sector for future collaboration in the Med-area, but the bioeconomy is much more. Thus the cooperation has to be implemented in other fields of Bioeconomy.• The bioeconomy’s potential in the Med-Area can be better exploited if an international cooperation and dimension is developed. In the global strategy for a bioeconomy in the Med-Area it is necessary. the process has to build on agreement with the Med partners and should be a bottom-up process. • There are two different intuitive trying to create bioeconomy opportunities in the MED: Art. 185 PRIMA addressed to boost R&I in the MED in the area of food and water systems and the BLUEMED initiative aimed at promoting an integrated Research and Innovation plan, to support a new sustainable approach to manage and exploit the potential of the Mediterranean Sea marine and maritime sectors. Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session:• There is a strong need to find the right ways to open a fruitful discussion with the Commission to speed up a virtual process and find out the instruments to move from theory to practice and to address a cooperation that leads us to common strategies; • To succeed in this process in the Med-area, we cannot forget to take into account the global political and geographical situation.Spotlight on the bioeconomy potential of EU regions: The Bioeconomy potential of Central and Eastern Europe Major messages delivered by the speakers: • Bioeconomy in Central and Eastern Europe benefits from material and human resources; • There are consistent foreign investments in the food industry and food exports from Central Europe (e.g. Poland);• The main factors limiting the increase of biomass production include soil degradation (organic matter), climatic water balance (low soil fertility and water deficit); therefore further investments are necessary (Poland); • The existing agricultural potential shall be used for production of food crops and animal feed to be processed into high-quality food products (Poland);• R&D activities (universities, research institutes) should strengthen innovativeness and increase competitiveness in bioeconomy by identifying and addressing knowledge gaps; • The development of technologies for non-agricultural biomass production and secondary biomass processing, as well as the mitigation of global warming effects in agriculture, are very opportune;• The development of bioeconomy (Poland case) needs widespread and intense rising of awareness for a comprehensive approach to biological resources (agriculture and forestry) and creation of mechanisms for their rational use; • There is fragmentation of enterprises, dispersion of potential in research and development potential, problems with waste management, dispersion of decision poles, lack of access in many technologies in the domestic market;• Some initiatives can address: creation of bioeconomy centers; cooperation between regions with bioeconomy as a smart specialization; cluster formation; comprehensive approaches in the expertise; closer contacts between bioeconomy and academia;• The biomass supply chain and investment capital can come with a clear and stable policy framework, access to financial resources and some long-term view of all States. Major issues arose during the discussion:• Central and Eastern Europe have a great potential for bioeconomy development;• There are regional differences when applying the bioeconomy concept, and two categories of challenges could be highlighted: - the bioeconomy seems to be too simple (this leads to wrong decisions); - the bioeconomy seems to be too complex (this leads to lack of action);• There are differences between the European average and Eastern Europe, in terms of feedstock supply, although the cultivated land exceeds the European average;• The mobilization of feedstock is a problem (farmers are not interested in selling feedstock);• Bioresources tend to be predominantly used for energy generation, by incineration; • The stability of feedstock should be ensured;• More interest in advancing the processing of raw materials, rather than in how to obtain raw materials, would be opportune; • The bioeconomy contributes to rural development through its processes, using mostly local agricultural and/or forestry resources;• Engagement of politicians, policy makers, stakeholders, civil society in local development, creating new jobs by sustainable valorization of bioresources;Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session: • Central and Eastern Europe have a great potential for bioeconomy development and very high business potential;• A key problem is that the management and logistics of bioresources need to be rethought and improved, together with the following key point and needs to be fronted;• Policy coherence has to be ensured to solve multilayer governance; • More skills in resource management are necessary;• New solutions and approaches should be applied in relation to soil degradation and developing of a climate smart bioeconomy, to avoid differences in the quality of bioresources (food);• There is a huge potential for opening a new health-oriented food market;• Macro-regional strategies should be developed (Danube, Alpes etc.);• Development of platforms to attract sub-regions and ensure connections among them;• Development of solutions and strategies to engage the civil society in bio-resources valorization and management (establish new supply chains; information on social benefits);• International cooperation, close contacts and exchange of information at national and European levels are recommended; • Bioeconomy could have a more pronounced position in the relevant strategies, more dominant in R&D and rural development strategies.Global Food Security towards EXPO 2015 Major messages delivered by the speakers:The presentation of EXPO 2015 has introduced the main themes of this event, which, in part, overlapped with those emerged in the present session. EXPO 2015 has a double meaning for the EU, a platform to reach out the citizens and a tool to get a more interactive approach among research institutions, companies and consumers for development policies. A number of complementary perspectives have been described to focus the global food security. These mainly considered: • the sufficient availability of raw materials; • the recycling of food wastes and losses as new sources of ingredients; the improvement of human health through the enhanced food nutritional features; • the stopping of the land subtraction for agriculture (e.g. biofuel policies); • the need for innovation while respecting food tradition; • the food and drink processing re-formulation aiming to strengthen the nutritional quality; and the use of emerging sciences. All together these interventions have to combine with the environment sustainability, and the reduction of the effects on the climate change and water deficit. Investment to develop the local resources, especially in the developing countries, efforts to facilitate the innovation within the SMEs, creation of new jobs and employers, strengthening the role of the women, exploiting the potential of the family farming and the interception of the consumers’ trust through a correct and transparent information are all policy tools indispensable to meet the main targets. The main strategy at European level could be to make the best from our biological resources, accelerating the transition to a sustainable bio-economy. Major issues arose during the discussion: • the role of plant breeding for increasing crop productivity, as alternative or complementary tool to waste and loss recycling; • the effective role of biofuel production towards the phenomenon of land grabbing; • the most useful approach to design new foods and beverages; • meat production as one of the main causes of worsening of the environmental sustainability; • search for new protein sources; the transparency of policy making;• the dissemination and the eventual need of stricter regulations for food healthy programs and the most appropriate strategy for consumer communication.Main conclusion achieved and their relation with the main objective of the session:The speakers and the audience have addressed some of the main pillars that are driving the European policy and research within the food security theme. Some of the points that have had a better sharing were:- EXPO 2015 as the unique chance to address the food security issue;- the need for cooperation among all the stakeholders;- the capacity to act with tailor made and complementary interventions rather than to adopt a single solution to ensure the food security;- the more in depth exploitation of the current biological resources, including food wastes and losses;- the need for investments for innovation at different scale levels, focusing on SMEs, without excluding new types of market;- the need to re-formulate food and beverage processing to address specific targets.Stakeholder panel: from Dublin to Turin and BeyondRepresentatives of stakeholder groups reflected on the outcomes of the conference and indicated their priorities for the way forward. Throughout the debates, speakers emphasised the importance of developing new, interdisciplinary skills and competences as a pre-condition for growth in the different bioeconomy sectors, and for the re-industrialization of Europe at large. These new competences will be critical to realise the innovation potential that Europe is developing through investments in research activities. In this regard, it also emerged that this new set of skills should not just aim at communicating, disseminating and applying research results, but also at creating a two-way open dialogue on the bioeconomy with and for society. In parallel, speakers also stressed the importance of keeping a holistic approach, especially to ensure that new potential uses of biomass should never compromise food security. Finally, several stakeholders urged the EU and others to take the implementation of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy to another level, removing regulatory bottlenecks. In fact, although the EU Bioeconomy Strategy is a research-and-innovation led initiative, to effectively implement it new actions would need to be taken in other policy areas – if possible, in agreement with stakeholders through a structured debate. The 3rd European Bioeconomy Stakeholders' Conference was a very successful initiative, which was attended by about 400 delegates from 24 European countries, and 6 continents and by other delegates via streamingClosing RemarksThe conference ended with a reference to Jean Monnet's advice to "change the context", stressing the potential of the bioeconomy to do just that. Having established the concept, it is now critically important to deliver Europe's bioeconomy in practice. This in turn means focusing on developing the specific policies that will support the bioeconomy, creating and explaining the business case, and facilitating and where necessary de-risking investment.Potential Impact:Society is facing major environmental, social, and economic challenges and these will only increase in coming decades. A Biobased Economy can help to provide solutions to future challenges, while also generating jobs and business opportunities. It essentially means sustainable production of biomass and its conversion into a range of food, health, fibres and industrial chemical products, as well as energy. Large industrial sectors such as agriculture and forestry, along with chemical, cosmetics, textile, food, energy sectors are part of a well-established biobased economy. For maximum overall benefit, the various sectors of the Biobased Economy must be properly connected, since they are all interdependent. The potential opportunities of Bioeconomy are huge. Bio-based products can reduce dependence on imported oil, curb emissions of greenhouse gases, and open up new opportunities for farmers and rural communities. Newly conceived integrated biorefineries, which are strongly rooted in rural locations, can revitalize former manufacturing sites which are now facing severe socio-economic deprivation, contributing to the creation of new jobs throughout the value chain. Biorefineries can promote processes of rural innovation in strong synergy with local biodiversity and food production by processing and valorizing renewable raw materials such as waste or biomass from dedicated marginal lands.Notably, technological/biotechnological platforms are prerequisite for the complete and efficient use and multipurpose valorization of biomass, including byproducts or/and waste. In particular, an improved uptake of technologies related to renewable (bio-based) raw material and biological processes can give Europe advantages e.g. in terms of stronger industrial competitiveness, raw materials diversification, a quicker route to sustainability, an efficient and sustainable use of natural resources, and a rapid development of new consumer markets. The biological and sustainable chemicals transformation processes available as well as the current downstream processing have to be intensified, integrated and better assessed in terms of environmental and economic sustainability. The Conference showcased examples of success case across value chains, sector and countries, at the light of achieving a broader understanding of how simpler, cheaper and more robust patenting tools as well as pilot and demonstration facilities are necessary for facilitating RTD transfer and biobased innovation. Furthermore, the Conference streamlined the need for a number of other initiatives backed by EU-wide and MS-focused policies addressed to promote the biobased products market are necessary, i.e. the identification of standards and labelling for biobased products, Green Public Procurement, demonstration projects, communication strategies, etc. Further, in the EU bioeconomy is necessary to understand how to optimally train or retrain our workforce, design clear career paths both in the academia and industry, and develop coherent policy frameworks. Different sets of skills may be needed across different regions to adapt to local needs in order not to lose local know-how. Regarding the involvement of society, a well-structured communication about risks and benefits of Bioeconomy has to be put on place. In addition, technical training in new technologies should be made available, not only for scientists but also for farmers, horticulturists and engineers. Given the above summarized context and historical scenario, the Conference set the scene for the readily adoptable impact generation in all the intended target, notably by creating a new durable partnering platform across all the EU bioeconomy stakeholders such as citizens, consumers, academia, industry, primary producers, and policy makers. In particular, being argued that replacing the oil barrel will need the construction of integrated biorefineries which can convert multiple biomass feedstocks into multiple products, in a manner analogous to integrated oil refineries and petrochemical plants, the Conference facilitated the cross-pollination among different actors from the human, social, financial and natural capital. Such integrated biorefineries are high risk ventures, and in most countries where such facilities are being built or planned, public-private partnerships (PPPs) are being used to leverage private industry investments, thereby de-risking the investments. Durable and impactful results are achievable only by a joint effort of all this actors and the debate, facilitated by the Conference results, on the lack of a policy level playing field that favours the bio-based materials, which are the products with the highest value added and potential for direct and indirect job creation.The availability of coherent public policies and strategies for measuring progress and managing new emerging growth areas of in the bioeconomy was found to be essential by a number of speakers. In particular, there is a need for multilevel governance in the field of the bioeconomy, from international market competition to local regulation issues. This requires national strategies to develop a country tailored approach for boosting and integrating sustainably into the sectors composing the bioeconomy, at research and policy level, by combining local public and private stakeholders. These strategies imply to a large extent the reallocation of money, rather than new public spending; this also implies political choices.Different levels in terms of policy were taken into account to discuss about Bioeconomy with a different point of view. These levels looked at the Bioeconomy Strategy and how to trigger the much needed harmonized approach across member states and how to learn from the EU model of PPPs to mobilize national initiatives in line with EU objectives and priorities with a view to maximize the impact of research and innovation. The challenges associated to the need for new pilot and demonstration plants and scaling up facilities, in particularly biorefineries, is a key area that, as a result of the Conference, will be at the agenda of the stakeholders’ discussion with the Joint Technology Initiative BioBased Industries. A clear and comprehensive reporting on what is the status of the Bioeconomy in the EU, in the member States and in the perspectives of certain industrial branches, like Agriculture, Food, Chemistry, Energy etc., including consumers and legislators, was provided. Best practices but also interesting unsatisfactory experiences were presented and represented the theoretical base for ensuring that a positive impact was generated by the Conference.Dedicated sessions in the Conference addressed global cooperation, to stimulate European industrial and scientific competitiveness, as well as European contribution to improve global environmental sustainability and social inclusiveness. In this framework the conclusions from the discussion on issues as resource efficiency and sustainability, especially regarding soil, nutrients, water and biodiversity had clear contribution in terms of future impact. Among the conference outputs there was the concrete expectation of actions to be identified for the development of common standards for life cycle assessments as well as agreed methodologies for sustainability criteria. In relation to this critical issue, the Conference evidenced the need for internationally or, at least, multilaterally agreed definitions, technical indicators and tools, able to measure progress in the bioeconomy. Indeed, this issue is not yet covered by national statistical offices (NSOs). Neither Eurostat, nor OECD, nor UN agencies can cover the bioeconomy in a consistent way. Possible implications of «lack of data» or «non comparable data» or to start databases on a national level without agreed definitions and indicators can create a state where no international comparison will be possible. This could lead to the lack of trust in the bioeconomy. In particular, the Conference identified the need of specific "bio-based" statistics and to finance efforts for archiving the data and maintaining integrity of the data at national office of statistics or provided to other hosts. The Conference results have been also leveraged relevant side initiatives, as the OECD side event that debated options for policy makers to weigh up the known costs, benefits, risks and uncertainties associated with either maintaining the status quo (i.e. a focus on the subsidized production of high volume /low profit margin outputs) or helping industry to confront and tackle the unknown potential costs, benefits, risks and uncertainties associated with integrated production facilities. The OECD represented an important forum for the Conference broadest mid-term impact, and has been instrumental to draw final conclusions based on the experience of several of the OECD countries (i.e. in addition to several EU countries, Australia, Canada, Chile, Iceland, Israel, Japan , Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey, United States, Switzerland, United Kingdom). More concretely, the expected outcomes of the OECD side event has been: • A comparative assessment of possible roles and impacts of the current legislation on the not food use of biomass in several EU and prominent non EU countries, • To test the findings and conclusions of the OECD publication (2014) “Biobased Chemicals and Bioplastics. Finding the right policy balance”, with regard to the policy evidence discovered and the conclusions made regarding the need for a level playing field in the bio-based industries;• To open up some initial discussion on replacing the oil barrel in advance of the work in the coming biennium on The Next Industrial Revolution. In relation to market-oriented initiatives, needs and expectations, the Conference triggered discussion on public procurements, novel and tailored efficiency and product quality standards and regulations necessary for the European Union, Member States and Regions to boost bio-based products and processes. The main expected impact in this respect has been defining routes to bring to market smart solutions and innovative technologies to intensify productivity and guarantee a degree of profitability for all the actors along the value chain, and thus the long-term viability of the system as a whole within the broader Europe 2020 strategy and beyond. Communication and outreach is a key impact expected as result of this Support action as it was a “leit motiv” throughout implementation. This fostered a continuous communication and involvement of a broad range of stakeholders in a societal dialogue and the society at large, acting as a stakeholders' dialogue platform to ensure that legitimate societal concerns are taken into account. The Conference delivered concrete action points to ensure that Europe will benefit from the full potential of the Bioeconomy in order to be further disseminated in order to raise the attention on the sector and its potential. The Conference directly contributed to engage with civil society, students, young generation and NGO not familiar with the subject in order to trigger interest and activities in the field. Citizens and consumers are fundamental to the success of the bioeconomy. A widely perceived dissociation between science and society is often observed, pointing to the need to develop a better dialogue between them. The active involvement of the general public in advances in biosciences and technology and the bioeconomy is essential for their societal acceptance and consumer market development. The Conference agreed that the acceptance of new technologies, which is influenced by perceived risks, benefits and moral concerns, differs widely not only by sector (new technologies for pharmaceutical purposes, plant or food technologies) but also geographically (Europe vs. USA vs. Asia). Social dialogue between science and society has been identified as critical to work both ways and to be open and transparent.Finally, A focus area for the Conference and side event concerned education and training, triggering discussion on how to integrate and complement existing skills and occupations (e.g. farming, fishing, etc.) with new high-and low-tech skills in a range of bio-refining and bio-processing technologies. The Conference encouraged debates and discussions on multidisciplinary approaches and cross-cutting research to foster more and better integrated skills to innovate, adopt new technologies, attract investment, and compete in new markets by maintaining the local know-how and competences. Tailored educational and training programmes have been identified as essential to equip Europe with new professionals able to sustainably grow the bioeconomy. There is the need for widely recognised bioeconomy educational programmes in schools and universities (modular and industry-led training), also taking advantage of EU-funded initiatives such as the Knowledge and Innovation Communities of the European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT-KICs). Similarly, life-long training for experts and workers has gained a pivotal importance, in particular by providing professional training, university modules and courses, as well as on-the-job training. This is not just relevant to ensure the competitiveness of the European bioeconomy workforce, but will also create opportunities for combating youth unemployment and professional drop-out.Finally, as planned, in order to boost the possible impact by leveraging on the forthcoming EXPO2015 in Milan, the hosted a session on the theme of global food security, a pivotal component of the bioeconomy. EXPO 2015 would be a platform to reach out to citizens and a tool to get a more interactive approach among research institutions, companies and consumers for development policies. A number of complementary perspectives have been described to combine global food security with environmental sustainability, and the reduction of the effects on climate change and the water deficit. Important issues have already been identified, including: investment to develop local resources, especially in developing countries, efforts to facilitate innovation within SMEs, to create new jobs and to strengthen the role of women in the local economies; actions to fully exploit the potential of the family farming and to build consumer trust through correct and transparent information. In this overall framework the impact of the Conference and intended activities can be identified in some key areas which are the main subjects to be addressed, namely: 1) Integrate the concept of the Bioeconomy into European policies, fostering a stronger policy coordination in a top-to-bottom approach at national, regional and local level – National and regional Bioeconomy strategies based on each country, region, industry and stakeholder’s own particular strengths. New partnering between all stakeholders such as citizens, consumers, academia, industry, primary producers, and policy makers.2) Global cooperation, to stimulate European industrial and scientific competitiveness, as well as European contribution to improving global environmental sustainability and social inclusiveness (in collaboration with OECD side event) – The conclusions from the discussion on issues as resource efficiency and sustainability, especially regarding soil, nutrients, water and biodiversity will be a clear contribution in terms of future impact. This will contribute to a) remarkably align the policies for biobased chemicals and plastics in several EU and other OECD countries, b) promote a more robust and effective policy on biorefinery and biobased products in Europe and c) promote Bioeconomy in all OECD member countries. Development of common standards for life cycle assessments as well as agreed methodologies for sustainability criteria.3) Need for new RTD and pilot and demonstration plants and scaling up facilities, in particularly biorefineries – Valuable contributions and elements for future impacts to be shaped as outcome of the Conference, in close coordination with the brokerage events. Needs of RTD in the biorefinery sector, starting from pretreatment of conventional and additional biomass sources, converting processing integration and intensification, downstream processing, etc will be identified and aligned with the needs for pilot scale testing and demonstration opportunities.4) Public procurements, novel and tailored efficiency and product quality standards and regulations necessary for the European Union, Member States and Regions to boost bio-based products and processes - Defining routes to bring to market smart solutions and innovative technologies to intensify productivity and guarantee a degree of profitability for all the actors along the value chain, and thus the long-term viability of the system as a whole within the broader Europe 2020 strategy and beyond.5) Communication and outreach to citizens, consumers and society at large – Continuous communication and involvement of a broad range of stakeholders in a societal dialogue and the society at large, acting as a stakeholders’ dialogue platform to ensure that legitimate societal concerns are taken into account.6) Education and training, engagement of young generations and students – Measures to integrate and complement existing skills and occupations (e.g. farming, fishing, etc.) with new high-and low-tech skills in a range of bio-refining and bio-processing technologies. The Conference will encourage debates and discussions on multidisciplinary approaches and cross-cutting research to foster more and better integrated skills to innovate, adopt new technologies, attract investment, and compete in new markets by maintaining the local know-how and competences. The Conference will directly contribute to engage with civil society, students, young generation and NGO not familiar with the subject in order to trigger interest and activities in the field.7) Boost market uptake and leveraging private investments: Trigger the much needed harmonized approach across member states and how to learn from the EU model of PPPs to mobilize national initiatives in line with EU objectives and priorities with a view to maximize the impact of research and innovation New business models and venturing approaches to mobilize venture capital, business angels and other sources of private fundingIn this respect the implementation of this support action and the main outcomes expected from the Conference implementation made a unique contribution in the implementation of the Bioeconomy EU strategy while contributing to build an effective innovation triangle across Europe which will further develop an innovation pyramid with the effective engagement of the public and the civil society, leveraging from young generations and students. List of Websites:www.bioeconomy.miur.it Related documents final1-cartellone-loghi-70x100.pdf
