Scientific support for growth, jobs and sustainability : the example of eco-industries.
Date: 2012-10-31
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: conference proceedings, ecology, economic growth, environmental protection, environmental research, innovation, job creation, research and development, sustainable development, waste management

i ndu s t r y

Scientific	support	for	growth,	jobs		

	 and	sustainability:
													the	example	of	eco-industries

Brussels,	15	May	2012

Conference report

Joint
Joint
Research
Research
Centre
Centre

	
	
	 	
European Commission

Contact information
Address: Joint Research Centre (JRC), 7/25, Rue de la Sciences 15, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium
E-mail: Ulla.Engelmann@ec.europa.eu
Tel.: + 32 229 57 624
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the 
use which might be made of this publication.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server ‘http://europa.eu/’.

JRC76026
ISBN 978-92-79-26857-1 (pdf)
ISBN 978-92-79-26858-8 (print)
doi: 10.2788/54159 (pdf)

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012.
© European Union, 2012
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium

Table of contents

Introduction
Scientific support for growth, jobs and sustainability: 
the example of the eco-industries

Opening session

First session
Science for clean water

Second session
Science to improve air quality

Third session
Waste management

Fourth session
Renewables

Fifth session
Energy efficiency

Conclusions and next steps

2

3

8

13

18

23

28

33

Scientific support for growth, jobs  
and sustainability: the example of the 
eco-industries

15 May 2012, Brussels

Eco-industries  provide  technologies,  products  and 
services  that  reduce  environmental  risk  and  mini-
mise pollution and the consumption of resources.

The Europe 2020 Strategy identifies environmental 
protection, the promotion and diffusion of eco-inno-
vations  and  environmental  technologies  as  an  im-
portant pillar of current and future European policy 
and  stresses  their  potential  for  economic  growth 
and employment.

Eco-industries  include  activities  in  the  sectors  of 
water,  air  quality,  waste,  energy  efficiency  and  re-
newable energy. With their potential for innovation 
and  technological  development,  the  eco-industries 
create  economic  growth  and  jobs  at  local  level. 
Already,  they  account  for  more  than  3.4  million 
direct  jobs  in  the  EU.  It  has  been  estimated  that 
recycling 70% of key materials in the EU by 2025 
could  create  over  500,000  jobs.  In  the  area  of  re-
newable  energy,  employment  in  the  EU  has  grown 
by around 15% annually between 2000 and 2008. 

European  eco-industries  have  a  turnover  of  more 
than €300 billion (2.5% of GDP). The annual growth 
rate of the EU eco-industry market was about 6% 
on average between 2004 and 2008 in real terms. 

The aim of the conference was to identify where sci-
entific  support  was  needed  to  strengthen  Europe’s 
eco-industries as a source of growth and jobs. 

The two key questions the conference set out to ad-
dress were:

1) Where will new scientific support be 
needed? 
Scientific  support,  new  research  and  investment 
are required to develop critical technologies. There 
are  huge  needs  for  basic  and  applied  scientific  re-
search by industry, universities and public research 
organisations.  While  renewable  energy  has  been 

The JRC Conference on “Scientific support for growth, jobs 
and sustainability: the example of the Eco-Industries” 
took place in Brussels on 15 May.

the subject of significant research, other areas have 
been less favoured, such as energy efficiency, food 
waste and water leakages. There are also needs for 
more  research  to  better  understand  the  potential 
of the eco-industries and to improve the quality of 
data,  assess  the  cost-benefit  of  different  options 
and  understand  the  important  inter-linkages  be-
tween  sectors.  Finally  there  needs  to  be  more  re-
search  into  understanding  consumer  behaviour,  to 
help facilitate the social innovation needed to power 
green growth.

2) Where will new standards be needed? 
Identifying opportunities for EU standards to become 
global  standards  will  help  EU-based  industries.  At 
the  same  time,  it  will  be  important  to  understand 
the key changes needed in the regulatory regime for 
eco-industries in the single market.

Following  the  conference  a  cross-cutting  foresight 
study was to be launched, re-grouping water treat-
ment  and  supply,  energy  efficiency,  solid  waste 
management and recycling, air quality and renewa-
bles. The study would take a holistic view, seeking 
to identify opportunities for new research to boost 
innovation, growth and jobs from the identification 
of complementarities between competitiveness and 
sustainability goals.

2

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

Opening session

Opening session

Mr Dominique Ristori, Director General of the JRC, 
opened  the  conference  by  emphasising  that  the 
time had now come to decide on action for jobs and 
growth. The key to this would be finding ways of fully 
exploiting the potential of industry, while balancing 
competitiveness with sustainability. The role of sci-
ence and innovation would be central in this effort, 
as the required technologies were not yet mature. 

Dominique Ristori, 
JRC Director-General  

the 

Geoghegan-Quinn, 

European 
Máire 
Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, 
stressed  the  enormous  challenge  facing  Europe, 
with its need for growth and job creation at a time 
when planetary limits and the fragility of the envi-
ronment had to be taken into account. 

Máire 
Geoghegan-Quinn, 
European 
Commissioner for 
Research, Innovation 
and Science

With the global population set to rise to 9.3 billion 
by  2050,  and  70%  of  that  population  forecast  to 
be concentrated in urban areas, there was increas-
ing  pressure  on  resources.  At  the  same  time,  new 
sources of raw materials and energy were needed.

But  this  challenge  also  brought  opportunities.  The 
EU was a major producer and exporter of eco-indus-
try applications, and in many cases a world leader. 
Together,  the  eco-industries  in  Europe  had  a  com-
bined turnover of more than €300 billion, provided 
some 3.5 million jobs and had global market shares 
ranging between 30% and 50%. The eco-industries 
offered a way of boosting European competitiveness 
and economic development.

The  JRC,  with  its  function  of  providing  scientific 
support, was increasingly concentrating on the im-
portance of focused innovation, targeting the most 
relevant sectors and fixing precise objectives. 

In accelerating the shift to a low-carbon, resource-ef-
ficient European economy, the eco-industries would 
be one of the most important sectors. Promoting in-
novation in the greening of industry would lead to 
great rewards in terms of growth and job creation. 
Furthermore, this could be achieved without the risk 
of  ‘delocalisation’,  since  the  EU  was  a  net  eco-in-
dustrial exporter and was responsible for more than 
50% of global eco-industry trade.

The focus of the day’s conference would be on where 
scientific  support  was  most  needed  to  strengthen 
Europe’s  eco-industries  as  a  source  of  growth  and 
jobs at all levels.  

4

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

But  these  industries  faced  global  competition  – 
making  it  vital  to  invest  more  in  research,  science 
and technology.       

 { Water

Supplies of clean, plentiful water could no 
longer be taken for granted. The EU water 
sector was a major economic player, with 
turnover of more than €100 billion and 
5% growth per year. But much water was 
still lost through leakage – 60% in some 
European cities. Desalination offered a way 
of improving supplies, but it was energy-
intensive and needed new technology to 
make it economically viable. If nothing was 
done, the world faced a global freshwater 
deficit of 40% by 2030.

 { Waste management and recycling 

Europe throws away some 3 billion tonnes 
of waste every year, with only 40% of solid 
waste being recycled. This was a scandalous 
waste – of raw materials, energy and the 
land needed for landfill. Investment was 
needed to turn costly waste into profitable 
new products. The recently launched EU 
Bioeconomy Strategy contained measures 
to help with this. 500,000 jobs could be 
created in Europe by 2025 if 70% of key 
materials were recycled efficiently.

 { Renewable energy and energy efficiency
Renewable energy accounted for 11.7% of 
EU energy consumption in 2009, and the EU 
was committed to reaching 20% by 2020. 
But scientific support was needed to help 
deliver better technologies in wind turbines, 
biomass, solar power and biofuels. In energy 
efficiency, existing buildings offered a major 
opportunity. Since 90% of today’s building 
would still exist in 2050, upgrading those 
buildings would generate important savings 
as well as jobs.

 { Air

It was shocking that 40 million people in the 
115 largest EU cities were exposed to air 
that failed to meet WHO quality standards. 
Technological innovation in transport and the 
use of renewable energy had a direct impact 
on air quality. Meeting the EU target of 
deriving 20% of its energy from renewable 
sources would help the environment, 
improve air quality, and could create more 
than 600,000 jobs in the EU by 2020.

The  EU  was  taking  practical  steps  to  support  the 
eco-industries.  The  Europe  2020  strategy  identi-
fied  these  sectors  as  key  contributors  to  sustain-
able  growth.  Innovation  Union,  launched  by  Ms 
Geoghegan-Quinn  in  2010,  would  also  play  a  role, 
and  Ms  Geoghegan-Quinn  stressed  her  personal 
commitment  to  removing  the  obstacles  preventing 
innovators  from  transforming  Europe’s  excellent 
basic research into products and services that could 
be  successful  in  world  markets.  Key  requirements 
for  this  included  faster  standard-setting,  cheaper 
and  easier  patenting,  more  public  procurement  of 
innovative goods and services, and better access to 
venture capital.

Horizon  2020  and  the  JRC  would  also  play  impor-
tant roles in supporting the continued investment in 
science and technology needed to develop Europe’s 
vital eco-industries.

Hannes  Swoboda,  President  of  the  Group  of  the 
Progressive  Alliance  of  Socialists  and  Democrats 
in  the  European  Parliament,  spoke  of  the  need  for 
a new kind of growth policy for Europe. It was ex-
tremely  good  timing,  he  said,  that  this  conference 
was taking place just as Europe was starting to talk 
about the need for growth.

Hannes Swoboda, 
President of the Group 
of the Progressive 
Alliance of Socialists 
and Democrats in the 
European Parliament

Austerity alone would not solve the economic crisis. 
It  was  important  to  combine  savings  efforts  with 
a  genuine  growth  policy.  Why  should  investment 
into R&D, and into areas like the eco-industries, be 
treated in the same way as public salaries and pen-
sions?  Of  course,  salaries  and  pensions  had  to  be 
paid, but one form of expenditure was creating jobs 
and wealth while the other was spending it.
To create the right kind of growth, a key requirement 
was public investment. This could not be just any 

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

5

investment,  for  example  into  roads  that  were  not 
needed. It had to be directed into necessary areas 
such  as  research  and  development,  or  into  initia-
tives like renovating Europe’s massive housing stock 
– a project which would add value both by reducing 
energy consumption and by creating jobs. Private in-
vestment was also needed. Companies needed capi-
tal, and they needed banks which would provide it.  

This  should  all  take  place  within  the  framework 
of  a  new  industrial  policy.  Europe  had  long  had  a 
competition policy, but had forgotten about having 
an industrial policy. This did not mean ‘creating in-
dustries’,  but  providing  a  framework  within  which 
industry  could  operate.  It  was  no  use,  for  exam-
ple, promoting solar energy if most production was 
coming from China and the net effect was to sub-
sidise  Chinese  industry.  Not  enough  attention  had 
been  paid  to  the  fact  that  we  had  to  produce  the 
right products here in Europe.

Investing in education and training was important, to 
help businesses provide not just products but the fully 
integrated,  comprehensive  services  that  customers 
wanted.  While  Europe  did  have  high  quality  people, 
it  was  a  weakness  that  so  many  of  the  immigrant 
population did not make it into higher education.

Above  all,  said  Mr  Swoboda,  high  aims  were  not 
enough,  as  Lisbon  had  shown.  Implementation  was 
vital.  The  danger  was  that  the  EU  could  develop  a 
comprehensive  growth  policy,  and  have  excellent 
2020 aims, supported by all – ‘but implemented by 
very few’.

In the area of energy saving and renewable energy, 
for example, it was hard to convince Member States 
that the targets were anything more than a headline 
since  there  were  no  obligations  attached.  Why  did 
we  impose  obligations  in  budgetary  discipline  but 
not in energy patterns? The example of the REACH 
regulations  in  the  chemical  industry  indicated  that 
imposing obligations could lead to success. Despite 
initial  objections,  the  European  chemical  industry 
had in fact become much more profitable and was 
now  calling  for  even  stricter  standards,  because 
REACH  compliance  had  become  a  source  of  com-
petitive advantage.

Recycling  was  another  area  which  contributed  di-
rectly to competitiveness. An example was the need 
to  recycle  rare  earth  elements.  If  Europe  wanted 
to  be  more  competitive  it  had  to  do  much  more 

recycling,  even  if  that  led  to  short-term  increases 
in  costs.  E-mobility  and  water  management  were 
other examples where more needed to be done.

The  combination  of  industry,  politics  and  ecology 
was a big chance for Europe, which we should not 
miss, Mr Swoboda concluded. It was an opportunity 
to create a growth policy which would have a dual 
benefit – creating jobs AND a better environment, in 
Europe and worldwide.  

The  world’s  growing  demands  –  environmental, 
social and economic – and the tensions these caused, 
meant  that  we  were  going  to  have  to  re-think  our 
development  models,  said  the  final  speaker  of  the 
opening session, Dr Marion Guillou, President and 
CEO of the French National Institute for Agricultural 
Research (INRA).

Marion Guillou,
President of the 
French National  
Institute for  
Agricultural Research 
(INRA)

Looking at the role of the eco-industries, it was right 
to  see  their  purpose  as  being  the  correction  and 
repair  of  the  damage  caused  to  natural  resources 
such as water, soil and air. But it was important to 
recognise  that  they  had  an  additional,  more  posi-
tive role to play in guaranteeing better use of, and 
productivity from, those resources – in other words, 
providing a form of environmental added-value.

Reflecting the new definition of the eco-industries as 
not  only  repairing  damage  but  also  providing  new, 
value-adding goods and services, the key aspects of 
the eco-industries could be defined as:

•  managing natural resources sustainably
reducing dependence on non-renewable 
• 
resources such as fossil fuels
•  mitigating and adapting to climate 

changelimiting waste (e.g. 30-50% of farm 

6

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

yeast was being used to produce biokerosene.

In  the  drive  to  innovation,  research  and  develop-
ment,  Europe  of  course  had  a  major  role  to  play, 
guided by the targets set in Horizon 2020. Important 
in this would be the creation of the necessary infra-
structures and databases, the modelling and antici-
pating of future trends, joint research programmes, 
and platforms to enable innovation and dissemina-
tion. Multinational organisations would also have an 
important role to play.

Above all, said Dr Guillou, close cooperation would 
be  key,  with  all  stakeholders  working  together  to 
anticipate, innovate, and create initiatives that were 
positive  not  only  for  the  environment  but  also  for 
the economy.     

products around the world were lost or 
wasted)
ensuring food and non-food production  
efficiency

• 

The  vital  theme  underlying  all  of  these  aspects 
was the need, at the same time, to create jobs and 
maintain  European  competitiveness.  Sustainability 
was  not  achievable  without  economic  and  social 
sustainability.

Within this broad description of the bioeconomy, the 
key challenges were:

• 
• 
• 
• 

renewable energy sources and biomass
air pollution, in particular the nitrogen cycle
energy efficiency
eco-construction , including the use of new 
and renewed materials

•  waste reduction, management and recycling
•  water management – in particular reducing 
the large amount lost through leakage
understanding consumer behaviour

• 

The  last  point  was  extremely  important,  since  no 
amount  of  technological  innovation  would  suc-
ceed if there was social opposition. Any innovations 
needed to be well-perceived and accepted.

In  addressing  all  of  these  challenges,  there  was  a 
major potential for research and innovation. Europe 
certainly  had  a  competitive  edge  in  all  the  estab-
lished sectors of the eco-industries, whether it was 
water,  energy  or  farming  and  food  production.  But 
there  was  strong  international  competition  to  be 
faced and more innovation would be vital for Europe 
to maintain its advantage.

One specific example where innovation was required 
was soil management. Large quantities of soil were 
lost every year because of urbanisation, erosion and 
salinity.  Soil  remediation  was  a  key  requirement  – 
but we needed the necessary know-how to achieve 
it.

Another area was sustainable food production. The 
world was at a ceiling in terms of cereal production, 
and  yet  food  needs  were  growing.  Innovation  was 
needed to maintain or improve yield levels.

Renewable carbon was a further example. In France, 
a  recently  established  project  was  researching  the 
use of ‘white biotechnologies’ – using enzymes and 
microbes  to  manufacture  biofuels.  For  example, 

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

7

Science for  
clean water

© stock.xchng

Session 1

Science for clean water  

According to a recent study by the Water Resources 
Group,  the  world  could  face  a  global  freshwater 
supply  shortage  of  40%  by  the  year  2030,  said 
David  Wilkinson,  Director  of  Scientific  Policy  and 
Stakeholder Relations at the JRC and the Moderator 
of Session 1. The efficient use of water was both a 
global  challenge  and  an  EU  one.  Many  freshwater 
sources within Europe were at risk of not reaching 
the ‘good ecological status’ objective set by the EU 
Water Framework Directive.    

David Wilkinson, 
JRC Director of 
Scientific Policy and 
Stakeholder Relations

In  Europe,  water  management  was  an  important 
sector  for  job  creation  and  growth,  accounting  for 
around one third of the global water market. It ac-
counted for 600,000 jobs in Europe and was grow-
ing at 5% per year. European companies were world 
leaders,  but  other  parts  of  the  world  were  making 
significant efforts to enter this growing market and 
catch up.

Science  could  be  key  to  providing  effective  water 
management  solutions,  said  Dr  Wilkinson.  For  its 
part,  the  JRC  was  prioritising  three  focus  areas:  
water saving, water treatment, and the desalination 
of sea water.

The first speaker of the session, Mr Patrick Lavarde, 
Director General of the French National Agency for 
Water and Aquatic Environments (ONEMA), focused 
his comments on the issue of water quantity, rather 
than quality.

Mr Patrick Lavarde, 
Director General of 
the French National 
Agency for Water and 
Aquatic Environments 
(ONEMA)

The world was in a fragile position. Only now were 
we discovering that water was a limited resource. It 
was not even clear how much water we had. Rainfall 
was unpredictable and demand was changing as a 
result  of  changing  demographies  and  lifestyles. 
Already in Europe, one third of the territory was in 
chronic  water  shortage,  and  drought  levels  across 
Europe had doubled in the last 15 years.

Water scarcity produced friction between competing 
users and ways had to be found of prioritising these 
claims. Clearly, a minimum level of water had to be 
guaranteed for the basic requirements of life. This 
was why, in 2010, the UN Assembly had recognised 
food and water as fundamental human rights.

As water supply was not limitless, we had to manage 
demand.  For  that,  the  overwhelming  priority  was 
saving  water.  Many  countries,  including  France, 
were now coming up with quite drastic water saving 
plans.  We  had  to  be  more  efficient  in  our  use  of 
water, and that meant decoupling economic growth 

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

9

from pressures on natural resources.

The strong message to have come out of the recent 
World  Water  Forum  was  that  the  number  one  pri-
ority  for  water-saving  had  to  be  agriculture  –  the 
sector  that  consumed  the  most  water.  With  the 
world’s food needs increasing, it was clear that more 
needed to be done with less. 

But it was not only agriculture. The need for efficien-
cy  and  savings  applied  across  the  board.  Industry 
had an important role to play. And if we looked at 
urban  water  use,  water  losses  between  the  water 
utility and the tap were considerable. To tackle this, 
France had recently introduced legislation requiring 
no more than 15% loss through such leakage, and 
doubling the tax on taking water out of aquifers. 

Financial  instruments  would  be  an  important  lever 
for  encouraging  efficiency.  Household  users  paid 
100%  of  the  cost  of  their  water  whereas  others, 
such as agricultural users, only paid two thirds. More 
integrated  policy-making  would  also  be  required, 
since  water  policy  could  not  be  separated  from 
energy or farming policy, as evidenced by increasing 
recognition of the ‘water-food-energy nexus’.

To address this fragile situation, several key areas 
required  more  research  and  innovation.  These 
included:

• 

climate change and its effects on the water 
cycle and on variability within the cycle
•  ways to reduce water consumption in 

agriculture

•  ways to reduce water consumption in 

industry

•  ways of re-using water
• 
• 

desalination
optimal management of urban water 
resources
techniques for the detection and tracking of 
water reserves (e.g. by radar and satellite)
new techniques for water storage.

• 

• 

To  enable  this  to  happen,  a  great  deal  of  support 
was  needed  in  Europe  for  research,  development 
and  innovation,  to  help  the  industry  face  growing 
international competition. This was a key message 
that had emerged from a session that ONEMA had 
chaired at the World Water Forum.

It was also important to involve all stakeholders in 

the  process,  and  to  establish  the  correct  arrange-
ments  for  sharing  the  risks  linked  to  innovation, 
for  example  helping  public  authorities  by  adapting 
public procurement codes and providing financial in-
centives for sharing risk.

Finally, it was important to link up initiatives at all 
levels – European, national and regional. The newly 
launched European Innovation Partnership for water 
would be an important tool to help with this.

The next speaker, Gernot Klotz, Executive Director 
of  Research  and  Innovation  of  the  European 
Chemical  Industry  Council  (Cefic),  addressed  the 
theme ‘Sustainable Water Management in Europe’. 
To illustrate the current state of water management 
in Europe, Dr Klotz began by noting that: 

Gernot Klotz, 
Executive Director 
of Research and 
Innovation of the 
European Chemical 
Industry Council (Cefic)

• 

• 

• 

• 

Brussels had only recently started treating 
most of its waste water
740 bathtubs of water were needed to 
make a single new car
For 2030, an increase of 15% was expected 
in irrigation water requirements
33% of fresh water was lost in London 
through leaks in the supply pipes – and in 
some Italian cities the proportion was as 
high as 70%.

The  present  situation  was  a  challenge  but  not  yet 
a crisis. There was still time to take action to tackle 
the challenges. These were: 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

the scarcity of fresh water
increasing demands
unsustainable systems
energy use in the water industry
unsustainable dependence on water.

10

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

In  order  to  achieve  a  sustainable  and  competitive 
Europe, the ‘water objectives’ were clear.  

research  and  markets,  turning  the  results  of  re-
search into value-added products and services.

In addition, cooperation along the value chain was 
essential. The chemical industry could provide inno-
vative materials, but there needed to be demand for 
them. 

Academia, industry and policy-makers could not do 
it alone either. There needed to be strong commit-
ment and frameworks, not just ‘visions’.

Areas in which science could provide important sup-
port were:

• 

• 

• 

• 

studies on the impact of integrated water 
management across Europe
scenarios for optimal use of water in various 
sectors (e.g. not using drinking quality water 
for irrigation)
harmonised standards and methods across 
Europe
predictive tools for material quality – since 
innovative materials did not have long 
histories of established use

Dr  Klotz  concluded  with  a  quotation  from  the 
18th  century  German  philosopher  Georg  Christoph 
Lichtenberg:  ‘I  do  not  know  if  what  I  propose  is 
enough,  but  I  know  that  things  have  to  change  to 
get better.’

The final speaker of the session, Dr Nick Hankins, 
Director  of  the  Centre  for  Sustainable  Water 
Engineering  at  the  University  of  Oxford  in  the  UK, 
highlighted  the  current  priorities  driving  the  tech-
nological  research  needed  to  ensure  clean  water 
supplies.

Dr Nick Hankins, 
Director of the Centre 
for Sustainable Water 
Engineering at the 
University of Oxford

•  No European citizen should lack clean water 

and sanitation

•  No economic activity should be disturbed by 

water problems

•  No water should be affected by human 

activity.

While innovation required investment, it was mainly 
about  mindset  change.  The  water  challenge  went 
beyond  the  water  sector  alone,  but  there  was  a 
danger of Europe remaining rooted in old silos and 
patterns of behaviour. If we did not link up we would 
not be able to use the strengths of Europe. While we 
were  still  thinking  about  innovation,  other  parts  of 
the world, like China or the US, were moving ahead. 

In  Europe  today,  industrial,  agricultural  and  urban 
water usage were isolated from each other. A more 
symbiotic approach was needed, driven by bio-based 
technologies,  to  maximise  the  potential  for  waste 
water treatment, materials recovery and water re-
use. Every drop of water counted and we had to use 
it several times. There would be no bio-economy if 
we did not solve the water recycling problem.

The  chemical  industry’s  potential  to  contribute  to 
innovation  was  huge.  It  included  developing  cor-
rosion-resistant  and  antibacterial  materials  to  aid 
water quality, along with new processes for remov-
ing salts, pollutants and microorganisms. In terms of 
water quantity, the industry was focused on design-
ing new, less water-dependent industrial processes 
and  cooling  systems,  along  with  new  biomimetic 
methods for seawater desalination. Meanwhile, the 
design  of  closed-loop  industrial  processes  such  as 
energy  extraction  and  re-use  would  boost  energy 
efficiency.

The potential impact was significant. Using modern 
piping materials and techniques could save 40% of 
the water used for irrigation. Reducing leakages in 
supply systems through corrosion-resistant materi-
als,  smart  meters  and  real-time  monitoring  could 
achieve  50%  savings.  And  nano-membranes  for 
water  treatment  could  save  the  energy  generated 
by four nuclear reactors.     

The chemical industry was fully committed to inno-
vation in Europe. But research alone was not inno-
vation. It was important to bridge the gap between 

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

11

The fact was that there was plenty of water on the 
planet, said Dr Hankins. The problem was that most 
of  it  was  salty,  or  in  the  wrong  place,  or  available 
at  the  wrong  time.  The  result  was  that  we  had  to 
use what water we had in a better way. Technology 
therefore had to focus not only on ways of provid-
ing  clean  water,  but  also  on  ways  to  enable  more 
efficient use of water.

There were several clean water challenges confront-
ing the world:

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

1.1 billion people had no access to safe 
drinking water, and 2.6 billion had no proper 
sanitation
2.2. million deaths a year were related to 
issues of water, hygiene and sanitation, 
many of them young children
97% of the world’s water was in the ocean 
and the world’s fastest growing cities were 
within 100km of the coast. With water 
shortages set to limit economic growth and 
food production, we would have to turn to 
the ocean for our water supplies, even if 
there were sustainability challenges in that
even though water resources were under 
pressure, new reservoirs, wells, pipelines 
and river transfers were not sustainable 
economically, socially or environmentally 
a new range of contaminants and pollutants 
was emerging as EC regulations were 
tightened
lower-energy, sustainable technologies 
were urgently needed for desalination and 
wastewater treatment

•  water-stressed regions had to rely 

increasingly on brackish underground water, 
sea water, or water recycling and re-use.

In response to these challenges, the priorities for sci-
entific research relating to water could be grouped 
under three headings.

Sustainability and new technology 
While many in industry and academia saw sustain-
ability largely in terms of efficiency, it was important 
also to recognise the needs of the environment and 
of equity – in the form of social justice both today 
and in the future.

A key focus was the need both to develop existing 
processes  and  to  devise  new  ones  for  the  treat-
ment of raw drinking water and the desalination of 

ground  water  and  sea  water.  These  processes  had 
to be low cost, with a low environmental and carbon 
footprint. Two research areas showing great prom-
ise were nanotechnology and membrane separation 
technology,  with  both  indicating  clear  potential  for 
significant energy savings over existing methods.

Waste water and industrial usage
The emphasis here was on reclaiming, reusing and 
recycling water. We had to change our mindset and 
start seeing waste as a resource, providing raw ma-
terials  and  energy.  Membrane  bio-reactors  were  a 
potential great leap forward, able to treat water in 
the  same  way  as  existing  technologies,  while  also 
providing drinkable water as part of the process. 

Other priorities for research focused on finding ways 
to remove contaminants. These included micro-con-
taminants such as endocrine disrupting compounds, 
trace heavy metals, or the potentially toxic or carci-
nogenic by-products of disinfectant use, as well as 
contaminants such as nitrates and phosphates from 
agricultural run-off.

Water as a resource
With  the  climate  changing  and  water  resources 
shrinking, key focus areas for research included the 
recharging  and  remediation  of  ground  water,  and 
new  technologies  for  leak  detection  and  real-time 
quality monitoring in water distribution systems.

The  key  driver  of  clean  water  research,  concluded 
Dr Hankins, was increasing demand for a finite re-
source.  Clean  water  technology  was  a  priority  for 
the  21st  century,  with  membrane  processes  and 
nanotechnology  offering  the  greatest  potential  for 
sustainable progress.

Bringing the session to a conclusion, Dr Wilkinson 
noted  that  a  key  point  emphasised  by  all  of  the 
speakers  had  been  the  fact  that  water  was  not  a 
problem that could be solved on its own. It had to 
be seen in a single, coherent perspective which em-
braced all resources, in particular energy. The speak-
ers had also made it clear that the issue of water 
resources  was  one  of  the  key  challenges  for  the 
21st century. The fact that 97% of the world’s water 
was still not usable because it was in the sea was a 
problem that had to be tackled. Finally, Dr Wilkinson 
said, there was considerable potential for ‘joined-up 
thinking’ between the renewable energy sector and 
the water sector. 

12

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

Science to improve 
air quality

Session 2

Science to improve air quality

Opening  the  session  on  air  quality,  the  Moderator, 
Professor  Leen  Hordijk,  Principal  Adviser  to  the 
Director General of the JRC, noted that activities in 
this  sector  amounted  to  less  than  3%  of  the  total 
turnover generated by the eco-industries. Why was 
it so small? Referring to an OECD study some  two 
years earlier, which had listed the characteristics of 
environmental policy which were likely to induce in-
novation, Professor Hordijk highlighted three of the 
five factors the report had identified:

1. 

2. 
3. 

the stringency of the policy and the require-
ments it made of the industry:
the predictability and stability of the policy:
the extent to which policies encouraged 
innovators to look across a wide area for a 
diversity of possible solutions.

Professor Leen 
Hordijk, 
Principal Adviser to 
the Director General of 
the JRC

The first speaker, Gunnar Söderholm, Head of the 
Environment and Health Administration of the City 
of Stockholm, addressed the topic of smart cities. 

Stockholm  was  proud  to  have  been  the  first  Green 
Capital  of  Europe  in  2010,  said  Mr  Söderholm.  
Stockholm  was  also  a  growing  city,  with  expected 
growth of some 25% in the next 20 years. This growth 
created challenges, making the city denser and home 

to more businesses. But its experience showed that a 
denser city could also be a sustainable city. 

Gunnar Söderholm, 
Head of the 
Environment and 
Health Administration 
of the City of 
Stockholm

Crucially,  public  support  was  strong.  In  a  recent 
survey,  around  90%  of  Stockholmers  said  it  was 
‘very  good’  that  Stockholm  pursued  an  active  en-
vironmental  programme.  Even  more  importantly, 
as  well  as  voicing  general  support,  they  were  also 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  city  making  greater  de-
mands  on  citizens  to  live  in  an  environmentally 
friendly way.  

Stockholm  was  not  entirely  without  problems. 
Concentrations  of  PM10  particles  still  exceeded 
EU  limits  on  occasions.  In  the  case  of  Stockholm, 
the use of studded winter tyres was the dominant 
source  of  PM10.  The  city  was  considering  ways  of 
addressing  the  problem  –  and  its  performance  in 
terms  of  numbers  of  days  per  year  exceeding  EU 
permitted  average  levels  was  improving.  A  similar 
picture – of occasionally raised levels but an overall 
year-on-year  improvement  –  was  true  of  nitrogen 
dioxide levels.

The  single  biggest  reason  for  the  improvement  in 
Stockholm’s air quality, said Mr Söderholm, was the 
extension of district heating and the co-generation 
of heat and power, fuelled in large part by biofuels 

14

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

and waste. 80% of homes were now connected to 
district heating. As a result, emissions had been re-
duced by 99% compared to 1960 levels.

Other factors which had played a part in improving 
air  quality  in  Stockholm  included  the  introduction 
of  congestion  charging  to  the  inner  city  in  2006. 
This  had  led  to  a  20%  decrease  in  traffic  and  a 
10-14%  decrease  in  emissions.  Most  notably,  ini-
tial  strong  opposition,  with  80%  of  Stockholmers 
being  against  the  charge  before  its  introduction, 
had turned into a 67% majority in favour today.   

A  rise  in  the  number  of  clean  vehicles  had  also 
played  an  important  role.  As  a  result  of  a  20-
year programme, some 40% of Stockholm’s vehi-
cles now qualified as ‘clean’ and the city was now 
aiming  towards  the  introduction  of  ‘super-clean’ 
vehicles,  with  a  plan  to  introduce  electrical  and 
biogas-powered  models.  Volvo  was  planning  to 
introduce  a  plug-in  hybrid  vehicle  in  2013.  In  the 
public transport arena, Stockholm already had the 
world’s largest ethanol bus fleet in the world, and 
it  was  working  to  achieve  fully  fossil-free  public 
transport by 2022.  

Overall,  Stockholm  had  seen  a  100-fold  improve-
ment in air quality since 1960. This effort had not 
started as a ‘green’ movement. It had begun more 
as  a  social  movement,  based  on  engineering  and 
rational  thinking,  with  broad  support  across  the 
entire political spectrum. And its success was clear, 
with  surveys  showing  the  citizens  of  Stockholm 
providing increasingly positive assessments of the 
quality of the environment of their city.     

As a graphic illustration of the progress Stockholm 
has made, Mr Söderholm displayed a graph show-
ing daily emissions during 2011. A dramatic spike 
in levels appeared for one day – a day on which a 
single road in the city had hosted a vintage car race 
featuring cars from the 1960s and 1970s. In those 
decades, Mr Söderholm stressed, every day on the 
graph  had  looked  like  that.  Children  in  Stockholm 
today  were  breathing  much  better  air  today  than 
had been the case then.    

The  second  speaker  of  the  session  was  Dr  Irene 
Feige,  Director  of  the 
Institute  for  Mobility 
Research  (ifmo),  a  research  establishment  of  the 
BMW group. Speaking on the subject of the future 
of  mobility,  Dr  Feige  said  that,  with  70%  of  the 

world’s population forecast to be living in cities by 
2050, urban mobility was the key issue. 

Dr Irene Feige, 
Director of the 
Institute for Mobility 
Research (ifmo)

But cities were all very different and would require 
different  approaches  to  mobility.  For  example,  al-
though  ‘mega-cities’,  with  more  than  10  million 
people, tended to be talked about the most, in fact 
the largest share of urban population was in cities 
of  up  to  500,000  people.  And  major  growth  was 
occurring in cities of up to 5 million inhabitants.

It was also important to understand the linkage be-
tween air quality, carbon emissions and wealth. As 
wealth increased, urban air quality initially declined 
as  industrial  activity  and  transport  expanded.  But 
air  quality  then  improved  as  better  technologies 
emerged. The same was not true of carbon emis-
sions,  however.  Carbon  was  not  decoupled  from 
wealth but continued to increase along with wealth 
levels.

A recent study of 42 cities around the world, con-
ducted  by  ifmo,  had  shown  that,  at  relatively  low 
levels  of  GDP,  cities  fell  into  one  of  two  catego-
ries – either ‘non-motorised’ or ‘paratransit’ (where 
motorised transport took the form of mostly illegal 
taxis). As GDP rose and cities went through a period 
of  mass  motorisation,  they  became  ‘traffic  satu-
rated’ – with a high level of private vehicles but no 
alternatives in the form of good public transport.

What was of crucial importance for the mobility of 
the future was the development phase that cities 
entered after mass motorisation, said Dr Feige. The 
ifmo  study  had  shown  three  possible  scenarios, 
closely linked to levels of population density:

 { Transit

The ‘transit’ city was a city of high 

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

15

population density, very much oriented 
towards public transport – e.g. Tokyo.

 { Auto

Cities of very low density with a heavy 
reliance on private motoring – e.g. Atlanta.

 { Hybrid

Cities with high density at their centre 
but with less dense suburbs – e.g. most 
European and some US cities.

Each of these city types would require different so-
lutions, which would in turn determine the potential 
contribution to be made by the eco-industries.

In traffic saturated cities, the main challenges were 
the need to improve air quality and make best use 
of  infrastructure  capacity.  The  requirements  were 
for  clean  vehicle  technologies,  intelligent  transport 
system  (ITS)  technologies,  and  improvements  in 
public transport.  

In hybrid and auto cities, air quality levels were typi-
cally much better than in traffic saturated cities, but 
carbon dioxide emissions and energy use needed to 
be reduced. The needs here were more centred on 
efficient  vehicle  development,  alternative  engines, 
ITS  technologies,  and  –  in  auto  cities  –  improve-
ments in public transport.

In  the  light  of  the  above,  and  turning  to  the  key 
question of the conference, the areas in which scien-
tific support and research were most needed were: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the interlinkage between the energy and 
transport sectors
how to improve the linkages between 
different modes of transport in order to 
achieve a more multimodal approach to 
mobility
social science research to understand the 
different mobility needs between cities and 
geographical regions
studies in consumer behaviour

In  conclusion,  said  Dr  Feige,  there  was  significant 
potential  for  the  eco-industries  in  urban  areas, 
where  80%  of  global  GDP  was  generated,  and 
where  60-80%  of  global  carbon  dioxide  emissions 
occurred.  That  potential  would  be  the  greatest  in 
traffic saturated cities, hybrid cities and auto cities.   

The  final  speaker  of  the  session,  David  Fowler, 
Senior  Scientist  at  the  Centre  for  Ecology  and 
Hydrology  in  the  UK,  outlined  the  need  for  basic 
and applied science research to improve air quality. 
With EU Air Quality policy undergoing a review, and 
many  cities  in  Europe  exceeding  permitted  limits, 
this was a good time to discuss scientific research 
needs.

David Fowler, 
Senior Scientist at the 
UK Centre for Ecology 
and Hydrology

Basic  and  applied  research  was  vital  for  the  un-
derstanding  of  the  factors  affecting  air  quality, 
and  to  be  able  to  quantify  the  consequences  of 
policy  intervention  before  decisions  were  made. 
Three  examples  would  help  to  demonstrate  this 
– one in which good research had underpinned a 
policy success, resulting in controls that were ef-
fective, and two examples where policy had been 
less effective

Acid rain
Air  quality  was  not  a  new  problem.  The  London 
smog of 1952, resulting in 12,000 excess deaths, 
had led to the first air quality legislation – the re-
moval of the power stations which were the source 
of the pollution from cities to the countryside. The 
same example had been followed in other European 
countries. This had led, however, to acid rainfall in 
Sweden – a discovery which triggered a process of 
strongly science-led research into the phenomenon 
of trans-boundary air pollution issues.

In time, the research led to the UN Convention on 
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, signed in 
1979. The result had been reductions of up to 95% 
in  sulphur  emissions  around  Europe,  and  a  major 
decline  in  ecosystems  still  deemed  vulnerable  to 
acidification.  Acid  rain  had  broadly  been  a  policy 
success story, underpinned by high-quality science.

16

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

Bringing the session to a close, Professor Hordijk 
remarked that the important role of the social sci-
ences  was  a  point  that  emerged  very  clearly  from 
the  session,  as  shown  by  the  need  to  understand 
consumer  preferences  regarding  transport,  or  the 
attitude  of  Stockholm’s  citizens  to  congestion 
charging. As well as the challenge to develop better 
technologies,  there  was  also  the  challenge  of  un-
derstanding public attitudes. While pricing was one 
factor, the issue was clearly more complicated than 
just that.

Ground level ozone
Ground  level  ozone,  however,  remained  a  major 
problem. It was responsible for some 20,000 prema-
ture deaths in the EU, 20 million hospital days due 
to  respiratory  problems,  and  €6.7  billion  of  arable 
crop  loss.  With  forestry  showing  similar  sensitivity 
to ozone levels, there was also an impact on carbon 
sequestration and therefore on climate change.

The ozone problem continued despite the fact that 
Europe had approximately halved the levels of the 
two pollutants responsible – VOC’s and NOX – since 
the 1970s, and also achieved a decline in peak ozone 
levels of around 30%. Despite these achievements, 
mean ozone values had been steadily increasing for 
the last 30 years.

The reason for the increase was that Europe was not 
alone  in  the  northern  hemisphere  in  producing  the 
ozone-creating pollutants. Ozone was able to travel 
long distances from sources outside Europe. Policy 
controls therefore needed to be agreed and imple-
mented at hemispheric level.    

Particulate matter
Although  progress  was  being  made  in  tackling  the 
issue of reduced life expectancy due to fine particles 
in the air, there was still a problem. While we knew 
a lot about particles, there was still a lot that was 
unknown – for example, which chemical species in 
particulate  matter  were  responsible  for  the  health 
effects.  The  policy  response  was  therefore  limited 
to reducing the overall mass of particulate matter.

Issues  which  needed  further  research,  and  which 
would  feed  into  the  current  EU  Air  Quality  review, 
included  identifying  which  size  of  PM  was  most 
important  for  regulation,  the  link  between  aerosol 
composition and health effects, the most important 
sources  to  control,  and  whether  PM  hot  spots  or 
general background levels should be the priority for 
control.

Looking  to  the  future,  concluded  Dr  Fowler,  many 
scientific  challenges  remained  for  areas  such  as 
ozone  and  PM.  There  was  also  a  need  for  policies 
on air quality and climate change to be complemen-
tary. The two issues were very closely linked – yet 
the tendency was for the people working on these 
issues to be separated in different institutions and 
ministries.

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

17

Waste  
management  

© stock.xchng

Session 3

Waste management  

Opening the session, the Moderator, John Bensted-
Smith, Director of the JRC’s Institute of Prospective 
Technological Studies, said that some of the statis-
tics relating to waste management were astonish-
ing. In the EU alone, 3 billion tonnes of waste were 
generated every year, with only 40% of solid waste 
being recycled. It was also a growing industry, with 
the OECD forecasting that the world would be cre-
ating 45% more waste in 2020 compared to 1995 
levels.

John Bensted-Smith, 
Director of the JRC’s 
Institute of Prospective 
Technological Studies

Not only was it a ‘sunrise’ industry, it was also one 
in  which  Europe  was  at  the  forefront,  with  a  50% 
share  of  world  markets.  Waste  management  was 
clearly a central point for our attention if we were 
going to achieve anything in the eco-industry sector.

The first speaker of the session was Peter  Kurth, 
President  of  the  European  Federation  of  Waste 
Management  and  Environmental  Services  (FEAD), 
whose  members  include  the  national  waste  man-
agement federations of 20 EU countries, represent-
ing 3,000 companies involved in all forms of waste 
management. 

Mr Kurth stressed the valuable contribution the pri-
vate  waste  management  industry  could  make  to 

Europe, and outlined the conditions that were nec-
essary to achieve the best results. 

Peter Kurth, 
President of the 
European Federation 
of Waste Management 
and Environmental 
Services (FEAD)

The industry had the expertise and competitive skills 
to  play  a  key  role  in  helping  the  EU  to  realise  the 
ambitious  target  it  had  set  of  turning  Europe  into 
a ‘recycling society’. Already, it had enabled Europe 
to have the highest recycling rates in the world, the 
most efficient waste processing, and the highest en-
vironmental standards.

Innovation was vitally important to the waste man-
agement  industry.  FEAD  had  financed  numerous 
research and innovation initiatives, such as the re-
cycling of copper, indium, gallium and selenide from 
solar cells. Some members were now assessing the 
potential of landfill mining, with closed landfill sites 
in  Germany  alone  estimated  to  contain  some  40 
million tonnes of different metals.

The potential offered to Europe by the waste man-
agement industry was enormous. On average in the 
27 EU member states, 16 tonnes of materials were 
used per person per year. Of these, 6 tonnes went to 
waste, of which half went to landfill. Between 20% 
and  30%  of  these  resources  had  to  be  imported, 
and €5.25 billion of recyclables such as paper, glass, 
aluminium  and  steel  were  disposed  of  every  year. 

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

19

If  these  materials  were  recycled,  the  equivalent 
of  148  million  tonnes  of  CO2  emissions  would  be 
avoided. And 500,000 new jobs would be created if 
70% of waste were recycled across the EU.

FEAD looked forward to contributing significantly to 
an innovative European ‘recycling society’, and help-
ing to make Europe the most resource-efficient con-
tinent in the world.

The recycling industry was a source of valuable ma-
terials  to  manufacturing,  supplying  50%  of  paper, 
43% of glass and 40% of non-ferrous metals.

Reflecting the emphasis placed on green growth in 
its Horizon 2020 strategy, the EU was in a position 
to provide a major push to the research and inno-
vation  that  was  necessary.  Particular  areas  where 
future scientific support for innovation was required 
included technologies for rare earths recycling, pho-
tovoltaic panels and landfill mining.

Also needed were changes in the regulatory regime 
for  eco-industries  in  the  single  market.  These 
included:

• 

• 

• 

fair legislation on public procurement, 
removing special privileges for cooperative 
ventures between public authorities
uniform VAT rates between public and 
private sector companies
stricter implementation of existing 
legislation across all EU member states. 
This was currently very patchy, with some 
countries still landfilling the vast majority 
of their waste. EC proposals to link future 
funding for waste management projects to 
better compliance was a welcome step.

FEAD  also  supported  initiatives  to  establish  better 
standards – for example stricter inspection standards 
to combat illegal waste shipments, high quality recy-
cling standards, and minimum treatment standards.

In conclusion, said Mr Kurth, the waste management 
industry  was  able  to  make  an  important  contribu-
tion to jobs, growth and sustainability in Europe. But 
to  achieve  this,  it  needed  innovative  technologies, 
the right framework conditions and common stand-
ards.  For  this  reason  FEAD  welcomed  the  conclu-
sions of the European Parliament’s recent Report on 
a  Resource  Efficient  Europe.  These  conclusions  in-
cluded an emphasis on the role of the private sector, 
asking  the  European  Commission  and  the  Member 
States to boost research and innovation in recycling 
and waste management, and called for support for 
investments  in  new  techniques  and  new  business 
models.

The  second  speaker  of  the  session  was  Ross 
Bartley,  Director  of  Environment  and  Technical 
Affairs of the Bureau of International Recycling (BIR). 

Ross Bartley, 
Director of 
Environment and 
Technical Affairs 
of the Bureau of 
International Recycling 
(BIR)

Mr  Bartley  outlined  the  substantial  part  played  by 
recycling in providing raw materials to manufactur-
ers, saving resources including energy, and creating 
jobs  and  sustainable  growth.  He  then  went  on  to 
identify  key  areas  where  further  research  and  in-
novation were needed.

Worldwide,  the  recycling  industry  employed  more 
than  1.6  million  people,  processed  800  million 
tonnes of commodities, and had an annual turnover 
of more than 200 billion US dollars.

Of total world steel production of 1.3 billion tonnes, 
520  million  tonnes  was  produced  from  recycled 
scrap metal. Scrap metals provided almost 45% of 
global  stainless  steel  production,  40%  of  copper, 
30%  of  zinc  and  25%  of  aluminium.  Looking  at 
other  commodities,  50%  of  worldwide  paper  pro-
duction came from recovered paper and board, and 
90% of collected textiles were reused or recycled.

The  energy  savings  achieved  through  recycling 
could be dramatic. Using recycled materials to pro-
duce aluminium resulted in energy savings of 95%. 
For plastics the figure was 80%, and for paper, 64%. 
Altogether, recycling saved over 500 million tonnes 
of CO2 emissions.

Innovation  in  the  recycling  industry  was  driven 

20

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

by  legislation.  In  Europe,  the  Waste  Framework 
Directive,  Waste  Shipment  Regulations  and  End-
of-Waste  Regulations  were  the  primary  drivers. 
The  main  Directives  relating  to  the  specific  mate-
rials  entering  the  recycling  industry  were  those  on 
End-of-Life Vehicles, Waste Electrical and Electronic 
Equipment,  Batteries  and  Accumulators,  and 
Packaging and Packaging Waste. 

Mr  Bartley  welcomed  the  fact  that  the  important 
role of recycling had been endorsed in the 2011 EEA 
report, which had stated that:

• 

• 

• 

• 

recycling created more jobs at higher 
income levels than landfilling or incinerating
the booming Asian economies and EU 
Directives had boosted European recycling
there was a need to improve product design 
to make recycling easier
the growing recycling industry helped to 
generate ‘green jobs’.

Taking  the  car  industry  as  an  example,  Mr  Bartley 
described the recycling process, which included de-
polluting the end-of-life vehicle (removing batteries, 
fluids  and  lead  where  possible),  before  the  vehicle 
was  sent  to  the  shredder  to  be  turned  into  scrap 
metal.  It  was  the  shredder  that  offered  particular 
potential for further innovation. More sophisticated 
sensing and sorting machinery was now starting to 
allow better extraction of different materials which 
otherwise would go to landfill.

But it was not just technological innovation that was 
needed.  Innovation  was  needed  in  several  areas, 
including:

• 

• 

Collection 
consumer behaviour needed to change, 
so that more items entered the recycling 
process, like old mobile phones. Consumers 
also needed to do more separation of 
materials
Pre-treatment
goods had to be designed with more focus 
on facilitating the separation of materials 

•  Markets for recycled materials

there needed to be markets for items like 
leaded glass from old cathode ray tube 
computer monitors, and other ‘difficult 
materials’
Legislation and technologies to support 
implementation

• 

for example, ways of distinguishing more 
effectively between goods for re-use and 
end-of-life goods under the Waste Shipment 
Regulations – perhaps by RFID tagging
Innovation in recovery facilities 
such as the use of less aggressive chemicals 
in hydro-metallurgical operations

• 

Other  areas  requiring  innovation  included  sort-
ing  and  processing,  trading,  and  EU-level  financial 
instruments.

Having  outlined  the  significant  role  already  played 
by recycling, Mr Bartley concluded with a graphic il-
lustration of how much potential still remained – an 
image of the Periodic Table on which no fewer than 
34  metals  were  coloured  in  red.  The  red  indicated 
those elements for which average end-of-life recy-
cling was still below 1%.

The final speaker, Luis Delgado Sanchez, Head of 
the JRC’s Sustainable Production and Consumption 
Unit, focused on the role of applied science and re-
search in supporting policy-making to enhance the 
effectiveness of waste management in a changing 
technological, economic and social landscape. 

Luis Delgado 
Sanchez, 
Head of the JRC’s 
Sustainable Production 
and Consumption Unit

The four main drivers of progress in waste manage-
ment were environmental concerns, market forces, 
legislation and technological and scientific develop-
ment.  It  was  important  to  understand  the  interac-
tions between these factors.

Although waste management brought environmen-
tal  benefits,  it  still  produced  greenhouse  gases  – 
accounting  for  3.2%  of  the  EU-27  total.  Economic 
growth had not yet been decoupled from the envi-
ronment. But encouraging progress was being made. 

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

21

The municipal solid waste sector had been steadily 
reducing its emissions and was on track to become 
GHG neutral, and potentially even GHG negative.

This reduction in emissions had been largely gener-
ated by pioneering EU Directives in the 1990s and 
early 2000s. But the regulations had been created 
at a time when the key aim was to divert waste from 
landfill. The high net costs of collecting and recycling 
had  not  been  the  focus.  Those  costs  were  signifi-
cant – but there was also an ever greater potential 
for  revenue  generation,  as  treatment  technologies 
and markets for waste materials developed. For an 
increasing number of waste streams it was becom-
ing possible to at least break even, or even make a 
profit.

This  situation  created  the  context  in  which  further 
research and policy had to be considered.

In  a  situation  far  more  complicated  today  than  in 
the early days of waste management, one key topic 
for research had to be the frameworks and incen-
tives necessary to generate the maximum benefits 
of recycling. More data and analysis was needed to 
answer questions such as:

• 

how can deregulation (such as end-of-
waste) make recycling markets work better?

•  where in product life-cycles and the 

recycling chain are incentives most effective?

•  what role can product eco-design 

requirements play?

as  end-of-waste.  This  was  an  important  concept 
which could stimulate recycling markets by releas-
ing valuable resources from waste status. But more 
science was required, for example in setting accept-
able  pollutant  limits  based  on  standard  measure-
ment  values,  and  in  determining  the  suitability  of 
input  materials  and  the  treatment  technologies 
employed.

A  final  key  area  requiring  scientific  research  con-
cerned  the  ‘critical  raw  materials’  referred  to  in  a 
European  Commission  report  of  2010.  Including 
elements such as gallium, indium, germanium and 
cobalt,  many  of  these  were  critical  raw  materials 
for important emerging technologies, such as fibre 
optics  and  photovoltaics,  and  their  scarcity  could 
jeopardise  the  EU’s  future  technological  and  eco-
nomic  development.  Yet,  as  the  previous  speaker 
had  shown,  less  than  1%  of  these  materials  were 
currently recycled. 

In conclusion, waste management had an important 
part to play in decoupling economic growth from the 
environment. Technological development and policy 
development  went  hand-in-hand;  each  supported 
and  stimulated  the  other.  And  both  needed  to  be 
supported by applied science and research. 

• 

•  what is the most efficient role for producers, 
households, waste collectors, processors and 
recyclers?
how effective can consumer-oriented 
measure be in reducing waste? 
how should the costs of treatment be 
shared?
how should the benefits of recycling be 
distributed?

• 

• 

Further research was also need to define when ap-
proaches like Life Cycle Thinking justified a departure 
from the established waste hierarchy. Depending on 
specific  circumstances,  Life  Cycle  Thinking  might 
deliver  the  ‘best  overall  environmental  outcome’ 
outlined in the new Waste Framework Directive, but 
there was no clear understanding yet of how those 
circumstances should be defined.

Applied scientific research was needed in areas such 

22

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

Renewables

Session 4

Renewables

Opening  the  session  on  renewables,  the  Moderator, 
Paul Rübig, a member of the European Parliament 
and a member of its Committee on Industry, Research 
and  Energy,  said  that,  given  the  EU’s  2020  targets 
for both renewable energy usage and CO2 reduction, 
and a background of rising future demand for energy, 
efficiency  was  going  to  be  paramount.  Efficiency  of 
production would play an important role, but anoth-
er  priority  area  would  be  the  development  of  eco-
efficient  transport.  With  the  global  population  rising 
rapidly, ensuring both security of energy supply and 
freedom of movement were important goals. But it 
was  not  just  transport.  Energy  usage  in  areas  such 
as  industry  and  housing  would  also  need  to  be  ex-
amined closely. The job of the European Parliament 
was to help set a strategy with the right targets and 
standards, with renewables playing a key role in over-
all energy policy, in order to ensure that energy was 
as cheap as possible, as efficient as possible, and as 
sustainable as possible.

Paul Rübig, 
Member of the 
European Parliament 
and member of 
the Committee on 
Industry, Research and 
Energy

Arthouros  Zervos,  President  of  the  European 
Renewable Energy Council (EREC), issued a call for a 
more ambitious renewable energy target for Europe, 
supported by the necessary efforts in science and re-
search. Without this, it would be difficult for Europe to 
achieve energy sustainability.  

Arthouros Zervos, 
President of the 
European Renewable 
Energy Council (EREC)

With  EU  unemployment  at  record  levels,  the  eco-
nomic  outlook  gloomy,  and  emissions  on  the  rise, 
it was high time to emphasise the role of the eco-
industries in boosting growth, creating jobs and re-
ducing greenhouse gases. 

Plans already in place, at both EU and Member State 
levels, to achieve the EU 2020 target of reducing CO2 
by 20% compared to 1990 volumes showed that re-
newables would play an important role. The projected 
use of renewable energy would reduce energy-relat-
ed CO2 levels by 40%. 

There was currently a debate over whether Europe should 
unilaterally move beyond the 20% GHG reduction target. 
EREC believed an increase to 30% was urgently needed.      

In 2009, the European Parliament and the European 
Council had endorsed the need to achieve a reduc-
tion in greenhouse gases of 80-95% of 1990 levels 
by  2050.  Current  policies,  however,  would  achieve 
only  a  40%  reduction.  Further  action  was  needed 
beyond  2020.  This  was  important  to  bear  in  mind 
when considering the role of scientific support and 
research.  New  efforts  and  investments  would  be 
needed,  not  only  to  roll  out  current  technologies 
to meet the 2020 targets, but also to develop ad-
vanced technologies as we moved towards 2050. 

24

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

2050 was only one investment cycle away, and we 
could  not  rely  on  technologies  that  were  approach-
ing maturity today. A stable and predictable invest-
ment environment for renewable energy, and a clear 
research  agenda,  were  needed  now.  This  would  not 
only help Europe to meet its environmental targets. 
It would also stimulate innovation, create jobs, unlock 
private  investment,  and  maintain  Europe’s  first-
mover advantage in renewable energy technologies. 
Investors  needed  the  right  signals  today  to  make 
Europe a resource-efficient, renewable energy econ-
omy by 2050.

For these reasons, EREC was calling for a binding re-
newable energy target of 45% by 2030, accompanied 
by a full and dedicated implementation both of the ex-
isting SET-Plan, and also of a further SET II to address 
those technologies which were currently ignored.

Without  addressing  the  heating  and  cooling  sector, 
without  accelerating  the  development  of  2nd  gen-
eration  biofuels,  and  without  scientific  support  for 
things like ocean energy, it would be difficult to get 
Europe on a sustainable energy pathway and realise 
the additional benefits of job creation and economic 
recovery.

As  European  Commission  President  José  Manuel 
Barroso  had  stated,  Europe  needed  a  job-creation 
strategy to tackle its unacceptable level of unemploy-
ment. The green economy was one of three sectors 
identified by Mr Barroso, along  with health  and ICT, 
which would create more than 20 million jobs in the 
years to come.

There  was  common  agreement  that  the  goals  of 
security  of  energy  supply  and  environmental  sus-
tainability  should  be  achieved  without  sacrificing 
the  economy.  The  renewable  energy  sector  offered 
a variety of high quality jobs in a range of different 
technologies. Today, it employed more than 600,000 
people in areas ranging from research to production, 
installation, operation and maintenance. 

If  the  45%  by  2030  target  for  renewable  energy 
usage were achieved, it would lead to gross employ-
ment of 4.4 million in the renewable energy sector.    

If scientific support, research and development, and 
a  binding  2030  target  went  hand-in-hand,  Europe 
could deliver the employment, prosperity, sustainabil-
ity and international competitiveness that it needed 
at this time of economic crisis.

The  second  speaker,  Heinz  Ossenbrink,  Head  of 
the JRC’s Renewable Energy Unit, focused on photo-
voltaics. Dr Ossenbrink outlined Europe’s traditionally 
strong position but also highlighted the serious threat 
now emerging from China.

Heinz Ossenbrink, 
Head of the JRC’s 
Renewable Energy Unit

Unlike  other  eco-industries,  phovoltaics  (PV)  was  a 
complex  mix  of  many  industries  and  technologies, 
running from chemicals to display technologies, civil 
engineering  and  the  building  industry.  European  ex-
penditure on PV research and development averaged 
around  €400  million  per  year.  Although  this  was  a 
small sum relative to the total cashflow of the elec-
tricity industry, the PV sector had developed success-
fully  because  there  was  a  market  that  drove  it,  in 
large part based on the Renewable Energy Directive. 

Most  PV  innovation  in  Europe  went  into  manufac-
turing.  Product  prices  naturally  fell  as  output  size 
increased  –  but  the  key  was  to  achieve  prices  low 
enough at start-up to enable businesses to enter the 
market  in  the  first  place.  This  had  been  aided  by  a 
very  innovative  research  landscape  in  Europe  and 
cross-fertilisation  with  other  industries.  Incentives 
such  as  feed-in  tariffs  had  also  helped,  although 
direct subsidies had not been a success.

In  terms  of  global  grid-connected  PV  installation, 
Europe  led  the  world  with  75%  of  the  total.  When 
it  came  to  production,  however,  Europe  had  only  a 
modest  market  share  while  Asia,  led  by  China,  was 
the dominant producer with 72%, according to 2010 
figures. The two continents were thus mirror images 
of each other, with Asia being high in production and 
low  in  installation,  while  Europe  was  high  in  instal-
lation but low in production. In terms of total value, 
Europe currently had about 55% of the global market.

Europe  was  committed  to  the  further  development 

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

25

and competitiveness of PV. For this, it relied on the 
R&D roadmaps set out within the SET-Plan. Key areas 
included innovation in low-cost, high efficiency silicon 
cells, in organic devices and nano-photonic materials. 
‘Very intelligent’ grid connection would also be crucial, 
with remote control of demand and supply and the 
capability to store electricity locally for up to 3 hours.

The  final  speaker,  Kati  Ihamäki,  Vice  President, 
Sustainable Development at Finnair, focused on biofu-
els in aviation and the contribution the aviation indus-
try could make to sustainability and the eco-industries. 
Finnair was one of the first airlines in the world to oper-
ate commercial passenger flights using biofuels, with a 
flight from Amsterdam to Helsinki in June 2011. 

But competition from China was growing and posing 
a  challenge  to  Europe’s  global  55%  market  share. 
There were a number of factors to this including:

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

production costs in China were 8% lower 
than in Europe – most notably in much lower 
costs of capital
there was a worrying ‘brain drain’ of 
European researchers to highly paid jobs in 
Asian companies
China had set a clear industry focus as far 
back as 2006, with PV identified as one of 
six key technologies. China was expecting 
a decline in European markets and was 
building up its domestic market
Asia, and China in particular, had short, 
effective decision trees, making them very 
fast-moving
It was not only China. Japan, Taiwan and 
South Korea were also part of the challenge, 
with companies such as Sharp, LDK, LG and 
Samsung.

Given the huge size of China’s population relative to 
Europe’s, Europe needed to position itself as a partner 
in this growth. To achieve this, the European PV indus-
try had to be market-driven, with a short route to in-
novation. As with other eco-industries, a stable policy 
framework was crucial, and access to capital was an 
increasing bottleneck which needed to be addressed. 

Success  in  the  PV  sector  would  produce  a  major 
reward  for  Europe  in  terms  of  growth  and  employ-
ment.  And  there  was  exciting  export  potential.  But 
the threat was clear. Global competition was becom-
ing  tougher,  not  only  in  manufacturing,  but  also  in 
innovation.   

Kati Ihamäki, 
Vice President, 
Sustainable 
Development at 
Finnair

Although new aircraft types and operational improve-
ments would have a role to play, the success or oth-
erwise of biofuels would be overwhelmingly the key 
determining factor in enabling the move towards sus-
tainable aviation.

Like much of the aviation industry, Finnair had a four-
pillar strategy for sustainable development:

Technology – the new generation of aircraft would 
cut emissions by 20%. But this transition took both 
time and significant investment

Infrastructure  –  shortening  routes  and  using  re-
sources  effectively  would  aid  sustainable  develop-
ment. Having three runways at Helsinki, for example, 
allowed  aircraft  to  carry  out  continuous  descent, 
thereby reducing both emissions and noise

Operations – flying more slowly was a way of reduc-
ing fuel consumption and emissions. Finnair also had 
a focus on reducing the weight of its flights, with a 
‘Weight Watchers’ programme for everything except 
passengers 

Economic instruments – these were just becoming 
important for the aviation industry with the introduc-
tion of Emissions Trading.

However,  biofuels  were  by  far  the  most  important 
potential  contributor  to  aviation  sustainability.  The 

26

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

main  drivers  towards  the  adoption  of  biofuels  in-
cluded the increasing oil price and the need to reduce 
oil  dependency,  the  need  to  address  the  problems 
of  climate  change  and  environmental  damage,  and 
increasing aviation traffic volumes. Other drivers in-
cluded  the  Emissions  Trading  Scheme,  and  the  fact 
that,  compared  with  other  travel  modes,  when  it 
came to aviation there were fewer alternatives avail-
able to passengers. 

In addition, since they were lighter than conventional 
fuels in relation to their energy output, biofuels po-
tentially made it possible for aircraft to extend their 
flying range.
Currently,  biofuels  were  made  mainly  from  vegeta-
ble oils, but in the future it was hoped to use algae, 
biowax and microbial oils as well.      

But there was still a long way to go before biofuels 
were a practical option. The most important obstacle 
at present was cost, with biofuels approaching three 
times  the  cost  of  normal  fuel.  Since  fuel  already 
made up 25% of total costs for an airline, it was not 
yet economically sustainable to use biofuels. 

The supply chain was a further important issue that 
needed to be tackled, since supplies of biofuel needed 
to be in place near airports. It was also important to 
resolve the ‘food vs. fuel’ debate in a sustainable way 
that  would  make  it  possible  to  have  both  food  and 
fuel. 

The  fuel  for  Finnair’s  first  biofuel-powered  flights 
had been brought across from Houston, but this was 
clearly not a sustainable option. For the future, Finnair 
was focused on finding local, sustainable feedstocks, 
most likely based on wood. 

Eventually, it was to be expected that economies of 
scale  would  resolve  the  biofuel  cost  problem.  But 
it  was  also  an  issue  which  called  for  public-private 
cooperation  –  a  concept  which  was  already  gaining 
traction in the US.

Finnair’s targets, concluded Ms Ihamäki, were ambi-
tious but realistic – to reduce emissions by 24% per 
seat between 2009 and 2017. This would need air-
craft technology innovation – but also biofuels. 

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

27

Energy efficiency  

Session 5

Energy efficiency  

Energy  efficiency  was  the  most  important  challenge 
facing  the  EU  if  it  wanted  growth,  jobs  and  sustain-
ability,  said  the  Moderator,  Daniel  Calleja  Crespo, 
Director General of the EC’s DG Enterprise and Industry. 
It was necessary to reconcile two challenges – first, to 
create economic growth, and second, to do this in a re-
source-efficient, low-carbon manner. Energy efficiency 
was critical for European competitiveness, because it 
reduced costs and promoted opportunities.

The  Secretary  General  of  the  European  Automobile 
Manufacturers’  Association  (ACEA),  Ivan  Hodac, 
stressed the economic importance of the automobile 
industry to Europe and made a call for it to be more 
strongly supported. This support needed to come both 
through European trade policy (too many free trade 
agreements opened Europe’s borders, without provid-
ing reciprocal access to other countries’ markets) and 
through increased R&D investment. 

Daniel Calleja 
Crespo, 
Director General 
of the European 
Commission’s 
Directorate-General 
for Enterprise and 
Industry

Ivan Hodac, 
Secretary General 
of the European 
Automobile 
Manufacturers’ 
Association (ACEA) 

Industry  would  play  a  decisive  role  in  achieving 
energy efficiency for three reasons:

• 

• 

• 

industry could improve its own energy 
efficiency levels
it could develop new sustainable energy 
technologies
it could provide energy-efficient products 
and services.

SMEs’ would have an important part to play, in an in-
tegrated value chain with larger companies and other 
players.  Sectors  such  as  construction  and  transport 
clearly had huge potential to deliver energy efficiency. 
But other considerations had to be addressed as well. 
Links between research and industry would need to 
be strengthened, and agreement on standardisation 
would also be vital.

Although  the  European  auto  industry  was  facing 
tough times, it was still an important strategic indus-
try for Europe. It was the largest private investor in 
R&D, it accounted for 10% of EU GDP, and it created 
roughly 15 million jobs, direct and indirect. 

For the industry to continue investing in smart, fuel-
efficient  vehicles,  we  had  to  keep  manufacturing  in 
Europe. If we did not, we would lose this investment 
and other countries like China and Korea would take 
away one of the few advantages we still had, namely 
our innovation and technological edge. 

The  research  needs  and  challenges  facing  the  auto 
industry fell into four areas:

Fuels and powertrains
The  challenges here  were clear – limited resources, 

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

29

growing populations and urbanisation, and CO2 emis-
sions and air pollution. The auto industry’s research in 
this area was focused on the development of greener, 
more fuel-efficient vehicles. But it was important to 
stress  that  this  did  not  only  mean  electric  vehicles. 
Improving the internal combustion engine was a key 
priority. Other research priorities included hybrid elec-
tric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, fuel cell electric 
vehicles, and greener fuels.

Integrated safety
The  EU’s  target  of  halving  fatalities  between  2010 
and 2020 was a key challenge for the industry, along 
with increasing customer demands for vehicle safety. 
These  challenges  were  reinforced  by  the  targets 
set  out  by  the  European  Road  Transport  Research 
Advisory  Council  (ERTRAC)  to  reduce  fatalities  and 
severe injuries by 60% by 2030. Research priorities 
here  included  improving  ways  of  designing  vehicles 
to achieve integrated safety, anticipating the safety 
aspects  of  new  vehicle  concepts,  and  finding  ways 
to incorporate vehicle-to-vehicle communication into 
safety design, as well as understanding and improv-
ing driver behaviour.

Materials and manufacturing
The  auto  industry  faced  the  challenge  of  reducing 
consumption  and  emissions,  meeting  customer  and 
regulatory demands – and at the same time making 
affordable  products.  New  materials  for  weight  re-
duction were a top priority. Other research priorities 
included developing lighter and more compact interi-
ors, digital manufacturing for integrated product and 
process development, and finding affordable ways of 
manufacturing  green  vehicles,  which  still  tended  to 
be expensive. 

Mobility and transport
The pressures of population changes, rising economic 
and  societal  demands,  environmental  concerns  and 
policy expectations all came together to pose a major 
challenge for future mobility and transport. It would 
be important to balance private and public transport 
systems, and to achieve ‘co-modality’, integrating all 
forms  of  transport.  Key  areas  for  research  included 
new mobility concepts, optimised vehicles, intelligent 
transport systems (ITS), and advanced logistics.

The  European  auto  industry  would  continue  to  sup-
port  R&D  initiatives  in  priority  areas  such  as  Green 
Cars,  ITS  for  mobility,  advanced  powertrains  and 
fuels, heavy duty vehicles and green corridors. It also 
supported  Public-Private  Partnerships  as  a  model 

for  proposed  initiatives  such  as  a  European  Green 
Vehicles Initiative.

But for the industry to meet all of the challenges just 
outlined, it would be necessary to at least maintain 
the  proposed  €80  billion  budget  for  Horizon  2020 
and  ensure  an  increased  budget  for  future  EU  pre-
competitive  automotive  R&D.  Unfortunately,  at 
present, the industry did not feel that what it was get-
ting reflected the true importance of the automotive 
industry to the European economy.

Speaking on the topic of smart cities and what was 
needed  to  make  them  a  reality,  Jean-Paul  Peers, 
Vice-President  for  EU  Energy  and  Climate  Policy  at 
Siemens  AG,  argued  that,  in  the  face  of  numerous 
challenges,  solutions  were  possible  –  but  changes 
were needed in the way Europe approached the issue.

Jean-Paul Peers, 
Vice-President for EU 
Energy and Climate 
Policy at Siemens AG

The challenges included:

• 

• 

• 

increasing urbanisation – two hundred 
years ago, London was the first city to 
exceed 1 million inhabitants. Today, there 
were 400 such cities
climate change – we had the highest 
concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere for 
350,000 years
economics – Europe spent €700 billion 
a year on energy imports. These imports 
could be reduced by the use of renewable 
energy, but our grids were destabilised 
when large amounts of renewable energy 
were introduced. Stabilising the grids and 
reducing outages was expensive.

On the positive side, studies had shown what cities 
could achieve. London, for example, could reduce CO2 

30

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

emissions  from  45  million  tonnes  to  29  million  by 
2025. Two thirds of this reduction would pay for itself, 
while the other one third would cost just GBP300 per 
inhabitant.  19%  of  global  electricity  was  used  for 
lighting,  which  could  be  cut  by  50%.  Building  man-
agement systems could reduce energy consumption 
by 30%. 

In total, Siemens had achieved 317 million tonnes of 
CO2 reductions for clients in 2011. The question was: 
how could we multiply these results? 

Key points to address included:

 { the EU had a great deal of expertise and 

understanding of the issues – but it had 8 
Commissioners and 8 different DGs, all with 
a little bit of responsibility for energy and 
climate policy. It was important to move 
away from this silo thinking towards a single 
strategy 

 { in research, it was to be hoped that Horizon 
2020 would move towards less complexity 
and more grand challenges, or ‘Lighthouse 
Projects’, such as Smart Grid, eCar or High 
Performance Buildings

 { decision-making needed to be much faster

 { the trust base needed addressing. Under 
FP7, every euro spent on innovation 
was matched by another euro spent on 
application-writing, reporting and controlling. 
The process could be more efficient than 
that.

In  addition  to  R&D,  deployment  was  a  crucial  but 
often  overlooked  issue.  The  costs  of  moving  from 
development to full deployment were huge. Siemens 
had recently invested 10 years and €500 million in 
the  roll-out  of  the  world’s  most  efficient  combined 
cycle power plant. If the new technology were globally 
implemented in all fossil-fuel power plants, it would 
reduce emissions by 2.5 Giga-tonnes, more than half 
the  EU  total.  If  the  SET  Plan  had  been  available  to 
help with the roll-out and testing, it would have ac-
celerated the process by several years.

Here, funding was a major problem. Money which had 
supposedly been earmarked for the SET Plan in 2011 
had not yet materialised and Mr Peers issued a direct 
appeal  to  the  European  Commission  to  ensure  the 

funding was provided. The SET Plan referred to many 
promising technologies, such as the Smart Grid, but 
funding  was  almost  non-existent.  As  Mr  Hodac  had 
noted,  to  give  another  example,  funding  for  electric 
vehicles was too low. Whereas the US had foreseen 
€3 billion for the development of electric vehicles, in 
Europe the SET Plan had originally provided for €300 
million – of which today only €30 million was actually 
available.

We  were  now  living  in  the  urban  millennium.  The 
battle for our future would be won or lost in the cities. 
Technologies  to  achieve  a  30%  efficiency  improve-
ment  were  available,  but  these  were  not  enough. 
Studies  showed  there  was  an  investment  need  of 
€2 trillion per year to make the necessary progress. 
Strong alliances were required, bringing together the 
JRC, the European Commission and all stakeholders 
beyond,  to  ensure  that  we  were  all  pulling  on  the 
same side. 

The  final  speaker  of  the  session,  Helmfried 
Meinel,  Director  General  of  the  Ministry  for  the 
Environment,  Climate  and  Energy  of  the  State  of 
Baden-Württemberg,  outlined  the  energy  efficiency 
policies,  targets  and  priorities  adopted  by  Baden-
Württemberg and described the type of research that 
was most urgently needed. In particular, there was a 
need to move away from single-discipline specialisa-
tion to a more inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary 
approach.

Helmfried Meinel, 
Director General 
of the Ministry for 
the Environment, 
Climate and Energy 
of the State of 
Baden-Württemberg

The state of Baden-Württemberg had been involved 
in environmental research for around 30 years. The 
research  had  come  a  long  way  in  that  time,  and 
businesses and civil society now played an increas-
ingly active role. But the range of concerns had also 
changed.  While  energy  and  energy  efficiency  had 

38

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

31

been  an  important  topic  for  many  years,  now  they 
were at the very heart of Baden-Württemberg’s re-
search activities.

had less growth potential. To support the transition, 
Baden-Württemberg had also set up a research pro-
gramme into energy storage technology. 

Recognising the indispensable role of energy efficien-
cy,  Baden-Württemberg  planned  to  reduce  energy 
consumption by 20% by 2020 and by 50% by 2050. 
But  energy  efficiency  would  not  solve  all  the  prob-
lems. Despite huge gains in efficiency in recent years, 
overall consumption had still risen. It would therefore 
be important to do more to encourage energy saving 
still further and increase the share of renewable en-
ergies.  This  was  an  area  where  a  trans-disciplinary 
approach could make a significant contribution.

Finally,  more  research  was  needed  to  reduce  con-
sumption of the scarce material resources necessary 
for many of the new technologies, most notably rare 
earths. This was a challenge for Europe’s eco-indus-
tries,  but  one  which  offered  major  opportunities  for 
growth, employment and research.

Concluding  the  session,  the  Moderator,  Daniel 
Calleja Crespo, noted that the speakers had shown 
that energy efficiency could be a key driver for sus-
tainable development. The challenges were huge, but 
so was the potential. If we developed a strategy and 
a  roadmap,  if  we  were  innovative,  if  we  attracted 
young people, if we succeeded in getting away from 
silo  thinking,  if  we  achieved  standardisation  and 
adopted a European approach in which we all worked 
together, we could succeed. 

In  the  face  of  growing  global  demand  for  energy 
in  coming  decades,  it  was  not  possible  to  continue 
relying  on  fossil  fuels.  There  was  a  need  for  huge 
progress in energy efficiency, and there was a need to 
develop expertise in the field of energy efficiency as 
an important aspect of the eco-industries. This would 
also help to create growth and jobs.

What kind of research was needed to achieve this? 

1.  More inter-disciplinary projects were needed. 
It was important to overcome the grow-
ing conflict between specialist and inter-
disciplinary views of research, and to move 
away from the idea that specialisation was 
the only source of excellence. Social, cul-
tural, economic and legal aspects had to be 
considered as well as scientific and technical 
ones, since these were key to the application 
of the research.

2.  There was a need for a more trans-discipli-
nary approach. This would mean involving 
key players and stakeholders in society as 
participants in research projects, including 
the initial design and the final implementa-
tion and delivery of the results.

3.  Outstanding inter-disciplinary and trans-dis-
ciplinary expertise had to earn more respect 
than isolated specialist excellence.

While  not  denouncing  specialisation,  which  had  an 
important role to play, it was an unfortunate fact that 
it  was  becoming  increasingly  difficult  to  find  people 
working  in  specialised  scientific  fields  for  Baden-
Württemberg’s  inter-disciplinary  topics.  Businesses 
and NGO’s were reporting the same difficulty.

Turning  specifically  to  the  eco-industries,  there  was 
a  need  for  research  and  development  in  the  fields 
of  energy  transformation,  energy  distribution  and 
energy use. 

Germany had opted to phase out nuclear power and 
launch  an  energy  transition  programme.  In  Baden-
Württemberg  the  long-term  aim  was  to  obtain  all 
energy from renewable sources, with an interim goal 
of 38% to be achieved by 2020 – mainly on the back 
of growth in solar and wind energy since water and 
biomass were already well-established and therefore 

32

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

Conclusions  
and next steps

© J. Rundle

Conclusions and next steps

Malcolm  Harbour,  Member  of  the  European 
Parliament and Chairman of its Internal Market and 
Consumer  Protection  Committee,  focused  on  the 
challenges of turning innovative ideas into success-
ful  products  and  services,  and  in  particular  on  the 
role politicians could play to assist this process.

Malcolm Harbour, 
Member of the 
European Parliament 
and Chairman of its 
Internal Market and 
Consumer Protection 
Committee

A recent visit to a group of ‘angel’ investors in the 
UK, witnessing companies making pitches for fund-
ing,  had  revealed  some  of  the  issues  that  had  to 
be contended with. Two of these were the time and 
the money needed to turn ideas into viable products. 
Almost always, more of both was needed than origi-
nally predicted.

A  third  issue  was  the  need  for  the  right  people. 
Alongside the technical and scientific expertise of in-
novators and inventors, there was a need for people 
with  the  right  management  and  financial  skills. 
That  partnership  between  ideas  and  management 
would be crucial for an eco-efficient future built on 
science.  The  Joint  Technology  Platforms  had  been 
a great success in this regard, helping to establish 
vital partnerships between inventors, investors, and 
those  who  would  ultimately  make  use  of  the  new 
technologies.  The  Joint  Platform  on  photonics  was 
one  example  that  had  been  very  successful,  rais-
ing both public and private financing and offering a 

model  of  what  needed  to  be  encouraged  in  other 
technologies as well.

Turning more specifically to the work of the Internal 
Market and Consumer Protection Committee, it was 
important  to  make  the  internal  market  work  even 
better. It had been a success, but there were still far 
too  many  inconsistencies.  Energy  efficient  building 
products, for example, were still being subjected to 
too many local testing requirements, or duplicated 
testing. European standards were not being applied 
consistently and this resulted in waste and inefficien-
cy which could not be allowed to continue. Reforms 
to the standards regulations were currently on the 
table which would allow the European Commission 
to be more active in tackling this problem.

Global  standards  were  needed  as  well.  A  positive 
development  here  was  an  agreement  the  JRC  had 
recently  reached  with  the  US  National  Standards 
Authority on common standards for technologies in-
cluding smart grids and electric vehicles.

The  single  market  also  needed  to  work  better  for 
service providers, to encourage firms specialising in 
areas such as energy efficiency consultancy to oper-
ate more freely across the EU.

A final area to be addressed was the failure to use 
the public sector to encourage innovation. The eco-
industries and energy efficiency were prime markets 
where  this  could  happen.  Customers  in  the  public 
sector had to be encouraged to work with inventors 
and new technology suppliers by setting them chal-
lenges requiring radical new solutions, for example 
around  smart  mobility  in  cities,  and  inviting  them 
to  pitch  solutions.  The  public  customer  would  then 
choose the best one or two and participate in their 
further development to the point where they could 
be deployed. This model of procurement’ was found 
commonly in the private sector but not in the public 
sector. One of the dossiers on the table in the Internal 

34

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

Market  and  Consumer  Protection  Committee  was 
the complete reform of public procurement, includ-
ing measures which would enable public customers 
to operate this type of procurement method and so 
drive innovation.

Finding major public sector customers for new tech-
nologies  early  in  the  development  process  would 
also help inventors and suppliers when they looked 
for investors. 

In conclusion, Mr Harbour noted that public procure-
ment was usually very cautious. Nobody wanted to 
take  a  risk  on  new  science  and  technology.  In  the 
case of climate change and energy efficiency, how-
ever,  the  reverse  was  happening.  The  public  was 
expecting better solutions. Eco-efficiency and green 
products  were  an  area  where  we  could  encourage 
our  politicians  to  take  bolder  action  in  the  future, 
knowing that public support was strong.

Closing  the  conference,  JRC  Director  General 
Dominique Ristori focused on two key points: the 
need for action and the unique role of science and 
innovation.

There was broad political consensus on the need for 
sustainable growth in Europe. This growth had to be 
linked  with  a  shift  to  a  new,  low-carbon  economy. 
The  eco-industries  were  the  best  example  of  this, 
combining sustainability and competitiveness at all 
levels, local, regional, national, European and global, 
and generating turnover of more than €300 billion, 
together with 3.5 million jobs.

However, it was still necessary to define new models 
of  production  and  the  challenge  was  to  combine 
growth with the protection of the environment and 
the efficient use of non-renewable resources. In this 
context, the role of science and innovation would be 
crucial.

A  cross-cutting,  interdisciplinary  approach,  bring-
ing together policy makers, academia and industry, 
was absolutely fundamental. The sectors discussed 
during the day were all closely inter-related, and it 
was  necessary  for  the  EU  to  foster  links  between 
higher  education,  basic  and  applied  research,  and 
both public and private research, while also taking 
account of the needs of business and of public opin-
ion and behaviours. 

As the only service of the EC in charge of direct re-
search,  the  JRC  would  ensure  more  and  more  sci-
entific support to focused innovation, targeting the 
most  relevant  sectors  and  fixing  clear  objectives. 
This would be done in close cooperation with all key 
partners,  including  European  institutions,  Member 
States, the scientific community, industry and NGOs.  

The  JRC  would  also  work  towards  achieving  the 
standardisation  that  was  so  important  to  fully  ex-
ploit  the  benefits  both  of  the  internal  European 
market and of the global market – as evidenced by 
the recent agreement with the US on standards for 
smart grids and electromobility.

Turning to the specific sectors discussed during the 
day:

Water was a challenge that would not be solved on 
its  own.  All  resources,  including  water  and  energy, 
needed  to  be  tackled  together  within  a  single,  co-
herent  perspective.  Future  processes  needed  to  be 
energy-  and  chemicals-efficient,  with  low  cost  and 
low  environmental  footprint.  Methods  for  water 
saving, water treatment and desalination needed to 
be developed further.

Air quality was an issue concentrated in the urban 
areas,  which  were  set  to  grow  rapidly.  The  eco-in-
dustries had major potential, especially in the con-
text of clean transport and smart cities, and the JRC 
would provide significant scientific support in these 
areas.

Waste  management  was  a  sector  where  policy 
had stimulated the development of both technolo-
gies  and  markets.  But  technological  development 
was needed to optimise the supply of new materials 
from waste and the potential of policy instruments 
to enable this needed to be carefully considered. 

For renewables the key issues were offshore wind 
energy, establishing links with the grid, photo-volta-
ics, biomass and biofuels. Investors needed the right 
signals today to make possible the European targets 
on CO2 reductions, and there needed to be acceler-
ated R&D to increase the use of renewable energies 
and to broaden the renewable energy portfolio. This 
century should become the century of renewables.   

Energy  efficiency  would  be  critical  to  making 
Europe more competitive. Sectors such as clean cars, 
smart cities and insulating existing buildings offered 

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

35

huge potential, opening the way to jobs and growth 
across all of Europe. It was important to keep manu-
facturing in Europe, and here again standardisation 
would be key.

The conference had been useful in helping to define 
the  needs  of  the  eco-industries  in  terms  of  scien-
tific support. The JRC was already working with DG 
Enterprise  to  reinforce  the  links  between  science 
and industry, and a cross-cutting foresight study on 
the  eco-industries  was  to  be  launched  to  identify 
new opportunities for research to boost innovation, 
growth and jobs. Today was only a start – but it had 
been a promising one.     

36

Introduction

Opening  
session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Conclusions

European Commission

Title: Conference proceedings report for ‘Scientific support for growth, jobs and sustainability: the
example of eco-industries’ conference.

Author: Geraldine Barry
Contributors: Joerel Stroemgren
Mr Dominique Ristori, JRC Director-General 
Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science
Hannes Swoboda, President of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the 
European Parliament
Marion Guillou, President of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA)
David Wilkinson, JRC Director of Scientific Policy and Stakeholder Relations
Mr Patrick Lavarde, Director General of the French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environments 
(ONEMA)
Gernot Klotz, Executive Director of Research and Innovation of the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic)
Dr Nick Hankins, Director of the Centre for Sustainable Water Engineering at the University of Oxford
Professor Leen Hordijk, Principal Adviser to the Director General of the JRC
Gunnar Söderholm, Head of the Environment and Health Administration of the City of Stockholm
Dr Irene Feige, Director of the Institute for Mobility Research (ifmo)
David Fowler, Senior Scientist at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
John Bensted-Smith, Director of the JRC’s Institute of Prospective Technological Studies
Peter Kurth, President of the European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services (FEAD)
Ross Bartley, Director of Environment and Technical Affairs of the Bureau of International Recycling (BIR)
Luis Delgado Sanchez, Head of the JRC’s Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit
Paul Rübig, Member of the European Parliament and member of the Committee on Industry, Research and 
Energy
Arthouros Zervos, President of the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)
Heinz Ossenbrink, Head of the JRC’s Renewable Energy Unit
Kati Ihamäki, Vice President, Sustainable Development at Finnair
Daniel Calleja Crespo, Director General of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Enterprise and 
Industry
Ivan Hodac, Secretary General of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA)
Jean-Paul Peers, Vice-President for EU Energy and Climate Policy at Siemens AG
Helmfried Meinel, Director General of the Ministry for the Environment, Climate and Energy of the State of 
Baden-Württemberg
Malcolm Harbour, Member of the European Parliament and Chairman of its Internal Market and Consumer 
Protection Committee

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012.
2012 – 36 pp. – 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-79-26857-1 (pdf)
ISBN 978-92-79-26858-8 (print)
doi: 10.2788/54159 (pdf)

Abstract
This report summarises the proceeedings of the JRC-organised conference ‘Scientific support
for growth, jobs and sustainability: the example of eco-industries’ that took place in Brussels on 15th May 2012.

N
-
N
E
-
0
1
2
2
1
-
1
3
-
B
L

JRC	MISSION

As the Commission’s in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre’s mission is to provide EU policies 
with independent, evidence-based scientific and technical support throughout the whole policy cycle.

Working in close cooperation with policy Directorates-General, the JRC addresses key societal challenges while 
stimulating innovation through developing new methods, tools and standards, and sharing its know-how with 
the Member States, the scientific community and international partners.

Key policy areas include: environment and climate change; energy and transport; agriculture and food security; 
health and consumer protection; information society and digital agenda; safety and security, including nuclear; 
all supported through a cross-cutting and multi-disciplinary approach.

European	Commission
Joint Research Centre (JRC)
Ulla Engelmann
Interinstitutional and Stakeholder Relations Unit
Scientific Policy and Stakeholder Relations
Tel: + 32 229 57 624
Web: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu
Email: Ulla.Engelmann@ec.europa.eu

Joint
Research
Centre