64

instance the sector should be defined in a wider context, if the economic dimension is considered – whereas when it comes to research questions a narrow definition is more appropriate. The subsectors of Blue Biotechnology are at different stages of development and have encountered different stages of growth, therefore to group these together may be limiting. What is clear, however, is that the specific characteristics of Blue Biotechnology are most noteworthy in the early parts of the value chain – most prominently through bioprospecting. 2. Data on the Blue Biotechnology sector is scarce It is very difficult to collect data on the Blue Biotechnology sector, partly because of a lack of definition but also because of the ‘age’ of the sector; it is considered to be in its infancy. Therefore there is a lack of statistical information relating to the sector, the ramifications of which are that evaluating the performance of the sector is problematic and not straightforward, and highlighting the importance of the sector to investors is difficult. 3. Public investment in the sector (FP7 & H2020) but not equal access to the funds Public funding from the EU is available through FP7 and Horizon2020. Funding is accessible to research institutes and SMEs, but access to these varies. 4. Current status of the Blue Biotechnology sector not clear The current status of the sector is not clear. This is a result of the sector being complex, diverse and without clear definition, being difficult to measure in terms of performance and overlapping with a number of other biotechnology sectors. Whilst patent profiling and output of publications are a measure of the potential of the sector, the commercial success is difficult to determine. 5. Performance in research exceeds that in commercialisation The EU performs well with regards to publications relating to Blue Biotechnology - 30% of global publications are attributed to the EU - but it appears to be lagging behind in the commercialisation, if one takes patents to be an indicator of commercial activity in an area (e.g. the EU only represents 13% of patents). This suggests that there is a disconnect between research and commercialisation of Blue Biotechnology products and services; but at the same time a more in-depth study with regard to the effectiveness of other commercialisation paths may also be considered (as esp. also SMEs seem not to pursue the patenting path). 6. Health and wellbeing as areas of growth Health and wellbeing, food and energy appear to be the most important sectors in which Blue Biotechnology is applied in Europe. 7. Access to finance: a main barrier Access to finance seems to be a main barrier affecting Blue Biotechnology in Europe. The business case of Blue Biotechnology is not communicated to nor well understood by investors. Finance is not a single issue and multiple solutions may be needed to address the specific aspects of finance in the Blue Biotechnology sector, for example at different stages along the value chain, in different sub-sectors and for different stakeholders. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. 8. A lack of collaboration along the value chain Blue Biotechnology is complex and whilst some aspects (i.e. research) are thought to be well coordinated, there appears to be a lack of collaboration between investors, industry and SME further along the value chain with regards to product development, up-scaling and commercialisation. 40 Study in support of Impact Assessment work on Blue Biotechnology

65 Publizr Home