 Ladies and gentlemen, Tom Fedders, really mine. Always enjoy coming to Dublin, other places in Ireland, and so does Barbara, my wife. And it's always inspiring to be together with thinkers and doers in this wonderful country. And as the color of this country is green, it relates, I think, particularly strongly to green economy, green growth. And that's what I'm essentially talking about. The bioeconomy is, in my understanding, a key concept to implement green growth and for sustainable development. As Jeffrey Sachs said in his speech at the Bioeconomy Summit, which we held in November last year in Berlin with 700 people. So we will not be able to get the sustainable development goals implemented without a strong focus on bioeconomy. And then he listed at least eight of the 17 SDGs, which he feels are, need to essentially take bioeconomy concepts and innovations into account. I will talk about these four points, the emerging bioeconomy, what's happening there, what's driving it, and what is it, what's driven there. This terminology of bioeconomy is really changing. The world was created in the 80s, 1980s, but it has changed its meaning conceptually. I will talk a bit about that. Then opportunities, challenges, there are real challenges, especially in relation to food security and nutrition security. We need to make sure that things don't get out of hand with the wrong type of bioeconomy. And I say upfront, bioeconomy per se is not good. So it's not bad per se. So I'm not pontificating bioeconomy as such. We need sustainable, knowledge-based, sound, long-term oriented bioeconomy. And that requires a few principles and heavy dose of science, I can say upfront. What is really bringing this to the forefront is that consumption of resources will increase further in 2015 about 9 billion people will consume more like 12 billion people by today's consumption standards. And the fundamental vision I've written down here of bioeconomy is to reconcile humanity with nature. Nothing less than that. There were articles in the media already a decade ago so nature is no more, it was a headline article in Time magazine or nature is gone. In the so-called anti-procene, so in the age, the Earth age where humankind impacts on many processes of nature, not only the landscape but also the atmosphere, the oceans and so on, we feel, I see a major role for a bioeconomy-based approach in order to bring humanity back in line with what this planet can use for the purpose. That's what I mean by reconciling humanity with nature. But I also mean business. We need to somehow biologize the whole economy so that sustainable processes can play a role. The building blocks of the bioeconomy's transformative agenda are these three. Sustainable development, the business opportunities and changing consumer behaviors. So the demand side is at least as important as the supply and production side to bioeconomy. Actually, many feel that unless we tighten our barriers, especially those nations which are high-income nations such as Ireland, Germany, et cetera, if we don't start with point number three, bioeconomy has no chance. But there is also innovation in changing consumer behavior. Resource efficiency, reuse, the shared economy approaches, health and value orientation in consumption, all the way into the pharmaceutical sector, so I mean the food economy. Business opportunities, that's where the challenges and opportunities of bioeconomy relate to new types of industrialization, bringing bio and information and communications technology together in the fourth industrial revolution, industry 4.0, the industrialization phase in which we have entered with a lot of not only automatization but autonomous industrial process. The car manufacturing hall where you hardly see any people, but where the computer guided machinery assembles the car or the 3D printing revolution which will enter the food and has already entered the food industry where you deliver food into the bedside of the retirement or your favorite food for your grandmother being there and she prints it out herself. So it's printing next to her out of protein mix. Actually the stuff tastes a lot better than maybe 20 years ago when we were tasting astronauts' food. And there are processes which cater to a bioeconomy which is also operating at a fairly small scale, not only a big industry scale, so miniaturization is part of the business opportunities, lots of startups and green economy. And of course fundamentally point one, good nutrition for people, mitigate climate change, maintain ecosystems functioning. As I said, quoting Jeff Sucks, that's what he was hammering home. So this is our definition of bioeconomy as production and utilization of biological resources, technologies and knowledge, the knowledge of how biosystems work, the knowledge at cell level but also at systems level to provide products, processes, services in all economic sectors within the framework of a sustainable economic system. I can tell you this definition is no use for presentation access. But behind it is at least two day long meetings of the Bioeconomy Council that's three years ago. And what is really new in our approach and that is spreading in many countries is the focus on knowledge. So what do we mean by knowledge here? Knowledge of biological systems includes also the technology of biomimicry, so copying nature, programming the search capabilities of the brain of the bee and mapping that into the search and fly and direction the capability of a drone is, in our opinion, the software of bioeconomy too. There's a group at Humboldt University in Berlin which does so. Some of us have a good sense of direction, how to get from here the bees flying around and have a great sense of direction. But it's a different type of brain functions which they have. So that's knowledge, that is biomimicry. This is copying from nature rather than simply looking at the product of honey and et cetera, which of course is also great from the bees. The emerging bioeconomy is not an economic sector, but a large cluster of interlinked value chains and value nets. I have listed here on the left-hand side for you to glance at things which relate to bio-based materials, technologies, biosystems, intelligence, which I just talked about, cutting across sectors, which makes it extremely difficult to count what is bioeconomy. We don't have these statistics. We have sector statistics. We have no value chain or value web statistics. So we are currently wrestling at European level, then our statistical offices to redesign the data systems because if you're counting, it doesn't count. Here are some products of bioeconomy innovations from the consumer end. And up there on the left is a flower-based car tire, which runs high speed. So this is competing with a traditional rubber industry, which as you know is extremely damaging to tropical forests. So making bioeconomy better. If you plant a hectare of with rubber trees and replace it with a hectare of oil palms, you do something very good for nature because rubber trees are much worse than oil palms. But of course, if you take a hectare of tropical forest away and plant it with a hectare of oil palms, you do something very bad for nature. So when I say we need to reconcile humankind with nature, we need to go step by step and also do marginal improvements. That little yellow plant grows like a weed everywhere around German fields and I'm afraid it was in Ireland. Lurk and sun, I don't know the English name, right? Dandelion. OK. Well, you get your rubber tire out with. Thank you. Enzymes lowering effective washing temperatures. The whole enzyme industry is a cornerstone of biotech. Bioplastics, Coca-Cola and Pepsi are now very eager to get bioplastic bubbles. That Coca-Cola is testing them already. Not only because they have more peer-to-consumer preferences, but also they keep the bubbles better. So make a better biobased product rather than just do substitution. Implants made from spider fibers, for instance, needle implants, biobased building materials, new sugar substitutes, biopharmaceuticals based on proteins, and biofuels should be also on this one. I come back to some production processes later on, but started with consumer products, which have already bio components in them and were specially designed because that has created a lot of excitement in consumer affairs, which we had recently exhibited in these things from our council. The bioeconomy is driven by these three things, resource conditions, consumer preferences, and science and technology. The resource conditions do not only mean a higher or lower oil price, but all the externalities, the climate effects of land use and the lack of a circular economy around resources. Figuratively speaking, the planetary boundaries, those are driving, secondly, the consumer preferences. And science and technology and biotech really drive the bioeconomy also to a large extent. This started 10 years ago with an initiative by the European Commission, a meeting with Cologne, the so-called Cologne paper, 10 years ago, had a focus on a substitution strategy. Substitution of fossil fuels gets the oil out and gets the biomass in. That strategy has become much less significant in the bioeconomy strategies today. It's no longer enjoyable. It is resource protection and innovation. So if bioeconomy can be competitive, produce a better product. And more sustainable, that is what keeps driving the bioeconomy strategies in many countries. So moving from an innovation to an innovation-oriented strategy away from a really substitution strategy, let me come to some opportunities and focus on what we call our onion model of innovation and green growth through bioeconomy. In the center here, you have biomass production, which also has quite a lot of innovation investments by now, agriculture, forestry, and marine. In the second field, there is food and feed and energy. In the processing, in the third circle, you have the processing of biomass for further transformable foods, et cetera. The bio-based products in the outer wings and the biological intelligence examples, IT design, pharma, bio-next in the outer wing. The further you come from the inner circle to the outer surface, the higher the IP protection. The more science investment is in there. There's also quite a bit at the center. This is not simply growing corn and making ethanol out of it. But it's the outer surface of bioeconomy is a science-driven intellectual property protected business. And that raises certain issues for global sharing and partnership with developing countries. Here are a few examples of sustainable innovations out of industrial processes. So bio refineries, bio-based chemical processes, energy use of waste, precision farming, agriculture, water treatments, new biological filter systems, phosphate recovery from waste water. And so far, not very successful CO2 recovery work as industrial feedstock. But the two pilot plans for that to make get CO2 back out of atmosphere, one at Bayard, one at BSF, I think the US also have a few. People are working on it, but not yet so successfully. The project example I would like to add is related to wood. It's a luncheon before we talk a bit about wood and forest. It's really a revolution of wood manufacturing that's happening, which transforms wood into a new type of product for construction purposes. So biomass to chemical in the second phase changes the wood residues utilization. Then the ligno sandwich technology, which permits you now to build six-story wood-based houses because it's as strong as concrete and steel construction. And what's left over is then a basis for biogas. So don't burn your wood. We in Germany currently burn one third of our wood for energy. That's nonsense. Burn what's left over after you have used one, two, three first for what's more high-value manufacturing uses, and then burn the left over. So that's a strategy of wood utilization in our country. Last example, one of the biggest problems for the environment is the pipe and paper industry. And this is, of course, mostly wood products used for that. There are some really dramatic and wonderful purposes of recycling rates, getting the black water away from the rivers and so on. Let me come briefly to some challenges. Challenges relate to the change of the world food equation. The world food equation is the supply and demand side, where on the supply side, productivity and technology are enhancing supply, where climate change has become and is becoming, even more so, a major threat. And where food innovations in processing change the whole market picture. On the demand side, eating habits, waste, biomass uses are key and traded markets. The financial markets have taken a keen interest in what's traded there as commodities. So we have a new competition for biomass. The complementarities and value chains need to be enhanced. And we need to include small farmers of the world into the bioeconomy, because after oil farming is a backbone of the bioeconomy. At a major conference, which we had in November in Berlin, we had tremendous interest from Asian countries with lots of small farmers. So bioeconomy and agriculture is not only big farm, big business. So that is where, however, we still have challenges without collective action. You cannot include small farmers into a model of value chains and value webs. The major problem is that biomass is on the globe not equally distributed. This is a world map of the trend of biomass in the last decade. And where it is reddish, biomass has been decreasing. And where it's greenish, it has been increasing. But you all know that the bio of world biomass is around the equators. The biomass powerhouses are low- and middle-income countries, besides countries like maybe Sweden and Ireland. But the US certainly is not a strong basis for biomass, although it shows a bit more increase. So if we go for a bio-based economy, we will have some global distribution issues to deal with. And I think the main idea should be not a new raw material biomass trade from south to north, but a lot of sharing of technology with low-income countries and so that biomass can be efficiently manufactured into higher-value products where it grows, rather than shipped around the world as wood pallets or what have you. The other challenge I have already touched upon and Tom, I'm glad to hear that you're very much focused on climate-smart agriculture. If you look at the world map of food insecurity and the world map of how agriculture is impacted by climate change, it's a map from an article which I did with Tim Wheeler in Science a few years ago. Actually, we were sitting in Dublin when we said we should write this article. Two words that come to my mind, Robinsman is doing a great job of doing it. A year later it was published, I'll recall how he did it. Actually, the last sentence of that article is, climate-smart agriculture, forgive me for saying that is not good enough. It needs to be a climate-smart food system. And that's something different from just agriculture, broader than agriculture. The opportunity for soil, as the printer, carbon storage is tremendous. That's also bioeconomy. You need to watch land and soil degradation. You need to reduce it. And this is a map from a recent publication of my colleagues and mine. You can click it on its field of charge. It came out in spring, I published it a month ago on the economics of land degradation. If we don't protect our soils, the bioeconomy is working on thin ice. And we need to fully embrace the economics of land degradation in the bioeconomy strategy from the resources to the final consumer products, for negative and positive externalities and to be included. As you see, there is very little green on this world map of the land and soil degradation. That is 8 by 8 kilometer pixel, half a million pixel, a new way of estimating through satellite imagery. The land degradation is behind it in some reasonably smart models. Land and soil degradation is not only a matter of the poor world. It's not only a problem of poor Africa. Actually, the Sahel has been catching up. It's greenish. There have been lots of investments. And anyway, it costs about 300 billion per year of losses of this land degradation. It's because of bad management of resources. But we do have competing goals in the bioeconomy between food, energy, and feedstock materials. And we need to have a considered, clear strategy to protect and enhance food security in the context of the emerging bioeconomy. And that strategy includes seven components, from education, from zero-waste initiatives to market-oriented biofuel pricing. It needs to be not only caps on quota, but when resource prices go up and food prices explode I think in 2008 and 2011. There must be a mechanism to stop rather than to continue subsidizing. It needs to be decentralized energy systems and income opportunities for small producers in the bioeconomy, so incentives for small farmers. That type of strategy is currently under debate in a lot of emerging economies and developing countries. Let me close by a few remarks on the way forward. The countries which are flagged here have written over the last five, seven years or so a Bioeconomy Policy Strategy, or Bioeconomy Science Strategy. It's about 45 countries or so, including more low and middle-income countries. The strategies are quite different, but something has happened there in the field of bioeconomy or bio-based economy, not only in the powerhouses of bioeconomy like Brazil or Malaysia, which for obvious reasons got into it and then changed their strategies, but also in many other countries, such as South Africa and Ethiopia. We felt it was time to bring these folks together in a meeting under the auspices of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. We invited to a Bioeconomy Summit in November last year in Berlin. It came about 700 people from 18 countries. And we had, I think, not only a good debate, but also some outcome. We formed an international advisory body at a global level, so we have now a global entity which wants to drive the global public goods aspects of bioeconomy forward, because doing bioeconomy strategies country by country is not good enough. We need to put the capabilities together for trans-border cooperation, especially in science. Many of these countries have science strategies, some have policy strategies, some have goals. Some are government led, others have a heavy dose of the private sector or goals. Dedicated government strategies, which are headed, say, by the White House or the German Chancellor, we or Japan by the Prime Minister are the exception. But I think more and more they will come out of the agriculture or science or industry, ministry niche and become more realistic strategies. We need to focus science and technology policy, and I don't want to walk you through all of this. These are domains of science policy priorities, which we have put to a global panel of experts in the context of a Delphi study, where you do several rounds of questions, and the questions where do you see the priorities for bioeconomy, science and technology investments in the future, especially at transnational and global level? And this is what they came back with, and we presented and debated that at the Bioeconomy Summit. These are the key areas of science initiatives which we feel should be taken on not country by country, but where we need alliances of cooperation, be it under the UN or G20 or whatever. Bio-principled cities, new food systems, sustainable marine production, artificial photosynthesis, bio refineries 4.0, so a new generation, and citizen and consumer engagement for and science-based engagement for and with bioeconomy. Actually, the priority setting was roughly equal between the same priorities, ranging from the basic science stuff on photosynthesis, which people expected only to materialize maybe in the decade of 2040 and beyond, whereas the others, in fact, are more readily implemented, implementable, and will show benefits much sooner. Well, colleagues, the concluding statement of the Bioeconomy Summit was a common key, which I suggest you may like to critically review. I would hope that Ireland continues to play an active role in this field. I think an environmentally conscious population, a strong natural resource base, a commitment to find hunger and violent oppression are all key ingredients to be successful in a bioeconomy strategy that matters to people. Thank you for your attention.