Research Article |
Corresponding author: Nadezhda V. Orlova ( nvorlova@hse.ru ) © 2022 Non-profit partnership “Voprosy Ekonomiki”.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes, provided that the article is not altered or modified and the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Orlova NV, Nikolaev DV (2022) Russian agricultural innovations prospects in the context of global challenges: Agriculture 4.0. Russian Journal of Economics 8(1): 29-48. https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.8.78430
|
For the last 10–15 years, Russia has become the key player in the world agricultural market. Increasing export volume up to $45 billion by 2025 is the ambitious plan of the Russian Government. Windows of opportunity that create fundamentally new prospects for increasing competitiveness are opened mainly during the period of changing technological patterns, such as the current transition of the world’s agriculture towards Agriculture 4.0 paradigm. This is crucial for further economic growth. Information for this article was prepared based on “desk research” methods and then all data and hypotheses obtained were tested by conducting detailed in-depth interviews with key industry decision makers. According to the results of research there has been a huge interest on the part of business to implement innovative solutions in agriculture. Yet significant institutional constraints, problems in the legislative and regulatory sectors, the absence of a system of transfer or commercialization of technology from research center to the final manufacturer are still present. At the same time, all the instruments of state support are currently configured only for conventional, as opposed to innovative agriculture.
Agriculture 4.0, agricultural innovations, agricultural biotechnologies, digital agriculture, new farming systems, innovation implementation, Russian agriculture
This article will assess the key challenges and prospects for Russian agriculture competitiveness in the context of global innovative trends and transition to a new level of technological development in the world of Agriculture 4.0.
The first part of this article examines the global context in the form of varied modern challenges, related prerequisites and promising directions for global agriculture and food processing industry innovative development, and its potential technological responses. Special attention is paid to key areas of investment. Maybe not all the technological trends described here will become a reality, but we may be sure that a completely new original idea is being born somewhere right now and will change the world.
Our goal is to show the complexity of the agri-food sector and its relationship with technical achievements in the context of social, economic and political trends. We want to review the environment that will determine the future of global agriculture and push it to technological innovation. We wish to note the activity with which the agricultural sector integrates the achievements of various fields of scientific knowledge and increasingly goes beyond traditional agricultural activities, defying stereotypes about the archaic technologies used.
The second part of the article shifts the focus to the review of Russian innovative potential in agriculture, assessing its compliance with the tasks of increasing global competitiveness
All these tasks and challenges could not be considered objective without considering expert opinions from various sectors of the modern food systems and related fields of expertise. Almost two dozen representatives of the real sector actively participated in the expert survey organized by the HSE Institute for Agrarian Studies in March–April 2020.
The research methods for this paper belong to the desk research — the collection, study, systematization and analysis of secondary marketing information obtained from available sources, i.e. data processed in a certain way and contained mainly in official and other printed sources: periodicals, economic publications, statistical reference books and internal reports, etc. This entire research methodology consists of both quantitative and qualitative key insights and includes, among other methods, the study of agribusiness top players, financial reports, and interviews with agro-experts etc).
Unfortunately, the official statistics do not take into consideration innovative agricultural products very much, or almost not at all. Many methods of data collection, and also indicators, require significant adjustments and revision. When preparing the study, we also used data from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation reporting on the scientific projects’ financing, and data from Rospatent
All percentage shares, splits, and breakdowns have been determined using secondary sources and verified through primary sources. All the possible parameters that affect the markets covered in this study have been verified through primary research, and analyzed to obtain the final quantitative and qualitative data. This data has been consolidated and supplemented with detailed inputs and analysis presented in this report.
After data collection and analysis, experts from the HSE Institute for Agrarian Studies conducted two-hour expert interviews. The discussions were attended by representatives of the real sector — 20 leading agricultural companies in the Russian Federation: producers of crop and livestock products, means of production (fertilizers, feed additives and plant protection products), as well as industry associations. The majority of respondents are senior managers or business owners, people who determine the company’s development strategy. The expert survey was conducted using in-depth interviews on 3 key topics:
The results were presented both in aggregate form and as the key most significant statements and experts’ suggestions.
Fundamental technical and scientific changes and discoveries have occurred in recent decades. The updating of the global problems (socio-demographic, environmental, and economic) created the preconditions for the transition of agriculture to a new stage. The current transformation is so rapid and widespread that in the next decade the appearance and conditions of development of world agriculture, which has now ceased to be limited to a simple function of food production, will change dramatically.
Agriculture 4.0 is the new stage of world technological development in agriculture, based on the use of smart solutions (artificial intelligence, internet of things
Innovative solutions raise scientific potential and are designed to ensure the sustainability of further development of Russian agriculture and food processing industries. So it is absolutely necessary to pay great attention to the nature of specific challenges, as well as their combinations that induce key innovation trends and new systems of socio-economic interaction (often going beyond the scope of the agriculture in its traditional understanding), which makes it possible to more clearly define the problems of national scientific, technical and economic development. Otherwise, the technological gap with developed countries may significantly increase. Entire markets could simply cease to exist for Russian agricultural products in the next decade.
The rapid growth of private investment in relevant technology projects (startups) indicates an active transformation of the world agriculture and its transition to a new way of life. According to AgFunder
The total investment volume for this period exceeded $75 billion (9,900 transactions), structured by
According to our consensus forecast,
Structure of growth of agro-industrial complex 4.0 in the world, 2008 and 2025 (forecast) (billion U.S. dollars). Source: Consensus forecast of the HSE Institute for Agrarian Studies.
The key drivers of growth will be:
Final products: against the background of faster growth in other sectors, the segment’s share in the total volume of the Agriculture 4.0 market will decrease from 77% to 71%.
Growth points in this segment will be:
Technologies and means of production: against the background of faster growth, the segment’s share in the structure of Agriculture 4.0 will increase from 17% to 21% in 2018–2025.
Key areas and growth points:
From the above facts and forecasts, we may outline the following most influential trends for the development of global agriculture in the next decade (see also Table
1. The approach to a new agriculture order combining information, nano-, bio- and cognitive technologies, which will cause drastic shifts in the placement of priority factors of production and competitiveness, increasing the speed of technologies to increase productivity and safety and eliminating dependence on natural agro-climatic and biological factors;
2. Changes in value chains: the development of cross-industry solutions will create new growing markets and help to wash out some traditional links, eliminating intermediaries and ensuring the closest possible level of interaction between the consumer and the manufacturer. Value added innovations will come from genetics, breeding, IT and geoinformation technologies, engineering and other knowledge-intensive sectors;
3. Large agroholdings that take control of food systems are gaining in importance. Such structures are the engines of innovative technologies implementation and are able to achieve economic, environmental, social, and other key goals and form global value chains. Both industry participants such as Bayer, Syngenta, John Deere, Nutrien and others, as well as new interested entities such as Alibaba, Microsoft, and Amazon, are actively investing in Agribusiness 4.0;
4. Increasing the role of “sustainability” factors and ensuring product safety, standards and certification systems, which in the future may become an important additional tool for regulating international trade, imposing restrictions on the circulation of products that do not meet newly established environmental or ethical requirements;
5. Transition to the knowledge economy: the process of digital transformation and robotization in agriculture will affect the structure of employment drastically. On the one hand, the dependence on low-skilled labor will decrease, and demand for individual professions will rise. On the other hand, ever higher and rapidly changing requirements for key competencies will emerge. All this requires the formation of a new model of education focused on rapid adaptation to new conditions.
Structure of Agriculture 4.0 growth in the world, 2008 and 2025 (forecast).
Segment | Volume, billion U.S. dollars | CAGR, % | Growth, billion U.S. dollars | ||
2018 | 2025 | ||||
Agriculture products | 1078.0 | 1588.0 | 5.7 | +509.3 | |
Food industry | 905.0 | 1336.0 | 5.7 | +430.4 | |
healthy and therapeutic nutrition | 894.4 | 1313.7 | 5.6 | +419.2 | |
organic products | 140.0 | 380.0 | 15.3 | +240.0 | |
other types | 10.8 | 22.0 | 10.7 | +11.2 | |
Non-food (bio-refining) | 173.0 | 252.0 | 5.5 | +78.9 | |
biofuels | 166.0 | 233.6 | 5.0 | +67.6 | |
other types | 7.2 | 18.5 | 14.5 | +11.3 | |
Technologies and means of production | 244.0 | 473.0 | 9.9 | +229.3 | |
agro-biotechnologies | 35.4 | 63.7 | 8.8 | +28.3 | |
robotics | 7.5 | 87.9 | 42.1 | +80.4 | |
precision farming | 4.3 | 13.4 | 17.7 | +9.1 | |
closed agriculture | 26.0 | 53.1 | 10.7 | +27.1 | |
food production equipment | 135.0 | 196.6 | 5.5 | +61.6 | |
security and traceability technologies | 34.1 | 53.9 | 6.8 | +19.8 | |
other types | 1.5 | 4.5 | 17.2 | +3.0 | |
Marketing technologies | 85.0 | 165.0 | 10.0 | +80.4 | |
Food waste management | 33.0 | 46.0 | 5.0 | +13.4 | |
Total | 1439.0 | 2272.0 | 6.7 | +832.4 |
In recent years, Russia has achieved impressive results in strengthening national food security and has joined the ranks of the largest agricultural powers. So far, the main drivers of the sector’s development have been mainly increased investment and improved management quality, the increased purchasing power of the population, and the food embargo. At the moment, however, the sector’s resources are almost exhausted.
Modern Russian agriculture faces global challenges and must move to a new technological level in order to maintain and strengthen its role in domestic and foreign markets.
As a principal world producer of raw materials (cereals, vegetable oils, and some others) and localizing import dependence on certain commodity groups of products of deep processing, Russia remains critically dependent on outside input. Figuratively speaking, Russian agriculture is now a large workshop for “screwdriver” assembly of final products, using genetic material, technologies and equipment mainly of foreign origin.
According to calculations carried out by the HSE Institute for Agrarian studies, by the end of 2019 the level of import dependence in the agricultural biotechnology sector was over 80%
Russia, although occupying 10% of the world, has a problem regarding the low fertility of agricultural lands with scarce fertility and low resilience: according to the 2016 Agricultural census risky agriculture is estimated at 97 million hectares or 44% of all agricultural land (
The socio-demographic structure of the Russian population is favorable for the development of healthy food markets and digital technologies: the high level of urbanization (74% in 2018), the high proportion of its population being educated (over 60% have university degrees;
This means that the Russian agriculture and food processing industry has a fairly high potential for development in line with the 4.0 paradigm not only in export-oriented segments, but also based on the domestic market. Rapid dynamics is shown by the online food delivery sector, the volume of which increased by 50% in 2019 and reached 35 billion rubles (circa $500 million at the beginning of May 2020; Infoline data
Nielsen (aggregated information presented at Metro Expo 2019): 80% of consumers are focused on choosing a healthy diet and would like to see more natural products on the shelf; of these, only slightly more than half believe that their needs can be met by the current offer. About 34% of consumers consider superfood (products with additional useful properties) an alternative measure to prevent chronic diseases. The growing interest in healthy eating is supported by data on the actual increase in consumption of vegetable milk (+40%), herbal teas (+24%), fruit and protein bars (+19% and +99%). About 30% of respondents are more likely to choose natural or “organic”(according to the label); 67% are willing to pay a large amount for products from the superfood category.
VTSIOM (Healthy lifestyle monitoring, May 2019): 59% of respondents make a choice in favor of a healthy diet (a combination of motives: a diet recommended by a doctor, a self-selected diet and a desire for healthy food).
GFK (GFK Eating Habits, November 2019 – January 2020): 58% of consumers, regardless of their motives, are guided by the principles of healthy lifestyle when purchasing food, while 22% of respondents are more likely to choose bio-/eco-/organic (according to the label).
The problem of promoting healthy nutrition and correcting existing food patterns is becoming more and more relevant for Russia in terms of health care. According to the Institute of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation the number of people suffering from obesity has almost doubled in 2010–2018 and exceeded 2 million people or 1.4% of the population. The highest rate of obesity is for children up to 14 years, and adolescents from 15 to 17. The problem of food waste is becoming fundamental for the country. The unsolved problem of food waste disposal leads to significant pollution of the environment with illiquid raw materials. Enterprises of the agribusiness of the Russian Federation annually produce about 20 million tons of waste from processing meat and poultry, grain alcohol, beer pellets and yeast, whey and other types of secondary raw materials. The annual volume of “discarded food” in the retail sector alone is about 700 thousand tons or 2–6% of the sales volume (data from ACORT
At the moment, the agricultural sciences occupy a fairly modest place in the structure of the scientific and technical potential of the Russian Federation in terms of funding (the country spending on R&D). Continuing the long-term historical trend laid down in the 1990s, the share of expenditures on agricultural sciences in Russia for R&D reached a minimum in 2017 (1.4% of all expenditures on science against 3.6% in 1994), only at the end of 2018 showing a positive increase (up to 1.69%). The increase in costs in 2018 provided only a return to 2014 indicators (Fig.
The public sector is the dominant player in the agricultural science and innovation development in the Russian Federation: the share of budget funds in the structure of the country spending on R&D consistently exceeds 60%. In recent years, more than 95% of all current expenditures are accumulated by state institutions.
However, it is necessary to note the growth of extra-budgetary sources, namely, the increase in expenditures from organizations’ own funds and investments from businesses: the total share of these sources increased from 29% to 34% over the period 2014–2018. This is certainly a positive signal that indicates an increase in the willingness of businesses to invest in the development of innovations. A negative signal indicating the insufficient effectiveness of the existing system of development institutions is the actual reduction of the already low volume of expenditures on agricultural research projects received from funds to support scientific, technical and innovative activities. Their share of total R&D expenditures in Russia decreased from 2.9% to 1.3% over the period.
In addition, stagnation in the development of Russian agricultural science is also illustrated by the low level of contribution of Russian authors to the total number of publications indexed by Scopus and Web of Science. In terms of the number of agricultural publications Russia lags behind not only the traditionally leading countries (USA, Germany, Japan, UK, Canada, and France) and fast-growing China, India and Brazil, but also Iran and Poland. As for the innovative activity of the agricultural business, its key growth vector in recent years is the introduction of technological innovations (product and process) (Fig.
However, despite the positive trend, compared to global competitors of the Russian manufacturers, this seems quite modest. The gap in innovation activity with some EU countries is 4 times (Fig.
Russia has a low share of innovative products
As an example, we can cite the opinions of experts who expect radical changes in the industry in the next 5–10 years due to the widespread use of alternative technologies for obtaining traditional products — both food and feed, which is considered as an absolute threat to the crop and livestock industries. For example, according to Vladimir Kalensky (Head of the strategy and investment department of EuroChem Group AG),
R&D spending in the field of agricultural sciences in Russia (billion rubles).Source: HSE Institute for Agrarian Studies based on Rosstat data.
Share of innovation activity in the agricultural sector of Russia, 2018 (%). Source: HSE Institute for Agrarian Studies based on Rosstat data.
The results of the expert survey
The main focus is on solutions that have already been widely tested in the world practice, ready-made commercial technologies, which is associated with a fairly short horizon of strategic planning — the absolute majority of participants evaluate it in no more than 3–5 years. Only companies affiliated with foreign players, as well as representatives of the dairy cattle industry, operate with more distant horizons.
Artem Belov (Soyuzmoloko): the planning horizon in the industry is 5–10 years; this is due to the fact that dairy farming has a very long investment cycle. The technologies and solutions that are currently being purchased for the construction and modernization of dairy complexes will be used in the industry in the next 10 years, but we can also talk about 15 years.
The most powerful influence on the development of agriculture in the coming years (Fig.
Artem Belov (Soyuzmoloko): Russia follows the general technological trend. Major industry players are now actively implementing such solutions and our industry has been upgraded by 60%. For the next 3–5 years, implementation issues will be relevant mainly for small manufacturers. Technological progress will be mainly related to the improvement of all sensors and controllers around the animal, the introduction of “smart” farm technologies.
Alexander Eremin (Uralkali PJSC, URALCHEM Group): Digitalization also means a fundamentally different organization of agricultural production, which will be carried out mainly on a contract basis: giants like Nutrien will lease land from its owners for robotic production, organizing it in accordance with global schemes of specialization, redistribution of financial and other resources. In fact, we are talking about global control over agricultural production based on digitalization, Big Data and the use of remote sensing of the Earth.
Stepan Plisko (Progress Agro LLC): The main trends in agribiotech are now related to the development of breeding: methods of genomic technologies for accelerated creation of varieties/hybrids in crop production. For animal husbandry, these are embryo technologies for livestock reproduction and genomic assessment methods for effective breeding. The sector is now very actively following all global trends and technologies, but compared to Western Europe and the United States, we are far behind in the speed and scale of their implementation in the production chain.
Share of experts indicating that a certain technology will play a key role for Russian agriculture (%). Source: HSE Institute for Agrarian Studies based on the results of the expert survey.
Olessya Smirnova (Association of Holstein Cattle Producers): Good genetics is now the main factor of competitiveness in the industry, and it sets the parameters of efficiency. Everything else only determines how well this genetic potential is realized.
Sergey Filippov (Dmitrov Vegetables Group): In vegetable growing, the main trend for this period will be a decrease in demand for the so-called “borscht set” and an increase in demand for specific vegetables-broccoli, cauliflower, legumes and asparagus. This has a certain problem: if there was at least some tradition of selection for potatoes, cabbage, carrots, etc. In Russia, there is no selection for specific vegetables.
Viktor Semenov (Belaya Dacha JSC): In the upcoming 3–5 years, the main trends will be the shift of greenhouse farming to the south of the country and the spread of vertical farms for green vegetables (salads, greens). So far, technology has made it possible to produce only these crops cost-effectively. But their development is very fast, and in the future the main driver will be vertical farms for cucumbers and tomatoes.
The desire to reduce costs and minimize risks is the most popular motivation for innovation (91%). Experts note that in conditions of high competition and complexity of the overall market situation, the transition to new solutions and technologies is a fundamental factor in ensuring competitive advantages. This direction is associated primarily with the introduction of process and organizational innovations and includes two key motives.
The first one is a striving for business growth and diversification (including chain integration), which aims to achieve leading positions in the industry and increase the gap from competitors using more conservative technologies and traditional business models (27% of the experts surveyed). The motive in this case is usually combined with ambitious goals of achieving leadership.
Viktor Semenov (Belaya Dacha JSC): The motivation is to be the first in the industry, it allows you to be competitive, the first always takes the cream off (and a bit of vanity).
The second is the maintenance of the competitiveness — the majority of experts, however, consider the introduction of innovations as the main way to maintain positions already achieved in industry, and not as a means to achieve new goals: 64% of respondents adhere to the catch-up model.
Creation of new or unique products for the market (9%) is a motivation that is relevant mainly for manufacturers developing niche agricultural products with a relatively higher margin. This direction is more associated with the introduction of product and marketing innovations.
The selected motivations fully determine the structure of distribution of priority areas for investment in innovations (Fig.
Viktor Semenov (Belaya Dacha JSC): We have fully digitized the potato farm and are setting up our own weather stations to optimize irrigation and chemical application. Digitization provides up to 50% fertilizer savings. The yield of potatoes is much higher in reference farms in the same area. GPS for tillage and sowing provides significant savings on seeds. We have created a digital platform for online potato trading. There are many positive effects, and digitalization dramatically reduces employees’ opportunism, including theft.
Alexander Grigel (A2 Milk Company, LLC): We have created and promote the A2 line of dairy products. It is absolutely natural, but unlike the traditional one, it does not contain A1 protein, which is often the cause of intolerance to cow’s milk or unpleasant sensations after consuming it. Our task now is to extend the life of such milk: we have a maximum of seven days without pasteurization, in Australia it is at least two weeks.
Sergey Filippov (Dmitrov Vegetables Group): We cooperate with several universities in terms of personnel, but we face a very strong trend of attracting specialists from other companies. The shortage for us is a serious problem, innovations provide an opportunity to substitute capital for labor. Innovation is about reducing all costs.
During the discussions and expert interviews, several proposals were formulated that are necessary as infrastructure solutions to stimulate the development and implementation of innovations in agriculture in Russia.
Experts noted the need to create a single coordination center for scientific and technological development for agriculture (55%). This proposal reflects the high demand from business to improve the efficiency of communication with Federal ministries and executive authorities. Experts assign it the functions of forming long-term strategies for scientific and technological development and vectors of agricultural policy, developing appropriate measures and support tools.
Igor Istomin (New Biotechnologies LLC): We are at the forefront of innovation, we have all non-standard equipment, technologies, and specialists. We are “not a format” in literally everything, we only have a good market, the shortage of animal feed protein in the world is 20–25 million tons per year. Someone should specifically supervise projects like ours, they are at the intersection of disciplines and competencies, and there will be more and more of them over time. Nature-like systems are the trend of the future.
Andrew Orobinsky (Agriculture-Garant Group): It is necessary to create a structure that allows you to quickly and effectively respond to new requests in the field of agricultural innovation. It is physically impossible to specify all the points. The principle is important.
Alexander Krichevsky (Sibbiopharm LLC): Unlikely to need a separate structure to assess innovation, it is necessary to have an attestation commission, need some working group under the auspices of the commission to issue orders.
The development of rural infrastructure (social, transport, information) is recognized by most experts as the key task of state policy (45% of respondents). At the same time, the task of creating and promoting a positive image of modern life in rural areas and working in the agricultural sector in the media and mass cultural products is necessary, but remains a neglected area.
Stepan Plisko (Progress Agro LLC): Rural depopulation is a big problem, not only for the agricultural sector, but for the country as a whole. Life in the countryside can be more comfortable compared to the city, and the cost of quality of life is different. It is necessary to fully finance the rural development program and implement all planned infrastructure development initiatives. But this will not be quite enough. We need to show people that working in the agricultural sector now allows you to have good salaries, a comfortable life and an interesting career.
It is necessary to create a special development of innovation fund for agrarian sector needs (36%), whose activities could compensate for the “bottlenecks” and limitations of existing support tools, expanding their set.
Another desideratum is the development of the innovation transfer system (27%) in order to bridge the technological gap between industry leaders and small producers.
Artem Belov (Soyuzmoloko): The industry is quite fragmented, and while large companies can afford to buy and optimize innovative technologies and equipment for themselves, medium and small manufacturers cannot. We need standard package technological solutions for the implementation of information and automated systems, planning and management systems. There should be special support measures or subsidies for these solutions.
Stepan Plisko (Progress Agro LLC): The Technological gap is a very important problem. We need to provide targeted support to domestic digital and machine-building Champions and create digital competence centers based on them, i.e., in machine-building — Rostselmash, in digital development —Yandex, in plant protection products — August or Schelkovo Agrohim. At the same time, we need a mechanism for cooperation of their competencies to create integrated solutions.
Agriculture has become one of the most rapidly developing economic sectors in recent years in Russia. The main growth drivers were investment and the corresponding improvement in quality of management. This period was characterized by increased domestic demand and occasional protectionism. However, now these growth factors have almost exhausted themselves and the development of the industry in the medium term is facing a new challenge.
The introduction of the food embargo and the subsequent process of import substitution has significantly stepped up innovation processes. Despite positive trends in the growth of innovative activity of domestic producers, Russian agriculture has maintained a significant gap in this indicator not only in comparison to the leading countries (with some EU countries it is more than 4 times), but also in terms of the average indicators for industrial production.
Yet the dominant share in the innovation costs structure is occupied by capital investments, while investment in R&D and accordingly their significance in the overall cost structure remains at a fairly low level (12% in agriculture and 7% in the food industry). The consequence of insufficient investment is a low share of innovative products, as well as low growth rates. In the food industry, this indicator increased by only 0.7 p.p. over the period 2014–2018 (from 5% to 5.7%), in agriculture — from 1.4% to 1.9% (2016–2018).
Due to insufficient efficiency of investments in agricultural science and its unbalanced structure Russia lags behind the other developed countries:
The high concentration of R&D in the public sector, the lack of coordination of actions and the lack of a common vision of priority issues between key stakeholders — science, business and federal ministries — account for the predominance of fundamental research areas over applied ones, as well as a significant gap between the tasks set by departmental institutions and the tasks faced by the real sector. The result of this imbalance is a low level of quality of the domestic scientific products (indicators: a low level of demand for developments, a low contribution to the global volume of publications, a reduction in the share of patent applications in key areas).
Based on the existing assumptions and experts’ opinions, the most promising technological areas of development in Russian agriculture include:
The reduction of human resources is becoming an increasingly acute problem in implementing the innovative path of development of the Russian agriculture facing a growing shortage of qualified personnel. In the QS World University Rankings 2021 in the subject area “Agriculture & Forestry,” there is only one Russian university — RSAU–MTAA,
The results of an expert survey show a high interest of industry representatives in the transition to a new technological stage, readiness to invest in innovations and to form public-private partnerships in the scientific and technical sphere.
In real practice, however, the focus is mainly on the catch-up model of innovation, on commercial technologies that have already been widely tested in the world, and the strategies are guided by the desire to maintain the positions already achieved. The choice of such a strategy is forced by existing short planning horizons: “we simply do not dare to play for long.”
The key barriers to innovative transformation of the industry, identified by experts, relate to the mismatch between business, science, and government who are the main players: