Biomanufacturing is central to China's next five year plan
It’s the only technology to be considered a "core technology" and a "future industry"
Key points
Preparation for the next five year plan (FYP) has fewer and more defined priority technologies than previous FYPs.
Biomanufacturing is right near the top of priorities in preparation for the next FYP - consistent with our assessment that biology is seen a future platform technology.
There is a shift to physical applications in all technologies. “Biotechnology” has changed to “biomanufacturing” in preparation for the next FYP.
Article
In late October, the Communist Party of China released its suggestions for the upcoming 15th Five-Year Plan (FYP), which will be finalized early next year. The plan will outline China’s key national policy directions, and much of the suggestion’s content is expected to carry through to the final version.
Tech in the 15th FYP: More Streamlined. Less Priorities
At first glance, there are three main differences between the preparatory documents for the 15th FYP (2026-2030) and the same preparatory document for the 14th FYP (2021-2025):
Clearer goal setting. The goals are limited to economic development and core technology capability in the newer doc.
Clearer prioritisation. The technologies listed in the newer doc are more specific.
The focus has shifted toward industrial and manufacturing policy away from basic science.
Clearer goal setting
The newer document, as with all Party documents, remains mired in dense Party-speak. And the CPC successfully strips away all enjoyment for the reader. But if you focus on the parts where technologies are actually listed, and try to gaze through all the nonsense, a clarity of focus emerges.
The 2025 preparatory document lays out two types of technological priority: “Future Industries” and “Core Technologies”.
The goals are clear. Future industries are articulated as “new economic growth drivers”. China is betting they will overcome the triple economic headwinds of debt, demographics and sluggish productivity growth.
By comparison, the same paragraph on emerging technologies in the preparatory document for the 14th FYP (2021-2025) stated the need to “build a number of strategic emerging industry growth engines”. The newer document is linking emerging industries more closely with China’s broader economic future than the old document.
This is an inordinately subtle change, but nothing in these documents is an accident. Each line is painstakingly curated (to bore the reader to death).
On core technologies, the newer document is clear. China needs to lead in a short list of foundational technologies.
The same document for the previous FYP is less clear. The appropriate paragraph has a myriad of goals: “Formulate an action plan for building a strong nation in science and technology, improve the new national system under the socialist market economy, wage a decisive battle to overcome key core technologies, and enhance the overall efficiency of the innovation chain.”
More defined technology prioritisation (with a focus on industrial goods)
In listing technology priorities, the prep doc for the 14th FYP (2021–2025) was less focused. It listed 17 technologies—more than the 12 (6 “core” and 6 “future”) in the new version (see the significant caveat about industrial clusters below) —and they were broader in scope. For example:
“biotechnology” in the older doc becomes “biomanufacturing” in the new doc (a clearer subset of biotechnology).
“New energy” becomes “hydrogen and fusion energy”
“Brain science” becomes “brain computer interface”
“New generation IT” becomes “6G mobile communications”
There is a significant caveat to the above analysis. Beyond the 12 technology slots listed across the two categories, the 2025 document calls for the establishment of “emerging industrial clusters in new energy, new materials, aerospace, and low-altitude economy.” The 2020 prep doc for the 14th FYP called for “advanced manufacturing clusters” but it did not specify industries (again less specific). In order to make an “apples for apples” comparison, I have left the industry clusters off the below tables and the above analysis.
Biotechnology’s priority is higher than ever
There are twelve priority slots in the October document — six per category. Biomanufacturing takes two, and brain–computer interfaces one — that’s 25% of all slots.
The switch to Biomanufacturing as THE area of focus has been in train for some time, as we have documented:
Three policy documents combined to create the perfect storm. The National Plastic Ban stimulated downstream demand. The Fourteenth Five-Year Plan on the Bioeconomy gave political legitimacy to the field. The Three-Year Action Plan Accelerating the Innovative Development of Non-Food Bio-Based Materials went further by naming exact molecules for production.
Does all this preparation actually translate to the FYP?
It mostly does translate. These prep docs are carefully scripted and reflect extensive negotiation. Over the coming months, interest groups will lobby for their preferred technologies, so some changes are likely. The FYP document is also much longer, which creates pressure to add more content — as happened last time.
My best guess: the clarity will get diluted a bit, but the key points will remain. Biomanufacturing should still sit at the core of the tech agenda in the next FYP.