310 likes | 429 Views
Collaborating with International Partners – an IRAP Perspective. FPPT - 2003 May 30 Ottawa. Dr. Denys Cooper , Director Strategic Alliances Office Industrial Research Assistance Program National Research Council Canada (613) 993-7620 fax (613) 952-1079
E N D
Collaborating with International Partners – an IRAP Perspective FPPT - 2003 May 30 Ottawa Dr. Denys Cooper, Director Strategic Alliances Office Industrial Research Assistance Program National Research Council Canada (613) 993-7620 fax (613) 952-1079 denys.cooper@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Purpose • To review criteria for selecting technologies and countries for International Technology Collaboration • To review access to EU projects for SMEs with Universities • To review IP Issues under the European Union new 6th Framework Program • To review WTO Subsidy Issues
T-1 Studies on Assessing Key Technologies for Strategic Positioning of R&D • EU Technology Map Study for 2000-2015 • Foresight Studies 1998 • Summary of National Foresight Studies – ICSU 2002 • EU – Expressions of Interest - 2002
Criteria for Selecting Programs / Countries Criteria Indicators
Criteria for Selecting . Appropriateness of:
T-2 Selection of Technologies for Potential SME Needs – 5+ years • ICSU Review of Key Technologies selected from Consolidation of Foresight Studies * • Used 50 experts from 20 countries • OECD, APEC, UNIDO, and EU • Covered 28 Technology areas - but weak in ICT sector • Identified Key Countries with key Science, Collaboration and Market Potential * Study by UK’s SPRU for Int’l Council for Scientific Unions (ICSU 2002)
T-3 Technology Fields – European Union – 6 th Framework 2002-06 12,000 Expressions of Interest filed – July 2002 • 2800 Sustainable Dev, Ecosystems • 2500 Information Technologies • 1990 Genomics & Bio for Humans • 1600 Nanotech, Materials, Production • 1000 Food Quality and Safety • 300 Aero and space Caveat: Covers requests from universities, institutes, large and small firms
C-2 Country Strengths Items for Selection Criteria put into 3 pools. • Country Technology Environment • CountryMarket Environment • SMEContext Considerations
C-3 1 of 3 International Country Selection Issues – Country Technology Environment • Country attractiveness - conducive for technology collaboration with Canadian SMEs? • Country's position on SME collaboration / strategic alliances both domestically & internationally? • Supportiveness of IP and other regulatory regimes of technology collaboration? • What is the IP and technology transfer orientation and character? How do they differ amongst Institutes?
C-4 2 of 3 International Country Selection Issues – Country Technology Environment • Nature of country linkages with: a) NRC Institutes b) SBDAs, c) Canadian provinces? • Country similarity & compatibility of: a) industry / SMEs structure & character with Canada in given technology domain? b) nature of innovation and growth in SMEs to Canadian SMEs? • Who is the national or local champion? • Country's economic programs - plans or policies - that support / encourage SMEs and innovation?
C-5 3 of 3 International Country Selection Issues – Country Technology Environment 10. Extent of integration of country's economic, S&T programs and policies: • National, regional and local program jurisdictions? • SME research commitment in the country: in-house, sourced from universities, etc? 11. Is the country targeting Canada for technology linkages? e.g. Germany, or Scotland for Photonics
C-6 International Country Selection Issues – CountryMarket Environment • Size of market and potential? • Country trade history & competition level for products incorporating the technology under consideration? • SME manufacturing in Canada versus FDI incentives in host country? • Effective positioning of DFAIT / trade commissioners in the country? • Existing complementary trade associations in the country? MOU linkages? • Any Canada - country trade agreements? • Is the country a gateway/ major trade partner with other countries of interest to Canada?
C-7 1 of 2 International Country Selection Issues – SMEContext Considerations • What innovation support organizations / programs similar to IRAP and / or supportive of SME innovation and international technology collaborations? • What is the SME orientation to collaboration with other SMEs? • Are there IRAP- like organizations or Industry Associations prepared to work with IRAP?
C-8 2 of 2 International Country Selection Issues – SME Context Considerations • Amount of SME technology investment (in a given technology domain) in the country? • History of Prior of Canadian S&T linkages, and links by Canadian industrial / technology organizations to similar organizations in this country? • Is country linked to technology and innovation in other countries of strategic interest to IRAP?
The 5 “A”s of Technology Transfer - SMEs • Awareness of Market – needs / sources • Assessment of Technology Opportunity • Acquisition of Technology / collaboration • Adaptation of Technology • Access Market – JV, future technology supply
Funding of Joint International Projects with Universities and SMEs Examples of Access to: • European Union’s 6th Framework • Intelligent Manufacturing Systems Consortia
IRAP and NSERC have coordinated access to International Programs Advantages to researchers: • Faster turn around • Coordinated technical Peer reviews. • Leverage Funding
COMPLIMENTARY NATIONAL PROJECTSTWO LINKED PROJECTS UNIV. SME NSERCSTRATEGIC or OPERATING GRANTS IRAP MINOR SUBCONTRACT
UNIV. SME IRAP INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS WITH CANADIAN COLLABORATORS International Canadians NSERC - CRD SR&ED ITCs
NSERC - IRAP POTENTIAL PROJECT • IRAP - USE T.I.P. Element for EXPLORATORY JOINT VISIT - Airfare normally - Regular IRAP for R&D • NSERC - USE C.R.D. IRAP and NSERC Coordinate Review / Sign Offs
NSERC - IRAP REVIEWS of JOINT PROJECTS NEED CLOSE COORDINATION • NSERC - Use C.R.D. Process - If < $100 K NO FIXED DATES - If $100+ K 5 MEETINGS / Yr • IRAP - No Fixed Dates in most Regions - Decisions: < $15 K Aim 14 days < $100 K “ 30 days $100+K “ 90 days
NSERC - IRAP PROJECT REVIEWS For SAME JOINT PROJECT • If Use Same Reviewers: • Need Company approval to use NON Federal Government person • If IRAP uses University Reviewer, need prior approval to permit release of NAME of academic - IF needed -Access To Info Program
NSERC - IRAP PROJECTS Contacts: • IRAP* Denys Cooper • NSERC Guy Drapeau * IRAP sits on NSERC CRD Committee
European Union – 6th Framework 2002-6 • 6thProgram Launched in 2002 November • 17.5 B Euros ($28 B Can) - up from 15B Euros for FP 5 • Projects are likely to be larger and longer term – so may hit SMEs • BUT EU policy is to have more SMEs involved • EU is no longer the main contractual party. • EU does not sign the consortium agreement. • ALL Participants must sign the consortium agreement, • EU negotiates with the consortium LEAD on funding • The LEAD is accountable for the management, to disperse funds, and for reporting • Change in Parties no longer needs EU approval – decided by Participants
European Union – 6th Framework IP issues are more flexible. • Background IP – parties can negotiate with or without royalty fees: • to disclose or not their IP, • allow use for research purposes or declare rights to use for post project. • Foreground IP - Parties must agree to define access for European benefits: Typically royalty free during project plus 2 + years after project end, BUT the rights to use must be specifically requested. All parties must be told of any limitations.
European Union – 6th Framework • Only in special cases will EU Commission intervene on IP rights (such as some exclusive or non-EU licenses that hurt European competitivity) • Under a few special conditions, Canadian parties may receive funds from the consortium. • Marie Curie Fellowships of EU are open for European or Canadian researchers to undertake 1-3 year exchanges. • IST-EC set up to facilitate EU – Canada info tech networking – lead is Brigitte Leger of DFAIT.
World Trade Organization WTO – Subsidy Issues • For 1995- 1999, there was protection of R&D subsidies • No longer with the collapse of Seattle talks for 2000+ • Severe penalties if industrial subsidies cause harm or damage to a foreign industry – either for Canadian Exports or reduction in Imports • The only exception now is the 1% de minimis clause • i.e. If a firm receives $100,000 in government support, then it must generate $10 M in downstream sales to be protected. • Working Group in Geneva looking at reinstating some sort of subsidy protection.
Traffic Light Framework • Prohibited (red light) subsidies • Actionable (amber light) subsidies • Non-actionable (green light) subsidies
1 of 2 SAMPLES of WTO CASES • CANADA has LOST Some KEY WTO Cases • WTO Ruling against Subsidies for Jets • Canada’s TPC $$ s to Bombardier, and EDC $ • Brazil’s Export Financing to Embrauer • Revisions made: • TPC - 2000 Aug - Accepted • Brazil - few changes - has lost 5 Rounds • Now filed a general Complaint against Canada’s Industry Portfolio Programs • Severe Penalties could be placed by Canada - $1.5 B?
EXTRACTS from RECENT PUBLICATIONS - No-No s !! • INSTITUTE’S MISSION is to STRENGTHEN FIRM’S COMPETITIVE POSITION inGLOBAL ECONOMY • To GIVE FIRMS a BOOST inWORLD MARKET • DEVELOPING NEW PRODUCTS forFOREIGNMARKETS • PRODUCTREDUCED IMPORTS
Dr. Denys G. T. Cooper, Director Strategic Alliances Industrial Research Assistance Program National Research Council Canada (613) 993-7620 fax (613) 952-1079 denys.cooper@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca