Collaborating with International Partners – an IRAP Perspective 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 FPPT - 2003 May 30 Ottawa
31
Embed
Collaborating with International Partners – an IRAP Perspective Dr. Denys Cooper, Director Strategic Alliances Office Industrial Research Assistance Program.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Collaborating with International Partners – an IRAP Perspective
Dr. Denys Cooper, Director
Strategic Alliances OfficeIndustrial Research Assistance ProgramNational Research Council Canada(613) 993-7620 fax (613) 952-1079 [email protected]
• 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
3
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
T-1
4
Criteria for Selecting Programs / Countries
Client Benefits
SME Needs: Technologies Technology & Business Relationships Partnerships & Alliances
SME Opportunities: Programs in other countries (leveraging $) Downstream market & business opportunities Networking Intelligence gathering Risk analysis
Long-term needs of Canadian industry Benefits to Canada Return on investment Link to Provincial initiatives
Criteria Indicators
5
Criteria for Selecting .
Regions / Countries
State of industry & technology in target country Accessibility of technology / receptor capacity Desire for partnership & intent of alliance IP laws & IP protection Cost and Risk analysis
Right Participants
Are they the right partners? Type of organisation State of technology Accessibility of technology / receptor capacity Desire for partnership & intent of alliance Cost and Risk analysis
Appropriateness of:
6
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-2
7
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
T-3
8
Country Strengths
Items for Selection Criteria put into 3 pools.
• Country Technology Environment
• Country Market Environment
• SME Context Considerations
C-2
9
International Country Selection Issues – Country Technology Environment
1. Country attractiveness - conducive for technology collaboration with Canadian SMEs?
2. Country's position on SME collaboration / strategic alliances both domestically & internationally?
3. Supportiveness of IP and other regulatory regimes of technology collaboration?
4. What is the IP and technology transfer orientation and
character? How do they differ amongst Institutes?
1 of 3C-3
10
International Country Selection Issues – Country Technology Environment
5. Nature of country linkages with: a) NRC Institutes b) SBDAs, c) Canadian
provinces?6. 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?
8. Who is the national or local champion?9. Country's economic programs - plans or policies - that
support / encourage SMEs and innovation?
2 of 3C-4
11
International Country Selection Issues – Country Technology Environment
10. Extent of integration of country's economic, S&T programs and policies:
a. National, regional and local program jurisdictions?
b. 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
3 of 3C-5
12
International Country Selection Issues – Country Market Environment1. Size of market and potential?2. Country trade history & competition level for products
incorporating the technology under consideration?3. SME manufacturing in Canada versus FDI incentives in
host country?4. Effective positioning of DFAIT / trade commissioners in the
country? 5. Existing complementary trade associations in the country?
MOU linkages?6. Any Canada - country trade agreements?7. Is the country a gateway/ major trade partner with other
countries of interest to Canada?
C-6
13
International Country Selection Issues – SME Context Considerations
1. What innovation support organizations / programs similar to IRAP and / or supportive of SME innovation and international technology collaborations?
2. What is the SME orientation to collaboration with other SMEs?
3. Are there IRAP- like organizations or Industry Associations prepared to work with IRAP?
1 of 2C-7
14
International Country Selection Issues – SME Context Considerations
4. Amount of SME technology investment (in a given technology domain) in the country?
5. History of Prior of Canadian S&T linkages, and links by Canadian industrial / technology organizations to similar organizations in this country?
6. Is country linked to technology and innovation in other countries of strategic interest to IRAP?
2 of 2C-8
15
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
16
Funding of Joint International Projects with Universities and SMEs
Examples of Access to:
• European Union’s 6th Framework
• Intelligent Manufacturing Systems Consortia
17
IRAP and NSERC have coordinated access to International ProgramsAdvantages to researchers:
• Faster turn around
• Coordinated technical Peer reviews.
• Leverage Funding
18
COMPLIMENTARY NATIONAL PROJECTS
TWO LINKED PROJECTS
UNIV. SME
NSERC STRATEGIC or OPERATING
GRANTS
MINOR SUBCONTRACT
IRAP
19
INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS WITH CANADIAN COLLABORATORS
International Canadians
NSERC - CRDUNIV.
SME IRAP
SR&ED ITCs
20
• 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 POTENTIAL PROJECT
21
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 REVIEWS of JOINT PROJECTS
22
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 PROJECT REVIEWS
23
Contacts:• IRAP* Denys Cooper
• NSERC Guy Drapeau
* IRAP sits on NSERC CRD Committee
NSERC - IRAP PROJECTS
24
European Union – 6th Framework 2002-6 • 6th Program 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
25
European Union – 6th FrameworkIP 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.
26
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.
27
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.
28
Traffic Light Framework
• Prohibited (red light) subsidies
• Actionable (amber light) subsidies
• Non-actionable (green light) subsidies
29
SAMPLES of WTO CASES
1 of 2
• 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?
30
EXTRACTS from RECENT PUBLICATIONS - No-No s !!
• INSTITUTE’S MISSION is to STRENGTHEN FIRM’S COMPETITIVE POSITION in GLOBAL ECONOMY
• To GIVE FIRMS a BOOST in WORLD MARKET
• DEVELOPING NEW PRODUCTS for FOREIGN
MARKETS • PRODUCT REDUCED IMPORTS
31
Dr. Denys G. T. Cooper, Director Strategic AlliancesIndustrial Research Assistance ProgramNational Research Council Canada(613) 993-7620 fax (613) 952-1079 [email protected]