Collaborating with International Partners an IRAP Perspective

1
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
• [phone] fax [phone]
• denys.cooper_at_nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

2
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

3
Studies on Assessing Key Technologies for
Strategic Positioning of RD
T-1

• EU Technology Map Study for 2000-2015
• Foresight Studies 1998
• Summary of National Foresight Studies ICSU 2002
• EU Expressions of Interest - 2002

4
Criteria for Selecting Programs / Countries

Criteria
Indicators
5
Criteria for Selecting
.
Appropriateness of
6
Selection of Technologies for Potential SME Needs
5 years
T-2

• 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 UKs SPRU for Intl Council for
  Scientific Unions (ICSU 2002)

7
Technology Fields European Union 6 th
Framework 2002-06
T-3

• 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

8
Country Strengths
C-2

• Items for Selection Criteria put into 3 pools.
• Country Technology Environment
• Country Market Environment
• SME Context Considerations

9
International Country Selection Issues Country
Technology Environment
1 of 3
C-3

• 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?

10
International Country Selection Issues Country
Technology Environment
2 of 3
C-4

• 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?

11
International Country Selection Issues Country
Technology Environment
3 of 3
C-5

• 10. Extent of integration of country's economic,
  ST 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

12
International Country Selection Issues Country
Market Environment
C-6

• 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?

13
International Country Selection Issues SME
Context Considerations
1 of 2
C-7

• 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?

14
International Country Selection Issues SME
Context Considerations
2 of 2
C-8

• Amount of SME technology investment (in a given
  technology domain) in the country?
• History of Prior of Canadian ST 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?

15
The 5 As 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 Unions 6th Framework
• Intelligent Manufacturing Systems Consortia

17
IRAP and NSERC have coordinated access to
International Programs

• Advantages to researchers
• Faster turn around
• Coordinated technical Peer reviews.
• Leverage Funding

18
COMPLIMENTARY NATIONAL PROJECTSTWO LINKED
PROJECTS
UNIV.
SME
NSERC STRATEGIC or OPERATING GRANTS
IRAP
MINOR SUBCONTRACT
19
INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS WITH CANADIAN
COLLABORATORS
International Canadians
NSERC - CRD
SRED ITCs
20
NSERC - IRAP POTENTIAL PROJECT

• IRAP - USE T.I.P. Element for EXPLORATORY
  JOINT VISIT
• - Airfare normally
• - Regular IRAP for RD
• NSERC - USE C.R.D.
• IRAP and NSERC Coordinate
• Review / Sign Offs

21
NSERC - IRAP REVIEWS of JOINT PROJECTS

• NEED CLOSE COORDINATION
• NSERC - Use C.R.D. Process
• - If lt 100 K NO FIXED DATES
• - If 100 K 5 MEETINGS / Yr
• IRAP
• - No Fixed Dates in most Regions
• - Decisions lt 15 K Aim 14 days
• lt 100 K 30 days
  100K 90 days

22
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

23
NSERC - IRAP PROJECTS

• Contacts
• IRAP Denys Cooper
• NSERC Guy Drapeau
• IRAP sits on NSERC CRD Committee

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 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.

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 RD
  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
• Canadas TPC s to Bombardier, and EDC
  
• Brazils Export Financing to Embrauer
• Revisions made
• TPC - 2000 Aug - Accepted
• Brazil - few changes - has lost 5 Rounds
• Now filed a general Complaint against
  Canadas Industry Portfolio Programs
• Severe Penalties could be placed by Canada -
  1.5 B?

30
EXTRACTS from RECENT PUBLICATIONS - No-No
s !!

• INSTITUTES MISSION is to STRENGTHEN FIRMS
  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 Alliances
• Industrial Research Assistance Program
• National Research Council Canada
• [phone] fax [phone]
• denys.cooper_at_nrc-cnrc.gc.ca