Transcript NRC-IRAP Strategic Alliances

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
[email protected]
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
2
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
3
Criteria for Selecting Programs / Countries
Criteria
C lie n t B e n e fits
Indicators
SM E Needs:
 T e c h n o lo g ie s
 T e c h n o lo g y & B u s in e s s R ela tio n s h ip s
 P a rtn e rs h ip s & A llia n c e s
S M E O p p o rtu n itie s :
C a n a d a B e n e fits
(N R C -IR A P
IC , D F A IT , S B D A s
T a x p a ye r)





P ro g ra m s in o th e r c o u n trie s (le ve rag in g $ )
D o w n s trea m m a rke t & b u s in e s s o p p o rtu n itie s
N e tw o rk in g
In te llig e n c e g a th erin g
R is k a n alys is




L o n g -te rm n e e d s o f C a n a d ia n in d u stry
B e n e fits to C a n a d a
R e tu rn o n in ve s tm e n t
L in k to P ro vin c ial in itia tive s
4
Criteria for Selecting
.
Appropriateness of:
R e g io n s /
C o u n trie s





R ig h t
P a rtic ip a n ts
A re th e y th e rig h t p a rtn e rs ?





S ta te o f in d u s try & te c h n o lo g y in ta rg e t c o u n try
A c c e s s ib ility o f te c h n o lo g y / re c e p to r c a p a city
D e s ire fo r p a rtn ers h ip & in te n t o f a llia n c e
IP law s & IP p ro tec tio n
C o s t a n d R is k a n alys is
T yp e o f o rg a n is a tio n
S ta te o f te c h n o lo g y
A c c e s s ib ility o f te c h n o lo g y / re c e p to r c a p a city
D e s ire fo r p a rtn ers h ip & in te n t o f a llia n c e
C o s t a n d R is k a n alys is
5
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)
6
T-3
Technology Fields – European Union – 6 th
Framework 2002-06
12,000 Expressions of Interest filed – July 2002
• 2800
Sustainable Dev, Ecosystems
•
•
•
•
•
Information Technologies
Genomics & Bio for Humans
Nanotech, Materials, Production
Food Quality and Safety
Aero and space
2500
1990
1600
1000
300
Caveat:
Covers requests from universities,
institutes, large and small firms
7
C-2
Country Strengths
Items for Selection Criteria put into 3 pools.
• Country Technology Environment
• Country Market Environment
• SME Context Considerations
8
C-3
1 of 3
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?
9
C-4
2 of 3
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?
10
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:
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
11
C-6
International Country Selection Issues –
Country Market Environment
1. 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?
12
C-7
1 of 2
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?
13
C-8
2 of 2
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?
14
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
15
Funding of Joint International
Projects with Universities and SMEs
Examples of Access to:
• European Union’s 6th Framework
• Intelligent Manufacturing Systems Consortia
16
IRAP and NSERC have coordinated
access to International Programs
Advantages to researchers:
• Faster turn around
• Coordinated technical Peer reviews.
• Leverage Funding
17
COMPLIMENTARY NATIONAL PROJECTS
TWO LINKED PROJECTS
NSERC
STRATEGIC
or OPERATING
GRANTS
UNIV.
SME
IRAP
MINOR
SUBCONTRACT
18
INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS WITH
CANADIAN COLLABORATORS
International
Canadians
UNIV.
NSERC - CRD
SME
IRAP
SR&ED ITCs
19
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
20
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
- Decisions: < $15 K Aim
< $100 K “
$100+K “
Regions
14 days
30 days
90 days
21
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
22
NSERC - IRAP PROJECTS
Contacts:
• IRAP*
Denys Cooper
• NSERC
Guy Drapeau
* IRAP sits on NSERC CRD Committee
23
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
24
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.
25
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.
26
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.
27
Traffic Light Framework
• Prohibited (red light) subsidies
• Actionable (amber light) subsidies
• Non-actionable (green light) subsidies
28
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?
29
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
30
Dr. Denys G. T. Cooper,
Director
Strategic Alliances
Industrial Research Assistance Program
National Research Council Canada
(613) 993-7620 fax (613) 952-1079
[email protected]
31