1 / 31

Collaborating with International Partners – an IRAP Perspective

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

lucinda
Télécharger la présentation

Collaborating with International Partners – an IRAP Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 (613) 993-7620 fax (613) 952-1079 denys.cooper@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. 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

  4. Criteria for Selecting Programs / Countries Criteria Indicators

  5. Criteria for Selecting . Appropriateness of:

  6. 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)

  7. 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

  8. C-2 Country Strengths Items for Selection Criteria put into 3 pools. • Country Technology Environment • CountryMarket Environment • SMEContext Considerations

  9. 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?

  10. 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?

  11. 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

  12. 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?

  13. 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?

  14. 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?

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

  18. COMPLIMENTARY NATIONAL PROJECTSTWO LINKED PROJECTS UNIV. SME NSERCSTRATEGIC or OPERATING GRANTS IRAP MINOR SUBCONTRACT

  19. UNIV. SME IRAP INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS WITH CANADIAN COLLABORATORS International Canadians NSERC - CRD SR&ED ITCs

  20. 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

  21. 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

  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 • 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

  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 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. 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?

  30. 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

  31. 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

More Related