23 May 2008: Carbon market could be worth 2 trillion euros in 2020: study. Read more
19 May 2008: DNA sequencing and nano-fabrication receive equipment funding support. Read more .
19 May 2008:
9 May 2008:
6 May 2008:
As a federal country, Canada has put in place a number of programmes which would appear duplicative in a unitary state. Both the federal and provincial levels share an interest in science and innovation, but each level of government is responsible for its own expenditures. Federal tax revenues are transferred to the provinces for education and health, but provinces may not spend them in ways intended. Thus, the federal government has (for example) acted to compensate for provincial underspending on science infrastructure by channelling federal budget surplus funds directly to universities via its "Foundation for Innovation". Overall, the science bases are comprehensively covered, with core funding available from one source or another for infrastructure and overhead apparati, project marginal funding, human resource costs (Canada's famous "2000 research chairs) and technology transfer.
Canada has maintained a federal system of laboratories, embodied in its National Research Council (NRC) and (eg.) the Department of Agriculture's research stations. These are direct-funded by government, with competitive funding going to universities via NSERC and SSHRC. There is talk of widening the scope of competitive funding to include government laboratory applicants.
Canada's IRAP (Industrial Research Assistance Program) is held up as a successful example of bridging the science-innovation interface. Surprisingly, it is run by the NRC, rather than Industry Canada. To deepen the paradox, the Prime Minister's Advisory Council on S&T is run by Industry Canada.
Canada has several years of experience with (now) 19 Centres of Excellence, which are really networks of many centres around a common theme. The NCE Programme fosters partnerships between university, government and industry.
The programme has been operating for twelve years. In 1997, the government established the NCE as a permanent program. Its 2003 budget was C$77m per year. Centres receive an average of C$3.6m per year, somewhat above the annual funding that New Zealand Centres receive. In addition, the scheme gives $25k assistance to build an application (though total applicant costs may reach $200k). In 2001-2002, 778 companies, 221 provincial and federal government departments and agencies, 63 hospitals, 155 universities, and 327 NGOs were involved in the programme. The criteria used for Canadian centres include: research promise and excellence; potential and quality of training; networking; potential for knowledge transfer; and management ability. Scope exists for international linkages with New Zealand centres.
The Canadian Technology Network was set up three years ago to help small companies (SMEs in Canada are defined as under 500 employees, versus under 100 employees in New Zealand) link to non-profit organisations which can give them advice on writing business plans, exporting, etc (similar to Business NZ). The Network is now open for enrolment from overseas groups. By its own definition, over 80% of Canada's companies fall into the SME category.
Some 12000 Canadian companies currently perform R&D, though 40% of all private sector R&D is done by just one company, Nortel. Canada has now set up 900 spin-off companies from university research, an outcome which causes some debate as to whether the policy intent should be to spin off new firms or to assist uptake by existing firms. A more promising avenue for knowledge exchange and innovation uptake is the hiring of knowledge professionals into the private sector.
Canada's new Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC) programme, introduced in 1996, ran afoul of WTO rules on subsidising exports. Care must be taken in the design of such programmes. Recently, TCP has been criticised for its poor returns: Of the C$1.5b that has been loaned to companies since 1996, only $46.4m has been repaid (ie. 3% of the outlay). Projections to 2020 indicate that no more than 33% of the then outlay will be repaid. Newspaper editorials have condemned the investment as too risky for government funds.
The Canadian Foundation for Innovation was set up in 1997 to channel government surpluses into capital investment in S&T. To date some C$3.6b has been made available. As background, almost all of Canada's research is performed by universities, which fall under provincial jurisdictions. Provinces are responsible for core costs, but federal contestable funding covers marginal costs of federal research projects. There was a perception that provincial core funding was being squeezed, and the CFI was set up to channel funds to cover capital costs. Universities, hospitals and colleges are eligible for CFI funding, and it goes directly to them, rather than via a province. Criteria include: excellence of vision; need for infrastructure; sustainable usage of the capital asset; and benefit to Canada. Successful applicants receive 40% of the capital cost required, and must find the remaining 60%. Four of the larger provinces have decided to match federal funding with their own 40%, leaving 20% to be raised in-kind or from private sector sources. Eligible capital includes any tangible asset, as well as databases.
In addition to CFI funding, NSERC and SSHRC (the federal science and social science funding agencies) now do fund 25% above marginal costs, as a contribution towards overhead costs. None of Canada's ten provinces has sought to introduce any sort of performance-based test for the allocation of research funds to universities.
Australia | Korea | Biosecurity | Biotechnology | EU | Food | Health | IT | Life | N America | Nanotech | S America | SocSci | Sustainability | UK | Japan | China | France | Germany |Other Europe | USA | Canada | Embassies |