The BIOCAP Canada Foundation is winding up operations and developing a university-based mandate after failing to secure federal follow-on financing from the federal government. The innovative Queen's Univ-based organization features a novel pairing of industry, academic and government researchers seeking ways to boost and integrate the use of biomass into Canada's overall approach to energy usage. It's an objective which is currently high on the Conservative government's policy agenda.

With just $10 million in funding over five years, BIOCAP achieved a remarkable leveraging of industrial and university support, securing more than $50 million for its various research consortia. But the nature of the BIOCAP model combined with an increasing interest in downstream activity worked against BIOCAP's continuation and after 18 months of tough negotiations, BIOCAP has come up empty handed. The latest setback occurred when BIOCAP failed to make the initial cut of applicants to the new Centres of Excellence in Commercialization and Research program (see page 4).

"Our model requires transitions across many sectors. Getting multiple departments aligned in a mandate has not been possible although it's clear there is a demand for the type of work that we do," says Dr David Layzell, BIOCAP's president and CEO. "This model doesn't work with this government … We are a different organization than others that have been funded. We're grassroots academia and industry and that made it a challenge right from the beginning."

model problematic from the beginning

Although BIOCAP was initially successful in obtaining funding from three government departments – Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) — negotiations were long and laborious as federal bureaucrats worked to identify a clear set of deliverables and an intellectual property agreement that met policy objectives and ensured that the benefits would accrue to Canadians.

"When we were funded in 2001, we struggled to coordinate three departments and get PCO (Privy Council Office) approval. It proved to be a problematic model, "says Layzell. "I've been convinced for nine years that this is the kind of approach we need to take in Canada, especially with the university sector which is highly siloized. But the challenges of making it happen and getting a funding decision has been difficult, especially in the last 18 months."

Regardless of BIOCAP's ultimate fate, its impact has been considerable on the Canadian research landscape and in the merits of identifying agricultural bioproducts as an important research area. Layzell says the rationale behind a new $145-million program being launched by AAFC is based on the BIOCAP model. So too is the $70-million Forest Products Innovation program by NRCan.

"BIOCAP's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness – transcending the silos of university faculties and

government departments ... We need to address climate change but our model doesn't work with existing funding

structures." — Dr David Layzell

"When we saw this happening (new departmental research programs), we shifted our focus. We saw a need in larger integrated systems," says Layzell. "What will energy and climate change mitigation systems look like and how will they contribute to national energy and security policy?"

BIOCAP research projects caught in the funding squeeze have had a second financial reprieve that will allow them to continue until the end of FY07-08. Layzell says BIOCAP has made a proposal to Queen's Univ that will be considered by its board of governors later this month. The new model casts BIOCAP more like a traditional research institute spread across several universities.

"We want to switch to university-led innovation. We're talking to Queen's and if we're successful it will allow us to deliver on our goal of bioeconomy systems," he says. "We want to identify and assess transformative bioeconomy systems and strategies by taking a systems approach to determine technology needs, technology barriers and infrastructure needs."

Since BIOCAP's inception, several new organizations have emerged to address similar areas of energy and climate change, albeit in different spaces along the R&D continuum. The creation of Sustainable Technology Development Canada combined with considerable financing (now nearly $1.1 billion) helped to fund industry-led research projects and more recently demonstration-scale projects in the area of biofuels. Industry also banded together to form Energy INet, which struck a memorandum of understanding with BIOCAP to accelerate the integration of bioenergy into an overall national energy plan (R$, November 7/05).

For Layzell, however, these initiatives complement rather than supplant the activities undertaken by BIOCAP. Since its formation, it has involved industry in several research programs including Fluxnet Canada Research Network (now the Canadian Carbon Network), Greenhouse Gas Management Canada and the Green Crop Network. It has also augmented the work of two Networks of Centres of Excellence — Sustainable Forest Management and Auto 21. Two attempts to secure funding for a BIOCAP NCE were unsuccessful.

Despite BIOCAP's failure to sustain federal funding, Layzell says the approach to research it developed is still essential in combatting global warming and forging an effective response. But he fears that the current environment within federal environments is making that task more difficult.

"Climate change solutions have to be multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary but the file has moved away from Environment Canada towards other line departments," he says. "The Environment department's research budget has been cut to the bone so how do you implement research that addresses climate change and energy needs when the resources are not in the department with that primary mandate?"

As an example, Layzell points to the situation with bio-ethanol, which has not lived up to expectations. He asserts that if the government had employed a systems approach to bioenergy research, some of the negative consequences could have been avoided.

"We need to assess the costs and benefits for various policy options and their implications for jobs, education and the rural economy. We have to make some tough decisions in the next few years on energy and climate change. We can't continue the way we did with bio-ethanol."

R$