Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EXTERNAL MONITORING REPORT
ON THE SPECIFIC PROGRAMME
FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL
DEVELOPMENT
IN THE FIELD OF
NUCLEAR ENERGY FUSION
This is part of the series of the external annual monitoring reports prepared for the EC Framework Programme and the Euratom Framework Programme, and their constituent Specific Programmes, and also - as a novelty- covers the implementation of the European Research Area (ERA) related activities. The Commission has over the years been placing increasing emphasis on the evaluation of Community R&D activities. With the overall Reform of the Commission, evaluation activities are more and more placed at the heart of the decision process. In line with this continuous effort for improvement, a revised programme monitoring scheme has been introduced in 2001, based on the system launched in 1995 which involved independent experts in the monitoring activities. The new mechanism launched this year, has been built in order to better involve the experts monitoring the implementation of ERA and specific programmes, by representing them in the Framework Programme Monitoring Panel (FPMP). The timely response by the Programme management to the recommendations produced by the experts will be enhanced, providing the basis for a quick response mechanism to programme developments, as the follow up of experts recommendations will be receiving still more attention. This report is the third covering the Fifth Framework Programme; the report also highlights progress in relation to implementation of ERA and results and impact of previous Framework Programmes. The report should help reinforce establishment of best practices and identify the scope for further improvements in programme implementation.
The report consists of two parts: Part A: External monitoring report prepared by the following
independent external experts: Dr Björn Brandt Dr Joaquín Calvo Prof. Dr Günther Lehner Part B: Responses of the Programme management to the external
monitoring report.
PART A:
Report of the external Monitoring Panel
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... 1
2. PANEL METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 2
3. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 3
4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS............................................................................................................................... 4
4.1 STRATEGY - OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................4 4.1.1 The Fast Track .......................................................................................................................................... 4 4.1.2 Progress in ERA and programmes implementation.................................................................................. 5 4.1.3 Significant results in the European and international context.................................................................. 6
4.1.3.1 Progress towards ITER........................................................................................................................................ 6 4.1.3.2 Use of the JET facilities ...................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1.3.3 Work in the Associations .................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1.3.4 Fusion Technology.............................................................................................................................................. 7 4.1.3.5 Socio-Economic, Safety and Environment Studies ............................................................................................. 7 4.1.3.6 Public Awareness and Understanding of Fusion Power...................................................................................... 8 4.1.3.7 Fusion and Industry............................................................................................................................................. 8 4.1.3.8 International Co-operation .................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1.3.9 Inertial Confinement Keep-in-Touch Activity .................................................................................................... 9 4.1.3.10 Training and Mobility ......................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1.4 Participation of candidates countries..................................................................................................... 10 4.1.5 Participation of SMEs............................................................................................................................. 10 4.1.6 Women and science................................................................................................................................. 10 4.1.7 Towards new FP: modalities of implementation .................................................................................... 10
4.2 MANAGEMENT AND PROCESSES..............................................................................................................11 4.2.1 Main management issues ........................................................................................................................ 11 4.2.2 Evaluation and Monitoring Methodology, including indicators ............................................................ 12 4.2.3 Ethical Aspects........................................................................................................................................ 12
4.3 IMPACT OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH FPS AND SPS......................................................................................13 4.4 FOLLOW UP OF PREVIOUS MONITORING AND FIVE YEAR ASSESSMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................13
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 15
5.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS, MAJOR TRENDS, MAIN STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ENCOUNTERED .......................15 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................15
5.2.1 Recommendations on the Specific Programme....................................................................................... 15 5.2.2 Recommendation on the Monitoring Methodology................................................................................. 16
6. ANNEXES............................................................................................................................................................ 17
6.1 CORE INDICATORS AND BUDGET FIGURES .........................................................................................................17 6.2 ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................................................23 6.3 DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE EXPERTS BY THE PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT .................................................24 6.4 TENTATIVE TIME SCHEDULE TOWARDS JOINT IMPLEMENTATION OF ITER..........................................................26
1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At present the European Fusion Programme is considered to be the world’s leader in its field and it also represents a well implemented and probably unique European Research Area. The panel found that the Commission’s fusion staff has managed the European Fusion Programme very well and has implemented it along the guidelines and the directives issued by the Council within the given boundary conditions.
The programme is however at a critical stage, because decisions of essential importance for its future have been delayed for years. The programme also suffers because its management has been weakened by the recent reorganisation of DG Research. With the approach of decisions on the “Next Step” (ITER) in the near future, it will need stronger management. It is also foreseen that there will be insufficient funding under the next Framework Programme, FP6, to maintain the quality and strength of the Fusion Programme.
The principal recommendations of the panel are that:
�� ITER should proceed as soon as possible and all necessary decisions should be made promptly. While ITER should preferably be achieved by an international collaboration, Europe should be ready to proceed alone if necessary.
The present European mandate of negotiations to establish an ITER Legal Entity with its international ITER partners, should be enlarged in order to address ITER site, organisational and cost sharing issues.
Europe should take the lead, including promoting European candidate sites.
�� The Fast Track proposal (aiming to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion in 20-30 years) should be studied in detail and should be realised. This could save substantial public funds and a lot of valuable time.
�� As soon as a decision is made on ITER, the current management structure should be strengthened by creating a Fusion Directorate within the Commission. An appropriate European Legal Entity should also be established under the umbrella of the Commission to represent Europe in the ITER organisation.
The panel also recommends that:
The work of the Associations and the use of the JET facilities should be continued under FP6.
The materials development activities should also be further pursued intensely under FP6.
Socio-economic, environmental and safety studies should be further strengthened under FP6 and their results used to enhance public awareness and acceptance of fusion power and its future importance.
Efforts should be made to bring in new young scientists and technicians.
The co-operation with industry, including SMEs, should be further intensified.
2
2. PANEL METHODOLOGY The external monitoring has been undertaken in accordance with the legislative requirements given in Article 5 of the Council Decision of 22 December 1998 on the 5th EC Framework Programme and on the Euratom Framework Programme, and with Article 4 of the Council Decision of 25 January 1999 adopting the Specific Programme in the field of nuclear energy (Euratom). Annexes I and II of this Council Decision specify the objectives and Research and Technological Development (RTD) priorities of the Key Action on Controlled thermonuclear Fusion [1.1]1.
The Commission has asked a panel of three independent experts to monitor the implementation of the Fusion Programme in the year 2001 along the methodological Broad Guidelines of 8 November 2001 [2.2]. It was recommended that the monitoring exercise should focus on the following main issues:
• Follow-up of the recommendations made by the monitoring panel for the year 2000,
• Contribution to implementation of the European Research Area (ERA),
• Participation by accession countries,
• Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) participation,
• Women and science,
• Impact of earlier research Framework Programmes.
Panel members were Dr. Björn Brandt (chairman), Dr. Joaquin Calvo, and Prof. Dr. Günther Lehner. In preparing this report the experts were assisted by Dr. Fiona Porter of AEA Technology plc, UK.
Having used the information provided to the experts, i.e. the documents listed in annex 6.3, and having had intensive discussions with the members of the fusion staff of DG Research (Dr. Umberto Finzi, Principal Advisor to the Director General on matters concerning fusion, Prof. Dr. Hardo Bruhns, head of Unit J.6, acting Director of Directorate J until mid-March 2002, Dr. Jean-Pierre Rager, head of Unit J.5, Dr. Douglas Bartlett, and Dr. Rosa Antidormi) the experts have met four times in the period from 8 November 2001 to 27 February 2002, on which latter day the main parts of the monitoring report were finalised). In addition, interviews were held with some members of the programme committee (CCE-FU) from Germany, Spain and Sweden. Prof. Dr. Paul Vandenplas, vice chairman of the CCE-FU, has also been interviewed by the whole panel.
1 Note: document numbers, as listed in Annex 6.3 are indicated in [].
3
3. INTRODUCTION The long term objective of the European Fusion Programme is “the joint creation of prototype reactors for power stations to meet the needs of society: operational safety, environmental compatibility, economic viability” [1.1]. The Council Decision defines three main lines of research (Next Step activities, concept improvements and long-term technology) and several additional activities as integral parts of the Key Action Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion (socio-economic studies, assessments of safety and environmental aspects, information of the public, mobility and training of researchers, and a keep-in-touch activity on inertial confinement and possible alternative concepts).
Fusion power is one of only a few options which could in principle, if successfully developed, contribute to the solution of the future energy problem, which will become very serious within the next few decades. In its recent Green Paper (“Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply” [3.21 and 3.21a]), the Commission analyses in detail energy scenarios for the next decades. Dependence on imports of energy from external sources will increase to 70% (from its present 50%) if no measures are taken. Due to the seriousness of this problem and the time scales involved, research into reactors of the future, notably nuclear fusion, is considered to be a priority of European energy policy.
The Green Paper conclusions are shared and supported by the Scientific and Technical Committee Euratom (STC) [3.3] and the Energy Working Group (E-WOG) [3.6]. Moreover, the External Advisory Group for the Key Action “Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion” (EAG-FU) [3.5] recognises that fusion power plants have good prospects of meeting the need for economic and environmentally benign base-load electricity generation plants. It therefore recommends political decisiveness to maintain the time schedule for the development of fusion power. In summary, the EAG-FU believes that the EU should vigorously pursue its R&D activities in controlled fusion research. The EU should also do all that is possible and reasonable to site the next large fusion experiment in Europe.
It is important to keep the discussions on the energy problem on a pragmatic level. Last year’s Specific Framework Monitoring Panel, therefore stressed: “It should be appreciated that a decision to go forward with ITER is not a decision to use fusion. It is a decision to provide future generations with the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions on the use of fusion” [2.3].
This is the background against which the present panel has to judge the achievements of the management in the implementation of the European Fusion Programme, taking into account the guidelines and directives given by the Council in its decisions [1.1, 1.2 and 1.3]. The panel’s main findings are that political indecisiveness has delayed the progress of the programme for many years and that the strong management structure necessary for such a task does not at present exist.
4
4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
4.1 STRATEGY - OBJECTIVES
The long-term objective is “the joint creation of prototype reactors for power stations to meet the needs of society: operational safety, environmental compatibility, economic viability”. Within that context, the aim of the Key Action on Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion is “to further develop the necessary basis for the possible construction of an experimental reactor (the "Next Step"), with the objective of demonstrating the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion power production as well as its potential safety and environmental benefits”.
The Fusion Programme currently has three main themes: Next Step Activities (which are supposed to lead to the construction and operation of the “Next Step”, hopefully by the international ITER co-operation), Concept Improvements (to be applied in a later device, DEMO, following ITER and followed by a prototype commercial fusion reactor, PROTO), and Long-Term Technology (for use in DEMO and commercial reactors). The future Fusion Programme for 2002 and FP6 will be pursued along the same main lines and no significant changes to the programme are foreseen. The present major task of the Commission Services is the preparation of FP6. In particular, the Commission will represent the Community in the negotiations on an international ITER legal entity, which is necessary for the realisation of ITER and for the decision on an ITER site, hopefully at the end of 2002. The Commission will also prepare the restructuring of the European Fusion Programme which is necessary if and when a decision to proceed with ITER is taken. The CCE-FU has established a Special Working Group (SWG) to develop concepts and proposals for the structure needed in case of a positive ITER decision. The preliminary recommendations and views of the SWG include:
�� ITER must have first priority and should be constructed in Europe.
�� An appropriate programme in physics and technology including fusion materials is required, also to train young European scientists and engineers and to retain fusion competence in Europe.
�� The time schedule for ITER is a very critical issue.
The panel strongly supports these views.
4.1.1 The Fast Track
According to current plans, about 50 years will be necessary to realise the first commercial fusion reactor (PROTO), following intermediate generations Next Step and DEMO. This is a rather long time, especially if, as the Green Paper concludes, (Section 3), there will be difficulties for European energy supplies within 20 to 30 years from now. It would certainly be very useful and may even be necessary to reduce the 50 years by accelerating the programme.
The UK Department of Trade and Industry, being aware of these facts, saw convincing reasons for a significant role for fusion and in October 2001 proposed an examination of the feasibility of demonstrating fusion power within 20 to 30 years.
5
On the initiative of the Belgian Presidency, the EU Research Council took up the matter and established a Fast Track Working Group. This Group, chaired by Prof. David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government, met on 27 November 2001. The report produced by the Group (the “King Paper”) for the EU Research Council, gives a positive and very interesting first assessment of the British proposal. Some of its conclusions are:
�� “The ITER project is the essential step towards energy production on a fast track”
�� “…in a fast track approach, the DEMO and PROTO generations could be combined in a single step that should be designed as a credible prototype for a power producing fusion reactor”.
�� This combined device “would depend strongly on the development of adequate materials”.
�� The design of the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility IFMIF, necessary for fusion materials research, should be completed in FP6.
�� International collaboration should be expanded. A clear European position would probably generate a positive response from both existing and potential new ITER partners.
The Monitoring Panel welcomes the British initiative and the prompt reaction of the EU Research Council. It also supports the conclusions of the Fast Track Working Group. To combine DEMO and PROTO in a single step appears to be a very interesting idea. The whole Fast Track scenario should be seriously investigated in detail with all its consequences. Its realisation would have the essential advantages of allowing some of the time lost by delayed decisions to be recovered and of strongly reducing the required public funding for the whole project if one generation of fusion devices is saved (though more funding would be needed in the early stages). Finally the earlier availability of power from commercial fusion reactors could facilitate the solution of severe energy supply problems.
4.1.2 Progress in ERA and programmes implementation
As observed by several bodies and panels the European fusion programme already provides an excellent example of a very successful and well-implemented European Research Area (ERA). It has reached its present standing because of decades of dedicated work by the fusion staff of DG Research and of associated national institutes, which together form an integrated network of excellence in the field of fusion. This reputation has arisen from the success of the Joint European Torus (JET) and of many successful theoretical, experimental and technical results obtained in the Associations (cf. conclusions of the recent FiveYear Assessment -Airaghi Panel [2.4] , of EAG-FU [3.5] and E-WOG [3.6]). The panel supports the well-founded views expressed in these references. It must stress, however, that such a successful European Research Area could only be realised through the enthusiasm of all people involved at all levels and their dedication to a large and challenging highly motivating joint aim.
After JET the next aim of the ERA of Fusion is the “Next Step" (ITER). However, essential ITER decisions are overdue. Further delays risk demotivation of the personnel involved and a rapid disintegration of the cohesive forces of this ERA. Previous Fusion Monitoring Panels have been concerned about this problem and recommended that ITER decisions should be made as soon as possible. Unfortunately these recommendations have not been acted upon.
The fusion programme is based on a completely integrated European programme. The instruments for its creation have been developed and optimised over a long time. Projects are carried out in a framework of cost-sharing research and technological development, implemented in accordance with the procedures laid down in the contracts of the Euratom-Associations and in the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA). There is a hierarchy of strong financial instruments
6
based on different financial contributions, about 25% for the normal expenditure of the Associations, 45% for specifically specified priority projects, 75% for special activities as for instance the operation of the JET facilities, and 100% for procurements and services which can only be provided by industry.
4.1.3 Significant results in the European and international context
4.1.3.1 Progress towards ITER
The year 2001 has seen some important progress towards ITER, though it is still suffering from the lack of political decisions already mentioned. A detailed and mature design, which meets the cost requirements set in 1998, has been completed [3.4,3.4a, 3.4b, 14c]. A large-scale model of a toroidal field coil has been successfully tested. Canada has officially offered Clarington, Ontario, as an ITER site [3.8]. Given that an official French offer is expected in the near future, a detailed technical investigation of Cadarache as an ITER site has been carried out and came to the conclusion that it fulfils all the technical requirements [3.9]. There may also be other proposals from Europe: the Spanish Ministry of research has asked CIEMAT (the Spanish fusion Association) to examine the technical aspects of several sites, and if the outcome is favourable they have indicated a willingness to propose one of these as a possible European site.
Formal negotiations on the joint implementation of ITER have been started among EURATOM, Canada, Japan and Russia. They are based on a limited mandate, which needs to be generalised to include cost and siting issues. In addition, a European legal entity under the Commission’s umbrella, representing Europe in its relation to the international legal ITER entity is also urgently needed. The time schedule for the necessary decisions and negotiations along the path to ITER, (annex 6.4) is extremely tight. To avoid further unacceptable delays, ITER must become an essential part of FP6.
There is currently a growing interest in the United States to consider participation in ITER again. The present ITER parties would certainly welcome them coming back and this would give extra momentum to the negotiations.
4.1.3.2 Use of the JET facilities
JET is the largest and most important European fusion device and an indispensable part of the European fusion programme as long as ITER is not operating. Due to the long delay of ITER decisions it will take a long time until ITER can start operation. Consequently JET should be used for as long as possible to minimise the time gap between the end of its operation and the beginning of ITER operation. JET can produce many further results relevant to ITER. It is also important to train scientists and engineers for ITER, as they could lose competence if not able to do experiments with large fusion devices.
The use of' the JET facilities under the auspices of EFDA has continued very successfully in 2001 by experimental campaigns, prepared and performed by scientists from the Associations. At present the machine is shut down for upgrading. Larger planned upgrading, (the JET Enhanced Performance (JET-EP)), is however being reviewed in the light of the possible budgetary limitations in FP6.
4.1.3.3 Work in the Associations
7
In 2001 the Associations have continued to produce a wealth of results for all parts of the European Fusion Programme. This included “Next Step" activities in support of ITER, preparing and performing experimental JET campaigns, investigating concept improvements, developing long term technology and performing socio-economic, environmental and safety studies. Particular highlights were the accomplishment, by the Associations Euratom-Suisse, FZK and CEA of a 1 MW 140 GHz gyrotron with energy recovery capable of steady state operation; the successful testing of a poloidal field model coil for ITER yielding the highest current (80 kA) in a superconductor ever achieved; the identification of high confinement operation in a Stellarator island divertor (Association Euratom-IPP). Important new results have been obtained at JET, pointing the way towards possible operation of ITER in so-called “advanced regimes” of increased performance. A more extensive review of the achievements of the Associations is given in document 2.1 (“Self-Assessment for Key Action Fusion”).
There has been an enhancement of the activities that promote public awareness and acceptance of fusion power as a possible future energy option. Through the Associations’ contacts and co-operation with universities they play an important role in bringing young scientists into the field of fusion and training them for the challenging future developments.
An important task for the Associations in the near future is to prepare themselves for the programme changes needed when ITER will be built. This is a difficult task, which will also involve a reallocation of funds.
4.1.3.4 Fusion Technology
There are two types of activity in the field of fusion technology: technology in support of the “Next Step” (ITER), and Long Term Technology in preparation for a prototype demonstration reactor, (DEMO), to follow the “Next Step”. Areas being investigated include breeding blankets, materials development and the design of a fusion materials test facility. The aim of materials research is to develop and to qualify low activation structural materials. Radiation testing of these materials is an essential part of the Long Term Technology activities. It will require an appropriate 14 MeV neutron source which is being considered by an international consortium under the IEA, the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility, IFMIF. At present the issues related to the IFMIF are investigated in the “Key Element Phase”, KEP. These activities are proceeding as expected. They should be continued under FP6.
A particular highlight in fusion technology has been the successful test of ITER Toroidal Field Model Coils at the TOSKA facility at the Association Euratom-FZK (Karlsruhe). This is a first-of-a-kind in the field of superconducting magnet technology and the test confirmed the expected behaviour of the superconductor and joint resistance and gave preliminary but important confirmation that the design of ITER poloidal field model coil is viable.
The above mentioned “Fast Track” approach would also require an acceleration of fusion technology activities, which would have to be carried out in parallel to ITER construction and operation at full power. An increase of funding would be necessary, although only for a limited period: the total investment needed to produce a prototype power station would be reduced. In any case, the indecisiveness characterising recent years is a less economic way to execute the programme.
4.1.3.5 Socio-Economic, Safety and Environment Studies
Progress has been made on Socio-Economic, Safety and Environment Studies in 2001. The “Socio-Economic Research on Fusion”, SERF 1, launched in 1997, has been continued by SERF 2
8
in 1999-2000 and by SERF 3 in 2001 [3.12]. One of the conclusions was that fusion power can become cost-effective if the external costs (in particular the need to stabilise the CO2 content of the atmosphere) are properly taken into account.
Safety studies, originally started in 1995 via “Safety and Environment Aspects of Fusion Power”, SEAFP, have been continued by further studies, SEAFP 2, SEAFP 99 and “Safety and Environmental Aspects Long Term”, SEAL. In 2001 another Study, “Safety and, Environmental Impact of Fusion”, SEIF, has been concluded [3.13]. It integrates all previous work. It shows for instance that fusion reactors can be inherently safe and in particular power excursions are self-limited. A “Power Plant Conceptual Study”, PPCS, has been launched in 2000, to assist the assessment of the status of fusion energy and establish coherence and priorities for the EU fusion programme. Stage I developed draft objectives for fusion power plant designs. The work of Stage II was encapsulated in a further draft of the General Design Requirements Document, and Stage III will comprise the conceptual design of several models of commercial fusion power plants, including their safety, environmental impact and economics. These studies should also be continued under FP6.
4.1.3.6 Public Awareness and Understanding of Fusion Power
The efforts to improve public awareness and understanding of fusion have been expanded appreciably in 2001. A travelling exhibition “Fusion Expo” has been shown in Switzerland (Yverdon and CERN), Germany (Berlin), Spain (Madrid), the Netherlands (Amsterdam) and Argentina (Buenos Aires). An exhibition prepared by the EFDA Close Support Unit, CSU, and by the Associations, has been shown at the UN Conference on Climate Change at the Hague. EFDA also provides a website and regularly appearing newsletters. The international Solar Energy Society, ISES, has published an EFDA paper on the merits of fusion. The Associations generate a great deal of information for use within their own countries (brochures, CD-ROMs, websites etc.). The Commission also distributes information and has developed an “Energy Research” website. The Commission has contributed to a number of summer schools and workshops, devoted to fusion research.
The European Fusion Programme needs a high degree of public acceptance, support and an understanding of the possible role of fusion for the solution of the serious future energy problem. This is an extremely difficult, but unavoidable task, which should be continued vigorously under FP6.
4.1.3.7 Fusion and Industry
The involvement of industry in the fusion programme is, as a result of Europe wide calls for tender, quite intensive. The involvement of industry would be further intensified by ITER construction, inasmuch as 80 % of its budget would go to manufacturers. Utilities are the prospective users of fusion technology and they will show interest in ITER construction and operation to be able to assume a relevant role in the project of the future demonstration power plant. In preparation of a possible positive ITER decision, the CCE-FU has requested the Committee on Fusion-Industry, CFI, to prepare a paper on the preferred EU contributions to ITER construction.
There are immediate benefits from the involvement of industry in the current fusion programme, for instance by spin-offs, when companies (including SMEs) develop or improve products under contract to Associations and then find additional markets for these products. Another possible advantage for these companies is a transfer of expertise in high-tech fields. In May 2001 the CFI organised a workshop on spin-offs and transfer of technology from fusion R&D to industry at IPP-
9
Garching, Germany. A wide variety of spin-offs were presented, and the ways in which technology transfer and generation of spin-offs could be enhanced were discussed, with particular reference to SMEs higher involvement in EU programmes [3.11]. The UKAEA has well developed activities on promotion and development of fusion spin-offs. There are many examples of spin-offs, such as numerical modelling of complex systems (e.g. financial systems), superconducting magnet technology (e.g. medical scanners), high power lasers with industrial applications, bonding techniques for advanced materials etc.
4.1.3.8 International Co-operation
In addition to participation of the candidate countries and the multilateral international ITER co-operation, international co-operation has been extended through signing new agreements with the United States in May 2001 and with Russia in October 2001. The preparation of collaborations based on these agreements is in progress. Similar agreements with the Ukraine and with Kazakhstan are in the final stages of conclusion. There is also a bilateral agreement with Japan.
Implementing Agreements in the IEA framework are quite numerous. Topics of cooperation include environmental and safety issues, fusion materials, nuclear technology of fusion reactors, plasma wall interaction (in connection with Textor, KFA Jülich), reversed field pinches, Stellarators, large Tokamaks, and toroidal physics (in connection with Asdex Upgrade, IPP Garching). The countries involved are Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States of America.
4.1.3.9 Inertial Confinement Keep-in-Touch Activity
In principle there are two possible methods of confining fusion plasmas, magnetic confinement and inertial confinement. Magnetic confinement has established itself as the preferred route to fusion power stations. The national research programs (US, F, UK) on inertial fusion are mainly motivated by defence (military) research. The Commission has established a keep-in-touch activity to observe the progress of inertial confinement research via the Inertial Fusion Energy Coordinating Committee-Technical Group (IFECC-TG), which held its last meeting on 19 November 2001. So far there is no reason to reconsider the fusion programme. The Council Decision also mentions “possible alternative concepts”. One such a concept is µ-mesonic fusion, which at present is of purely academic interest.
4.1.3.10 Training and Mobility
The Mobility Agreement is very effective in supporting the exchange of scientists in fusion research. It is essential for the execution of JET campaigns by the Associations, for the co-operation on activities related to ITER, for collaboration among Associations and “clusters” of Associations, allowing for instance smaller Associations to perform collaborative experiments on large devices. Estimates for 2001 are of about 500 individual exchanges and a total of about 650 professional person-months. Of this the exchange of scientists from the Candidate Countries amounts to about 50 professional visits and 90 person-months.
10
4.1.4 Participation of candidates countries
Participation of the candidate countries has progressed. So far there are Associations in Romania (Association Euratom-NASTI), in the Czech Republic, (Association Euratom-IPP.CR), and in Hungary (Association Euratom-HAS). A contract of Association between Euratom and the University of Latvia has recently been concluded. Bulgaria, Slovakia and Slovenia presently participate through cost-sharing actions based on contracts of limited duration. There is no co-operation in the field of fusion with Poland, the largest among all candidate countries, because like Estonia and Lithuania it has chosen not to associate with the Euratom Framework Programme.
The candidate countries have developed good starting levels of activity. Their introduction in the overall programme should however further grow. This situation could be developed further if the scientific workshops involving all or several associations are held in candidate countries with the additional purpose of establishing improved mutual relations between researchers from these countries and the other associations.
4.1.5 Participation of SMEs
Much of the work in the construction of fusion devices requires expertise in large-scale, complex technologies, which in most cases requires the resources of large companies. However, SMEs also participate, through the supply of specialist high-tech services and the development of smaller-scale auxiliary systems. There are immediate and tangible (although difficult to quantify) benefits that result from the involvement of industry in the fusion programme. These consist of direct spin-offs (as mentioned in section 4.1.3.7 above), where companies (often SMEs) develop or improve products under contract to fusion laboratories and then find other markets for them, plus a more general development and transfer of expertise in a variety of high-tech areas. Examples of this process abound, ranging from development of high power solid-state electronic systems to industrial-scale application of innovative techniques for material bonding and fabrication of superconducting strands.
4.1.6 Women and science
In common with other areas of the physical sciences and engineering, the representation of female professionals in the fusion programme is well below 50%. A survey of the staff lists of several of the Associations (including large, medium and small, NAS states and long-standing members) shows an average of about 10% women among professional staff, with substantial variations between the various Associations. An alternative indication of the role of women can be obtained from the statistics on the participation of women in the experimental campaigns on JET. For example, of the 216 experimental proposals for the 2002 campaigns, 26% had female scientists as principal proposers and 26% of the 354 scientific co-ordinators who will execute these experiments are women.
The Commission has a policy of equal opportunity, with recruitment based solely on merit. On a recent reserve list for possible recruitment in fusion, 32% of candidates were women.
4.1.7 Towards new FP: modalities of implementation
The continuation of the European Fusion Programme beyond FP 5 depends on the decisions on FP 6. It has been mentioned several times already, how important timely decisions are for the future of the programme. The Commission has prepared a proposal for FP6, including the European Fusion Programme. Decisions have not yet been taken, however.
11
There is a Commission proposal for the “Council Decision concerning the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) for research and training activities, also contributing to the creation of the European Research Area (2002-2006)”. The level of funding foreseen for fusion during FP6 in this draft (750 million Euro) will compromise the capability of fusion associations to vigorously support ITER R&D. This could slow down the progress of the programme and therefore would risk being uneconomic in the long term. The Commission should try to increase the funds by all reasonable means before the final decision on the draft.
The Framework programmes aim to make Europe the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. The integration of European research would greatly benefit from one large joint project in Europe that could be a flagship of world energy research. This would attract the participation of other countries and demonstrate the dedication and strength of a united Europe. At present there is nothing under the European Union umbrella of this grandeur.
The continuing exploitation of JET and support for the construction of ITER would be consistent with the emphasis by the Commission in FP6 on joint projects.
4.2 MANAGEMENT AND PROCESSES
4.2.1 Main management issues
The management procedures that are the subject of the present monitoring exercise are quite different from the ones of other Community Programmes. There is only one large project, the aim of which, as is defined in the Council Decision [1.1], is the joint creation of operationally safe, environmentally compatible and economically viable fusion reactors. During the fifth Framework Programme the subtasks were the so called “Next Step” activities, concept improvements, long term technology, socio-economic aspects of fusion energy, safety and environmental studies, information of the public to increase its awareness and understanding of fusion power, mobility and training of scientists and technicians in the field of fusion. Based on many discussions with the members of the Commission’s Services and on many documents, listed in annex 6.3, the panel comes to the conclusion that the fusion staff has, within the limits of its possibilities, managed the European Fusion Programme excellently and much better than was to be expected under the difficult conditions given.
It must, however be said, that the programme has been in a critical stage for some time. There are two essential managerial issues, which have been under discussion for a long time and which the present panel has to stress once more.
�� There is no longer a Fusion Directorate with appropriate power and responsibility for the whole programme. This has weakened the managerial ability to organise the fusion programme. Recommendations to strengthen the administrative structure have not been acted upon and not even been seriously answered. Indeed, a stronger management structure than before is necessary in view of “Next Step”.
The successful planning and implementation of the programme was due much more to the good will of these officials than to an appropriate hierarchical organisation.
�� The necessary political decisions have been substantially delayed. The Green Paper concluded that the energy problem will lead to difficulties for Europe within 20 to 30 years. In this context, the recommendations of a “Fast Track” approach to fusion are particularly timely, focussing on demonstrating the technical feasibility of fusion power on a 20-30 year timescale. It is therefore very important that the whole fusion programme including “Next Step” becomes an essential and sufficiently financed part of FP6 as proposed by the Commission. The need to save money now is not a good argument against this, as insufficient funds will appreciably increase the final
12
total cost of the programme. The necessary decisions have to be taken by the competent political bodies.
ITER construction will need a strong unified management at a European level. This should be achieved by creating a European Legal Entity under the umbrella of the Commission. In order to support this legal entity, the Commission should have a Fusion Directorate within the Commissions DG Research. The legal entity would also represent Europe in its relation to international bodies, such as the international ITER Legal Entity. Negotiations on this international ITER Legal Entity have been initiated. The panel hopes and recommends this will proceed as fast as possible. Progress is also important for the ERA in the field of fusion. Further indecisiveness could destroy its coherence. It would also make it more and more difficult to recruit new young scientists and technicians for the field of fusion, because they could not see a stable and rewarding professional future.
Since the reorganisation of DG Research, the management of the European Fusion Programme has been carried out by the Principal Advisor to the Director General on Fusion Matters (Dr. U. Finzi) and by the staff in several units of Directorate J, mainly Unit J.5 (headed by Dr. Jean-Pierre Rager), Unit J.6 (headed by Prof. Dr. Hardo Bruhns), and Unit J.7 (headed by Hans Spoor).
The committee structure for the programme is complex and ought to be improved. The present system leads to unnecessary duplication of work both for Commission staff and for Member States and Association representatives in Committees. Moreover, there is some overlapping in the roles played by various committees. A simplification of the committee structure is being considered in the preparations for the next phase of the programme.
4.2.2 Evaluation and Monitoring Methodology, including indicators
The monitoring methodology has been revised by the Commission. The panel feels that the monitoring has been improved by some of the new features and the monitoring efficiency will probably be increased by the fact that the FPMP now consists of representatives (chairpersons) of the Specific Programme Monitoring Panels (SPMPs). Past FPMPs seem to have had little interest in and insufficient understanding of the SPMPs findings and concerns. For instance the 2000 Annual Monitoring Report of the FPMP contains the Executive Summary of the 2000 SPMP report on Fusion, but the panel’s serious concerns have not been mentioned anywhere else in the report, though they have been reported to the FPMP in detail and though it had been asked to take them into account. Another improvement is the self-assessment submitted to the panel by the Commission Services [2.1]. The panel acknowledges the fact that this self-assessment was excellent and very helpful, providing a lot of clear and detailed information. The panel feels that these new features should be maintained for future monitoring exercises.
The Core Indicators relevant to the Fusion Programme provided to the panel by the Fusion Programme Management are contained in annex 6.1. Part of the data has however been produced too late to have any impact on the work of the panel.
4.2.3 Ethical Aspects
The Commission increasingly emphasises the ethical aspects of research which it supports. It demands, for instance, that fundamental ethical principles are respected in all FP6 research activities, including the fusion programme. With respect to the development of fusion power stations, environmental compatibility, operational safety and public acceptance are the main ethical issues. Efforts and studies in these fields have been carried out hitherto and will be continued under FP6 (as mentioned in sections 4.1.3.5 and 4.1.3.6 above).
13
4.3 IMPACT OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH FPS AND SPS
The present world-wide high reputation of the European Fusion Programme is the consequence of a long period of development through all the past FPs including FP5. The European Added Value of the Euratom support for fusion research has been consistently recognised by the External Monitoring panels: the programme maximises efficiency by co-ordinating and integrating the efforts of all the players in Europe, as well as permitting large-scale projects such as JET which would not have been accomplished by any member state acting alone. This achievement is underlined by Europe’s acknowledged leadership in this field of research. The valuable leading position and the reputation of the Community in the field of fusion must not be lost and should be vigorously defended.
4.4 FOLLOW UP OF PREVIOUS MONITORING AND FIVE YEAR ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2000 SPMP put forward 11 recommendations. The 2001 panel acknowledges the significant progress achieved with respect to almost all these recommendations, except one, recommendation 3. However, fusion being a long term project, the recommendations remain valid for the future. The tasks have not been finished and could not be finished in 2001. Here we briefly summarise our observations on last year's recommendations:
1. The panel welcomes the progress achieved on ITER in 2001, which is however not at all sufficient. The time schedule is now even narrower than it was a year ago. The essential, overdue, political decisions have as yet not been taken.
2. The investigation of Cadarache as an ITER site is an important step forward in the search for a European site. An official French offer has not yet been obtained, however.
3. It is extremely disappointing to realise that strong unified management is still lacking and that the recommendation on this matter made by previous panels has been completely neglected.
4. The panel is satisfied by the continued use of JET and by the well advanced planning of JET operation for 2002 and beyond.
5. The panel is also satisfied by many really remarkable experimental, theoretical and technical results achieved by the Associations. It welcomes the creation of a Special Working Group, SWG, of the CCE-FU, to examine the future role of the Associations in support of ITER, as this is an extremely important exercise.
6. The materials development activities are proceeding as expected. They will remain very important for a long time and so they are a part of the Commission’s proposal for FP6.
7. The Key Element Phase, KEP, for the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility, IFMIF, has not yet been completed. It is in progress, however, and has to be continued under FP6.
8. Activities to enhance public awareness and acceptance of fusion power have been intensified considerably. They are very important and need further intensification.
9. The socio-economic, environmental and safety aspects of fusion power have been studied in detail with interesting and encouraging results. These efforts will be continued and are taken into account in the Commission’s proposal for FP6.
10. There are efforts to bring young scientists into the field of fusion. The situation seems to remain unchanged, however. Probably only essential decisions on the future of fusion, i.e. on the “Next Step”, can change the situation by creating attractive scientific and technical professional careers for young scientists and engineers.
14
11. The co-operation with industry, including small enterprises, has been improved and will further be improved. Spin-offs gain increasing importance.
The panel has also been asked to follow up the 10 recommendations of the 2000 FiveYear Assessment panel (i.e. the Airaghi-Panel, mentioned above [2.4]). They have, as expected, identified the same strengths and weaknesses as observed above. We have therefore restricted ourselves to some comments on recommendations 1 and 7:
1. The European Fusion Programme has helped to place European science, technology and industry at the leading edge of development in this sector and this advantage should be defended and possibly increased.
The present panel entirely agrees with this recommendation. Europe’s leading position can only be defended by determinedly proceeding with ITER in due time. Not to proceed with ITER would risk the fragmentation of the European fusion programme, so that it would no longer be a model ERA.
7. Following a positive decision on the construction of the Next Step, a refocusing of the European Programme will be required. For this purpose a critical assessment of the different European machines and their funding should be undertaken.
This recommendation is similar to recommendation 5 of the 2000 SPMP: “The Associations continue to prepare themselves for the strongest possible support needed for a successful construction and operation of ITER....”. It is, however, stronger in that it recommends a critical assessment of funding, following a positive decision on the Next Step. After the positive decision this will certainly be necessary. The Associations must, however, remain strong enough to support ITER all the time during its construction and operation. The measures then to be taken should also be prepared by the Special Working Group (SWG) of the CCE-FU, which is examining the future role of the Associations in support of ITER.
15
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS, MAJOR TRENDS, MAIN STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ENCOUNTERED
Briefly summarising its findings the panel concludes: �� The European Fusion Programme is the world leader in its field and is an outstanding example
of a completely integrated European Research Area.
�� Adopting the Fast Track approach would give a strong impetus to fusion research.
�� The Commission’s fusion staff has managed the whole European Fusion Programme excellently within the given boundary conditions.
�� The programme is, however, suffering from the fact that essential decisions on its future (mainly concerning the “Next Step” and issues related to it) have not been taken in due time.
�� The programme is also suffering because DG Research has been reorganised so that the initially strong management structure is now too weak for a project of this size and importance.
�� The funding foreseen for fusion under FP6 is not sufficient to maintain the present quality and strength of the Fusion Programme.
�� These three weaknesses could endanger the present high standing and the future development of the Fusion Programme.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.2.1 Recommendations on the Specific Programme
The panel recommends that:
1. ITER should proceed as soon as possible and all necessary decisions should be made promptly, on the time-scales indicated in annex 6.4. While ITER should preferably be achieved by an international collaboration, Europe should be ready to proceed alone if necessary, in view of the importance of the future energy problem. It has the abilities and resources to build a Next Step device on its own if necessary.
2. The present European mandate of negotiations with its international ITER partners in order to establish an ITER Legal Entity should be enlarged in order to address ITER site, organisational and cost sharing issues, as necessary steps for ITER construction.
3. Europe should take the lead, promoting European sites, supporting the on-going international negotiations, funding its percentage of the financial requirements for ITER construction and operation. This clear lead from Europe could be expected to generate a positive response from both existing and potential partners.
4. The panel supports the Fast Track proposal, in the report of the King Group, which was also positively received by the Council of Ministers. It recommends that it should be studied in detail and should be realised. This could save substantial public funds and a lot of valuable time.
5. The reorganisation of DG Research has weakened the management structure of the Fusion Programme. A strong unified management and organisational structure will be necessary as soon as a decision is made on ITER. At that time, the current structure should be strengthened by creating a Fusion Directorate within the Commission. The panel also recommends an appropriate
16
European Legal Entity be established under the umbrella of the Commission to represent Europe in ITER. EFDA could, for instance, be transformed into such a legal entity.
6. The use of the JET facilities should be continued as far as possible under FP 6 in order to obtain further results relevant for ITER and reduce the time gap between the end of JET operation and the start of ITER operation. This is important to retain the present coherence of the programme and of the ERA of fusion.
7. The role of the Associations is essential for all aspects of the programme. Associations should continue working in plasma physics and alternative designs in order to support the European scientific leadership.
8. The materials development activities should also be further pursued intensely under FP6, since they are necessary for the long-term success of fusion reactors. The design of the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF) should be completed under FP6, since it is urgently needed for testing fusion materials for DEMO.
9. For fusion to be adopted successfully, society needs to be assured of its safety, feasibility and economic viability. It is therefore important that socio-economic, environmental and safety studies be further strengthened under FP6. The results of these activities should be used to enhance public awareness and acceptance of fusion power and its future importance.
10.In view of the age profile of the professionals currently active in the programme, efforts should be made to bring in new young scientists and technicians, and to develop their expertise. This also requires timely decisions on the future programme towards the “Next Step”, to create enthusiasm and to open attractive professional careers.
11.The co-operation with industry, which has developed considerably in recent years, should be further intensified. The involvement of SMEs and the exploitation of spin-offs should be supported.
5.2.2 Recommendation on the Monitoring Methodology
The panel recommends the changes made in the monitoring methodology for the year 2001 be maintained in future years, i.e. that the FPMP consist of representatives of the SPMP and the self-assessments be submitted to the panels. The introduction of interviews with member state representatives in the programme has contributed to an improvement in the quality of the monitoring.
17
6. ANNEXES
6.1 CORE INDICATORS AND BUDGET FIGURES
“Core” Indicators relevant to the Fusion Programme
Important features distinguish the Fusion Programme from the other specific programmes. With regards to its implementation, the Fusion Programme does not proceed by means of “calls for proposals”; therefore many of the standardised “core” indicators do not apply.
1. SELECTION PROCEDURES: not applicable 2. MANAGEMENT OF PROGRAMME
2.i. Analysis of time taken from closing date of calls for proposals up to first contracts: not applicable
2.ii. Comparison between total funds requested and awarded : not applicable 2.iii. Running and completed contracts
Framework programmes Number of shared cost
actions
Number of training
fellowships
Number of accompanying
measures
Financial contribution (Mio€)*
FP5 Nr ongoing contracts at 5/10/2001 321 2 0 243,449,160 Nr contracts completed during 2001 166 0 0 96,859,984
FP4 Nr ongoing contracts at 5/10/2001 0 0 0 Nr contracts completed during 2001 3 2 0 1,475,100
FP3 Nr ongoing contracts at 5/10/2001 0 0 0 Nr contracts completed during 2001 0 0 0
*Including EFDA and MOB payments, financial contribution for Jet Operation Contract (JOC) MOB : Agreement for personnel mobility in the field of Thermonuclear Energy EFDA : European Fusion Development Agreement
19
3. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECTS
3.i. to 3.iii. not applicable 3.iv. Participation from "Objective 1 " regions to 5 October 2001
Objective 1 regions
Total number of participations 3
Total EC-contribution ( € ) 67,650
4. QUANTITATIVE OUTPUT DATA
4.i. Cumulative quantitative data on results from FP5:
N° of scientific and technological publications c. 2000 N° of Marie Curie Individual Fellowships a) being awarded b) currently operating
0 2
N° of individual Mobility Actions (missions / secondments) 441 contracts = 662 PPM
5. DISSEMINATION / UTILISATION OF RESULTS
5.i. Qualitative information on dissemination/utilization plans of projects in 2000 at project level: The most important conferences at which results from the Euratom fusion programme have been presented are: �� 18th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Sorrento, Italy �� 27th European Physical Society Conference on Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Budapest,
Hungary �� 13th Topical Conference on High-Temperature Plasma Diagnostics, Tucson, USA �� 21st Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT), Madrid, Spain �� 42nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Annual Meeting, Quebec, Canada �� 8th European Fusion Physics Workshop, Leysin, Switzerland
Proceedings of these conferences are or will be published.
5.ii. Dissemination activities at programme level under FP5:
�� Most of the Association laboratories organise “Open-Days” for the general public on a regular basis. �� During 2000, the itinerant fusion exhibition has been shown in Turin (Italy), Greifswald (Germany),
Lisbon (Portugal), and Seoul (South Korea), with a smaller version at the SOFT Conference (Madrid) and the IAEA Conference (Sorrento). A multi-lingual CD-ROM which accompanies the exhibition has been widely distributed (including being given away as a “cover-mounted” disc on several popular scientific/technical magazines).
�� During the Climate Change Conference at The Hague in November 2000, a stand with information about fusion was provided by EFDA, and manned by staff from EFDA and the Associations.
�� A four page brochure about fusion, aimed at the general public, was produced by DG RTD. EFDA also produces various newsletters and brochures about fusion, as do the Association laboratories.
20
II. Data specific to the Fusion Programme 1. EUROPEAN EXPENDITURE ON FUSION RESEARCH IN 2000
The breakdown of expenditure for 2000 is under different headings compared to 1999 and previous years because of the changes in organisation of the fusion programme, notably the end of the JET Joint Undertaking and the starting of EFDA activities. The estimates for 2000 are:
European Expenditure on Fusion Research in 2000 Expenditure
Mio EUR Community share.
Mio EUR Community share.
% (1) Associations (2) EFDA (3) & JET J.U. JOC Other Expenditure
360.1
24.5
51.6
32.0
98.9
10.2
38.7
32.0
27
42
75
100
Total
468.2
179.8
38
Notes: (1) (2)
(3)
The Community share includes the participation of Switzerland and the Newly Associated States in the financing of the Community Fusion Programme. Against the heading “Associations” is included expenditure of about 0.191 Mio EUR (Commission share of 0.052 Mio EUR), which took place under cost-sharing contracts in Member States that had no Association in 2000. Expenditure in the frame of the EFDA Agreement, amounting to about 67.661 Mio EUR in 2000, is included partly under the heading “Associations” and partly under “Other Expenditure”.
2. EUROPEAN EXPENDITURE ON FUSION RESEARCH IN 2001
Expenditure MioECU
Community Share MioECU
Community Share %
Associations 384,3 104,3 27 EFDA, inc hosting of JET and ITER
22,1 11,7 53
Joint Operating Contract for JET
57,0 42,8 75
Other Expenditure 42,3 42,3 100 Total 505,7 201,1 40
21
3. FU
SION
PRO
GRAM
ME –
ASSO
CIAT
IONS
’ EXP
ENDI
TURE
IN 20
00
in
Euro
E
xpen
ditu
re 2
000
Ass
ocia
tion
EU
R/
Gen
eral
Sup
port
actio
ns 2
5%
Tech
nolo
gy ta
sks
25%
La
rge
devi
ces
45%
EF
DA
- ho
stin
g, o
rder
s &
secm
nt's,
JET
J.U.
Tot
al E
stim
ated
E
xpen
ditu
re
Phys
ics p
riorit
y ac
tions
at +
20%
Te
chno
logy
prio
rity
actio
ns a
t +20
%
IPP
(D)
74,8
88,9
79
0 24
,329
,218
6,
700,
216
105,
918,
413
0 0
EN
EA
(I)
53,7
67,5
58
11,9
14,3
19
79,0
06
2,13
1,39
2 67
,892
,275
68
3,03
1 1,
076,
894
CE
A (F
) 44
,871
,162
11
,186
,911
2,
763,
188
1,81
0,55
4 60
,631
,815
0
552,
299
FZK
(D)
9,92
7,97
9 15
,055
,636
2,
443,
307
1,39
3,79
1 28
,820
,713
0
1,01
8,30
5 FZ
J (D
) 19
,278
,476
34
8,34
8 0
540,
162
20,1
66,9
86
2,60
2,26
0 60
9,09
8 U
KA
EA
(UK
) 19
,989
,417
1,
370,
335
0 53
,812
,764
75
,172
,515
0
0 Sw
iss C
onfe
d 12
,614
,966
1,
714,
667
333,
821
1,64
9,30
5 16
,312
,759
0
150,
558
FOM
(NL
) 8,
808,
752
2,66
7,28
9 0
637,
024
12,1
13,0
65
277,
070
1,79
4,67
2 C
IEM
AT
(E)
7,31
9,72
8 88
4,80
3 1,
855,
740
126,
060
10,1
86,3
31
0 18
4,70
0 V
R
6,29
2,25
4 1,
226,
518
0 80
1,22
1 8,
319,
993
0 0
Bel
gium
Sta
te
4,67
9,00
6 2,
221,
433
0 23
4,98
8 7,
135,
427
0 78
9,37
5 Ö
AW
(A)
2,66
4,32
8 1,
974,
397
0 15
1,71
5 4,
790,
441
0 67
8,39
6 IS
T (P
) 3,
904,
054
486,
315
0 33
5,63
3 4,
726,
002
0 0
TE
KE
S (F
IN)
1,14
9,79
5 1,
642,
235
0 31
2,84
2 3,
104,
872
0 38
8,76
7 R
ISØ
(DK
) 1,
598,
219
540,
642
0 0
2,13
8,86
2 0
148,
275
DC
U (I
RL
) 1,
181,
484
0 0
0 1,
181,
484
0 0
Hel
leni
c R
epub
lic
600,
110
271,
803
0 0
871,
913
0 90
,728
IPP.
CR
(CZ)
45
9,75
6 15
,029
0
0 47
4,78
5 0
0 N
AST
I (R
) 88
,639
14
0,38
4 0
0 22
9,02
3 0
10,8
82
HA
S (H
) 21
5,75
6 77
,178
0
0 29
2,93
4 0
28,4
61
Lux
embo
urg
0 29
,162
0
0 29
,162
0
25,6
62
27
4,30
0,41
7 53
,767
,404
31
,804
,281
70
,637
,668
43
0,50
9,77
0 3,
562,
361
7,54
7,07
4
Not
es :
(1) T
he a
bove
tabl
e is
con
stru
cted
on
the
basi
s of p
aym
ents
reco
rded
in th
e As
soci
atio
ns' e
stim
ates
for 1
999,
con
vert
ed in
to E
uro
at th
e av
erag
e
exch
ange
rate
of t
he y
ear.
(2
) The
Com
mun
ity sh
are
in th
e to
tal e
xpen
ditu
re is
abo
ut 1
01.2
13 M
ioEu
ro
(3
) In
addi
tion,
exp
endi
ture
of a
bout
0.0
59 M
io E
uro
(Com
mun
ity p
artic
ipat
ion
abou
t 0.0
15 M
ioEu
ro) t
ook
plac
e un
der c
ost s
hari
ng c
ontr
acts
in
M
embe
r Sta
tes t
hat h
ad n
o co
ntra
ct o
f Ass
ocia
tion.
22
FUSI
ON P
ROGR
AMME
– AS
SOCI
ATIO
NS’ E
XPEN
DITU
RE IN
2001
– BA
SED
ON E
STIM
ATES
all a
mou
nts
in E
uro
Est
imat
es 2
000
Ass
ocia
tion
EU
R/
Gen
eral
Sup
port
actio
ns 2
5%
Tech
nolo
gy ta
sks
25%
La
rge
devi
ces
45%
EF
DA
, ITE
R
and
JET
Tot
al e
stim
ated
ex
pend
iture
Ph
ysic
s prio
rity
actio
ns a
t +20
%
Tech
nolo
gy p
riorit
y ac
tions
at +
20%
IP
P 87
,511
,000
53
,000
23
,993
,000
3,
965,
000
115,
522,
000
0 0
CE
A
45,3
93,9
82
11,7
53,6
67
1,74
3,71
2 6,
799,
074
65,6
90,4
34
0 1,
311,
062
EN
EA
55
,679
,000
12
,395
,000
11
5,00
0 3,
120,
000
71,3
09,0
00
321,
000
775,
000
FZJ
18,4
03,0
00
500,
000
0 52
2,00
0 19
,425
,000
37
,185
0
FZK
10
,141
,875
16
,860
,000
3,
492,
000
1,02
5,00
0 31
,518
,875
0
510,
000
Swis
s Con
fed
13,8
63,4
36
2,02
1,13
1 0
1,02
6,77
4 16
,911
,341
0
370,
486
UK
AE
A
21,4
12,0
20
1,48
3,29
7 0
59,8
48,6
83
82,7
43,9
99
0 11
6,08
4 FO
M
7,72
0,00
0 3,
370,
000
0 29
2,00
0 11
,382
,000
71
9,00
0 2,
150,
000
CIE
MA
T
9,75
2,84
2 1,
395,
105
1,79
1,08
8 24
5,31
3 13
,184
,348
15
,000
0
NFR
5,
959,
205
1,86
0,22
4 0
535,
355
8,35
4,78
4 0
767,
883
Bel
gium
Sta
te
5,17
5,99
1 2,
265,
000
0 55
2,90
1 7,
993,
892
0 20
0,00
0 Ö
AW
2,
538,
187
1,74
0,70
9 0
175,
832
4,45
4,72
8 0
IS
T
4,23
9,88
6 42
5,29
1 0
437,
657
5,10
2,83
3 0
0 R
ISØ
1,
622,
098
457,
259
0 0
2,07
9,35
6 0
61,6
06
TE
KE
S 1,
450,
191
1,22
9,72
1 0
568,
387
3,24
8,29
9 0
280,
514
Gre
ece
767,
603
314,
951
0 0
1,08
2,55
5 0
328,
903
IPP.
CR
66
9,80
7 31
5,29
9 0
0 98
5,10
6 0
0 N
AST
I 10
6,18
3 24
4,72
2 0
0 35
0,90
5 0
23,6
06
HA
S 34
1,20
9 18
0,45
0 0
18,3
26
539,
985
0 90
,900
D
CU
1,
285,
225
0 0
0 1,
285,
225
0 0
Uni
v. o
f Lat
via
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 L
uxem
bour
g 0
30,0
00
0 0
30,0
00
29
4,03
2,74
0 58
,894
,824
31
,134
,799
79
,132
,301
46
3,19
4,66
5 1,
092,
185
6,98
6,04
4
Not
es :
(1) T
he a
bove
tabl
e is
con
stru
cted
on
the
basi
s of p
aym
ents
reco
rded
in th
e As
soci
atio
ns' a
ccou
nts f
or 2
001,
con
vert
ed in
to E
uro'
s at t
he a
vera
ge
exch
ange
rate
of t
he y
ear.
(2) T
he C
omm
unity
shar
e in
the
tota
l exp
endi
ture
is a
bout
158
.7 M
ioEu
ro
23
6.2 ABBREVIATIONS ASDEX Axis-Symmetric Divertor EXperiment CCE-FU Consultative Committee Euratom-Fusion CEA Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (France) CFI Committee on Fusion-Industry CIEMAT Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (Spain) DEMO DEMOnstration reactor EFDA European Fusion Development Agreement ERA European Research Area EURATOM EURopean ATOMic energy community FP Framework Programme FPMP Framework Programme Monitoring Panel FZK Forschung Zentrum Karlsruhe (Germany) IEA International Energy Agency IFE Inertial Fusion Energy IFMIF International Fusion Material Irradiation Facility IPP Institut für Plasmaphysik (Germany) ITER International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor JET Joint European Torus JET-EP JET Enhanced Performance KEP Key Element Phase PROTO PROTOtype reactor RTD Research and Technological Development SEAFP Safety & Environmental Aspects of Fusion Power SEAL Safety & Environmental Assessment of fusion power Long term: follows
on from SEAFP and has a broader scope SERF Socio-Economic Research on Fusion SPMP Specific Programme Monitoring Panel SWG Special Working Group TAC Technical Advisory Committee
24
6.3 DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE EXPERTS BY THE PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT
FUSION PROGRAMME MONITORING FOR 2001
1. Legal documents
1.1. Council Decision of 22 December 1998 concerning the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities (1998 to 2002).
1.2. Council Decision of 22 December 1998 concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in the implementation of the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) (1998 to 2002).
1.3. Council Decision of 25 January 1999 adopting a research and training programme (Euratom) in the field of nuclear energy (1998 to 2002).
1.4. Commission proposal for next Framework Programme. 1.5. Commission proposal for specific programme Euratom in the next Framework
Programme. 1.6. Opinion of the Committee on Industry, Trade, Research and Energy (ITRE) of the
European Parliament on the Commission’s proposal for the next Framework Programme (EURATOM).
1.7. DRAFT Council Decision concerning FP6 Euratom (12 December 2001) 2. Background documents
2.1. Self-assessment of the Key Action Fusion by the Commission Services 2.2. Broad Guidelines for the 2001 External Monitoring of the Framework
Programmes and Specific Programmes, November 2001. 2.3. 2000 External Monitoring Report on the Specific Programme for Research and
Technological Development. 2.4. Five-Year Assessment Report related to the Specific Programme: Nuclear Energy
covering the period 1995 – 1999, June 2000. 2.4a Comments by the Programme Management on the 5-year Assessment. 2.5. 2000 Annual Monitoring Report on the RTD activities conducted under the EC
and Euratom Framework Programmes. 2.6. Self-assessment of the Framework Programme by the Commission Services. 2.7. Note on “pre-draft issues” paper from the Specific Programmes (28 November
2001)
3. Specific documents – core data
3.1. Minutes of CCE-FU meetings of February, April and July 2001 (CCE-FU 9/SM – 11/SM) and Summary of decisions and recommendations of CCE-FU meeting of October 2001 (CCE-FU 12/SDR).
3.2. Fusion R&D in the European Fusion Associations (Overview chapter from document in preparation).
25
3.3. View of the Scientific and Technical Committee Euratom (STC) on the Commission’s Green Paper, “Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply”.
3.4. ITER-FEAT – Final Design Report (Executive Summary), plus EU Domestic Assessment and Opinion of the CCE-FU.
3.4a EU Domestic Assessment of the ITER-FEAT Final Design Report. 3.4b Opinion of the CCE-FU on the ITER-FEAT Final Design Report. 3.4c ITER Council Document: “Final Report of the ITER EDA” (August 2001). 3.5. Opinion of the External Advisory Group for the Key Action Fusion 1998-2000. 3.6. Working Paper of the Energy Working Group (E-WOG) on “Sustainable and
affordable energy for the future - priorities for EU energy R&D”, EUR 19790 (January 2001).
3.7. Summary Record of the 7th Meeting of the IFE Co-ordinating Committee – Technical Group, IFECC-TG, (November 2001)
3.8. ITER Canada – Official offer to host ITER (June 2001) 3.9. ITER Site study for Cadarache (Exec Summary) 3.10. EFDA European Fusion Development Agreement – Workplan 1999-2002
(Revision April 2001). 3.11. Report on the CFI Workshop on Spin-off and Transfer of Technology (May 2001) 3.11a Selected Annexes (slides of presentations) from the Spin-off Workshop. 3.12. Socio-Economic Research on Fusion, Summary of EU research 1997-2000 (July
2001) 3.13. Safety and Environmental Impact of Fusion (April 2001) 3.14. Copy of transparencies presented at the meeting of the Panel on 28 November
2001 3.15. Copies of various public information brochures and publications produced during
2001 3.16. List of bilateral and multilateral agreements concerning fusion 3.17. cancelled 3.18. Core indicators (with budgetary information) 3.19. “Gender in Research”, Gender Impact Assessment of the specific programmes of
the Fifth Framework Programme (Energy sub-programme), EUR 20018. 3.20. Workprogramme for the new Contract of Association between Euratom and the
University of Latvia. 3.21. Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply (Commission
Green Paper, November 2000). 3.21a Energy Supply Green Paper - Annexes. 3.22. Commission paper on materials R&D in Europe. 3.23. Background paper on fusion materials by H Bolt (IPP) #1. 3.24. Background paper on fusion materials by H Bolt (IPP) #2. 3.25. Conclusions of the Fast Track Experts Meeting (27 November 2001) 3.26. “How to maintain nuclear competence in Europe” by the CCE-Fission (EUR
19787)
26
6.4 TENTATIVE TIME SCHEDULE TOWARDS JOINT IMPLEMENTATION OF ITER
OutlineDesignReport
* Engineering DesignActivities
† Construction, Operation, Exploitationand Decommissioning Activities
Co-ordinated TechnicalActivities
FinalDesignReport
SiteOffers
Ratification
Signing ofCOEDA Agreement
EDA*Establishment of ITER Legal Entity
COEDA †
Negotiations
FP5 FP61999 20032000 2001 2002 20052004
ITER Legal Frame
FinalReport
27
PART B:
Responses of the Programme Management to the external Monitoring Report
28
Res
pons
es o
f the
Pro
gram
me
Man
agem
ent t
o th
e re
com
men
datio
ns o
f the
200
1 Fu
sion
Mon
itori
ng P
anel
Th
ese
resp
onse
s hav
e be
en p
repa
red
by o
ffic
ials
in th
e fu
sion
pro
gram
me
and
repr
esen
t the
ir pe
rson
al v
iew
s on
the
reco
mm
enda
tions
of t
he a
nnua
l m
onito
ring
repo
rt. T
hese
vie
ws h
ave
not b
een
adop
ted
or in
any
way
app
rove
d by
the
Com
mis
sion
and
shou
ld n
ot b
e re
lied
upon
as a
stat
emen
t of t
he
view
s of t
he C
omm
issi
on o
r DG
Res
earc
h.
Rec
omm
enda
tion
Com
mis
sion
Ser
vice
s’ R
espo
nse
Tim
e po
int /
indi
cato
r fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
1 IT
ER
shou
ld p
roce
ed a
s soo
n as
pos
sibl
e an
d al
l nec
essa
ry d
ecis
ions
shou
ld b
e m
ade
prom
ptly
, on
the
time-
scal
es in
dica
ted
in a
nnex
6.4
of t
he
mon
itorin
g re
port.
Whi
le IT
ER sh
ould
pre
fera
bly
be a
chie
ved
by a
n in
tern
atio
nal c
olla
bora
tion,
Eu
rope
shou
ld b
e re
ady
to p
roce
ed a
lone
if
nece
ssar
y, in
vie
w o
f the
impo
rtanc
e of
the
futu
re
ener
gy p
robl
em. I
t has
the
abili
ties a
nd re
sour
ces
to b
uild
a N
ext S
tep
devi
ce o
n its
ow
n if
nece
ssar
y.
The
Com
mis
sion
’s p
ropo
sal f
or th
e Sp
ecifi
c Pr
ogra
mm
e (E
urat
om) f
or F
P6 fo
rese
es th
at a
dec
isio
n on
the
join
t im
plem
enta
tion
of IT
ER c
ould
be
soug
ht in
the
perio
d 20
03-2
004,
so
that
con
stru
ctio
n co
uld
effe
ctiv
ely
star
t dur
ing
the
perio
d 20
05-
2006
.
A d
ecis
ion
to p
roce
ed
with
ITER
is
antic
ipat
ed a
nd th
e co
nstru
ctio
n co
uld
star
t du
ring
the
perio
d 20
05-
2006
.
2 Th
e pr
esen
t Eur
opea
n m
anda
te o
f neg
otia
tions
w
ith it
s int
erna
tiona
l ITE
R p
artn
ers i
n or
der t
o es
tabl
ish
an IT
ER L
egal
Ent
ity sh
ould
be
enla
rged
in o
rder
to a
ddre
ss IT
ER si
te,
orga
nisa
tiona
l and
cos
t sha
ring
issu
es, a
s ne
cess
ary
step
s for
ITER
con
stru
ctio
n.
The
Com
mis
sion
form
ally
requ
este
d an
ext
ensi
on o
f its
ne
gotia
ting
man
date
at t
he m
eetin
g of
the
Cou
ncil
of M
inis
ters
on
11 M
arch
200
2. T
his e
xten
sion
was
gra
nted
by
the
Cou
ncil
on 2
7 M
ay 2
002,
and
ena
bles
the
Com
mis
sion
to n
egot
iate
with
the
othe
r IT
ER p
artn
ers o
n si
ting
and
cost
issu
es.
The
exte
nded
man
date
w
as g
rant
ed in
May
20
02.
29
R
ecom
men
datio
n C
omm
issi
on S
ervi
ces’
Res
pons
e T
ime
poin
t / in
dica
tor
for
impl
emen
tatio
n
3 E
urop
e sh
ould
take
the
lead
, pro
mot
ing
Euro
pean
site
s, su
ppor
ting
the
on-g
oing
in
tern
atio
nal n
egot
iatio
ns, f
undi
ng it
s per
cent
age
of th
e fin
anci
al re
quire
men
ts fo
r ITE
R
cons
truct
ion
and
oper
atio
n. T
his c
lear
lead
from
Eu
rope
cou
ld b
e ex
pect
ed to
gen
erat
e a
posi
tive
resp
onse
from
bot
h ex
istin
g an
d po
tent
ial
partn
ers.
The
Euro
pean
neg
otia
tors
hav
e pl
ayed
a le
adin
g ro
le in
the
nego
tiatio
ns w
hich
hav
e si
gnifi
cant
ly p
rogr
esse
d to
war
ds a
n ag
reem
ent o
n th
e co
nditi
ons f
or th
e jo
int i
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
ITER
. In
Janu
ary
2002
, the
Fre
nch
Min
iste
r for
Res
earc
h as
ked
the
EU
that
the
Fren
ch p
ropo
sal t
o re
alis
e IT
ER in
Cad
arac
he b
e ta
ken
into
acc
ount
, and
requ
este
d th
at th
e co
nditi
ons u
nder
whi
ch a
Eu
rope
an si
te c
ould
be
prop
osed
for I
TER
con
stru
ctio
n be
def
ined
. Te
chni
cal w
ork
on C
adar
ache
as a
pos
sibl
e si
te h
as p
rogr
esse
d co
nsid
erab
ly a
nd h
as le
d to
the
laun
ch o
f the
lice
nsin
g pr
oced
ure
with
the
Fren
ch a
utho
ritie
s. Th
e ca
se fo
r a E
urop
ean
site
for I
TER
ha
s bee
n fu
rther
stre
ngth
ened
by
the
notif
icat
ion
of a
dec
isio
n by
th
e Sp
anis
h G
over
nmen
t to
offe
r a c
andi
datu
re fo
r the
Eur
opea
n si
ting
of IT
ER a
t Van
delló
s, ne
ar B
arce
lona
. Th
e le
vel a
nd n
atur
e of
EU
par
ticip
atio
n in
ITER
fund
ing
will
de
pend
on
the
outc
ome
of th
e ne
gotia
tions
with
the
inte
rnat
iona
l pa
rtner
s, an
d on
the
loca
tion
of th
e IT
ER si
te. I
f ITE
R w
as lo
cate
d in
Eur
ope,
the
EU p
artic
ipat
ion
wou
ld a
lso
incl
ude
cont
ribut
ion
to
the
cost
s to
be b
orne
by
Euro
pe a
s a H
ost P
arty
. Th
e ro
le o
f the
Eur
opea
n de
lega
tion
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess h
as
been
stre
ngth
ened
by
the
exte
nsio
n of
the
nego
tiatio
n m
anda
te.
The
Com
mis
sion
is su
ppor
ting
the
tech
nica
l stu
dies
for p
ossi
ble
Span
ish
and
Fren
ch si
tes.
The
ITER
neg
otia
tions
ar
e ta
king
pla
ce
regu
larly
and
as
plan
ned.
Th
e C
omm
issi
on
actio
ns h
ave
had
a st
rong
impa
ct in
ad
vanc
ing
prog
ress
in
thes
e ne
gotia
tions
.
4 Th
e pa
nel s
uppo
rts th
e Fa
st T
rack
pro
posa
l, in
th
e re
port
of th
e K
ing
Gro
up, w
hich
was
als
o po
sitiv
ely
rece
ived
by
the
Cou
ncil
of M
inis
ters
. It
reco
mm
ends
that
it sh
ould
be
stud
ied
in d
etai
l an
d sh
ould
be
real
ised
. Thi
s cou
ld sa
ve
subs
tant
ial p
ublic
fund
s and
a lo
t of v
alua
ble
time.
The
supp
ort f
or a
fast
trac
k to
fusi
on p
ower
pro
duct
ion
is
wel
com
ed b
y th
e C
omm
issi
on S
ervi
ces.
In p
artic
ular
, the
C
omm
issi
on is
bei
ng w
orki
ng to
impl
emen
t the
firs
t of t
he
impo
rtant
reco
mm
enda
tion
of th
e K
ing
Gro
up e
mph
asis
ing
the
prom
pt re
alis
atio
n of
ITER
. The
pos
sibi
lity
of im
plem
entin
g so
me
or a
ll of
the
othe
r rec
omm
enda
tions
in th
e re
cent
(D
ecem
ber
2001
) rep
ort o
f the
Fus
ion
Fast
Tra
ck E
xper
ts G
roup
will
dep
end
on d
ecis
ions
to b
e m
ade
abou
t ITE
R, a
nd o
n av
aila
bilit
y of
fund
s.
The
activ
ities
pre
sent
ly b
eing
car
ried
out o
n IT
ER a
nd th
e pl
anne
d ac
tiviti
es o
n m
ater
ials
, inc
ludi
ng IF
MIF
, are
con
sist
ent w
ith th
e
Not
app
licab
le a
t sho
rt te
rm.
30
R
ecom
men
datio
n C
omm
issi
on S
ervi
ces’
Res
pons
e T
ime
poin
t / in
dica
tor
for
impl
emen
tatio
n
fast
trac
k ap
proa
ch.
5 Th
e re
orga
nisa
tion
of D
G R
esea
rch
has
wea
kene
d th
e m
anag
emen
t stru
ctur
e of
the
Fusi
on P
rogr
amm
e. A
stro
ng u
nifie
d m
anag
emen
t and
org
anis
atio
nal s
truc
ture
will
be
nec
essa
ry a
s soo
n as
a d
ecis
ion
is m
ade
on
ITER
. At t
hat t
ime,
the
curr
ent s
truct
ure
shou
ld
be st
reng
then
ed b
y cr
eatin
g a
Fusi
on D
irect
orat
e w
ithin
the
Com
mis
sion
. The
pan
el a
lso
reco
mm
ends
an
appr
opria
te E
urop
ean
Lega
l En
tity
be e
stab
lishe
d un
der t
he u
mbr
ella
of t
he
Com
mis
sion
to re
pres
ent E
urop
e in
ITER
. EFD
A
coul
d, fo
r ins
tanc
e, b
e tra
nsfo
rmed
into
such
a
lega
l ent
ity.
The
nego
tiatio
ns c
urre
ntly
taki
ng p
lace
bet
wee
n th
e IT
ER p
artn
ers
conc
ern
the
jurid
ical
and
inst
itutio
nal c
ondi
tions
of t
he
esta
blis
hmen
t of a
n IT
ER L
egal
Ent
ity a
nd n
egot
iatio
ns fo
r its
jo
int i
mpl
emen
tatio
n. T
he C
omm
issi
on w
ill d
eter
min
e th
e m
ost
appr
opria
te fo
rm fo
r a E
urop
ean
Lega
l Ent
ity w
hich
will
hav
e re
spon
sibi
lity
for t
he E
urop
ean
cont
ribut
ion.
Suc
h an
ent
ity w
ill
need
a st
rong
uni
fied
man
agem
ent a
nd o
rgan
isat
iona
l stru
ctur
e.
The
man
agem
ent s
truct
ure
with
in th
e C
omm
issi
on w
ill b
e co
nsid
ered
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
he o
vera
ll m
anag
emen
t of E
RA
ac
tiviti
es a
nd th
e sp
ecifi
c IT
ER n
eeds
. The
pro
spec
t of
impl
emen
ting
a fa
st tr
ack
appr
oach
will
be
take
n in
to a
ccou
nt,
subj
ect t
o th
e bu
dget
in fu
ture
Fra
mew
ork
Prog
ram
mes
.
The
Com
mis
sion
will
en
sure
a u
nifie
d an
d st
rong
man
agem
ent o
f th
e fu
sion
pro
gram
me
at a
ll tim
es.
6 Th
e us
e of
the
JET
faci
litie
s sho
uld
be
cont
inue
d as
far a
s pos
sibl
e un
der F
P6 in
ord
er to
ob
tain
furth
er re
sults
rele
vant
for I
TER
and
re
duce
the
time
gap
betw
een
the
end
of JE
T op
erat
ion
and
the
star
t of I
TER
ope
ratio
n. T
his i
s im
porta
nt to
reta
in th
e pr
esen
t coh
eren
ce o
f the
pr
ogra
mm
e an
d of
the
ERA
of f
usio
n.
The
Com
mis
sion
reco
gnis
es th
e pi
onee
ring
role
of J
ET a
s an
exam
ple
of a
maj
or jo
int p
roje
ct, a
nd th
e m
odel
it p
rovi
des o
f how
a
devi
ce li
ke IT
ER c
ould
be
oper
ated
. The
Com
mis
sion
pro
posa
l fo
r FP6
incl
udes
the
cont
inui
ng e
xplo
itatio
n of
the
JET
faci
litie
s in
the
fram
ewor
k of
the
Euro
pean
Fus
ion
Dev
elop
men
t Agr
eem
ent
(EFD
A),
in v
iew
of c
ompl
etin
g th
e ex
ploi
tatio
n of
the
enha
ncem
ents
cur
rent
ly u
nder
way
. The
use
of t
he JE
T fa
cilit
ies
will
hav
e to
be
susp
ende
d at
an
appr
opria
te ti
me
to e
nabl
e th
e co
rres
pond
ing
reso
urce
s to
be re
dire
cted
to th
e N
ext S
tep
/ ITE
R.
The
pres
ent p
lann
ing
for F
P6 fo
rese
es e
xplo
itatio
n of
the
JET
faci
litie
s as l
ong
as is
com
patib
le w
ith th
e re
sour
ces r
equi
red
for
ITER
.
Dec
isio
n on
pos
sibl
e fu
rther
ope
ratio
n to
be
take
n in
200
4.
31
R
ecom
men
datio
n C
omm
issi
on S
ervi
ces’
Res
pons
e T
ime
poin
t / in
dica
tor
for
impl
emen
tatio
n
7 Th
e ro
le o
f the
Ass
ocia
tions
is e
ssen
tial f
or a
ll as
pect
s of t
he p
rogr
amm
e. A
ssoc
iatio
ns sh
ould
co
ntin
ue w
orki
ng in
pla
sma
phys
ics a
nd
alte
rnat
ive
desi
gns i
n or
der t
o su
ppor
t the
Eu
rope
an sc
ient
ific
lead
ersh
ip.
The
esse
ntia
l rol
e of
the
Ass
ocia
tions
is re
cogn
ised
in th
e pr
opos
als f
or F
P6, w
hich
cal
l upo
n th
em to
con
tinue
thei
r wor
k in
fu
sion
phy
sics
and
pla
sma
engi
neer
ing,
fusi
on te
chno
logy
, and
in
vest
igat
ion
of so
cio-
econ
omic
asp
ects
of f
usio
n.
The
Com
mis
sion
’s p
ropo
sal f
or F
P6 st
ates
that
the
Ass
ocia
tions
w
ill e
xecu
te th
e ac
com
pany
ing
prog
ram
me
esse
ntia
l to
ITER
.
Not
app
licab
le
8 Th
e m
ater
ials
dev
elop
men
t act
iviti
es sh
ould
al
so b
e fu
rther
pur
sued
inte
nsel
y un
der F
P6,
sinc
e th
ey a
re n
eces
sary
for t
he lo
ng-te
rm
succ
ess o
f fus
ion
reac
tors
. The
des
ign
of th
e In
tern
atio
nal F
usio
n M
ater
ials
Irra
diat
ion
Faci
lity
(IFM
IF) s
houl
d be
com
plet
ed u
nder
FP6
, sin
ce it
is
urg
ently
nee
ded
for t
estin
g fu
sion
mat
eria
ls fo
r D
EMO
.
A p
hase
of E
ngin
eerin
g V
alid
atio
n an
d En
gine
erin
g D
esig
n A
ctiv
ities
(EV
EDA
) for
IFM
IF d
urin
g FP
6 is
und
er d
iscu
ssio
n w
ith o
ther
Par
ties p
artic
ipat
ing
to th
e IE
A Im
plem
entin
g A
gree
men
t on
Fusi
on M
ater
ials
. The
EU
con
tribu
tion
wou
ld b
e im
plem
ente
d in
Ass
ocia
tions
and
indu
stry
und
er E
urop
ean
Fusi
on
Dev
elop
men
t Agr
eem
ent (
EFD
A).
This
nex
t pha
se w
ould
focu
s on
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f a re
fere
nce
desi
gn a
nd o
n fa
bric
atio
n m
etho
ds;
fabr
icat
ion
and
test
of p
roto
type
s; c
ost e
stim
ates
with
the
invo
lvem
ent o
f ind
ustry
; and
the
prep
arat
ion
of th
e lic
ensi
ng
proc
ess f
or th
e co
nstru
ctio
n.
Afte
r a tr
ansi
tion
perio
d fo
llow
ing
the
Key
Ele
men
t Pha
se fo
r IF
MIF
, the
EV
EDA
pha
se is
pla
nned
to st
art i
n 20
04.
The
eval
uatio
n of
the
optio
ns fo
r mat
eria
ls
test
ing
will
be
com
plet
ed b
y th
e en
d of
20
02. I
n 20
04, t
he n
ext
desi
gn p
hase
of I
FMIF
w
ill b
egin
.
9 Fo
r fus
ion
to b
e ad
opte
d su
cces
sful
ly, s
ocie
ty
need
s to
be a
ssur
ed o
f its
safe
ty, f
easi
bilit
y an
d ec
onom
ic v
iabi
lity.
It is
ther
efor
e im
porta
nt th
at
soci
o-ec
onom
ic, e
nvir
onm
enta
l and
safe
ty
stud
ies b
e fu
rther
stre
ngth
ened
und
er F
P6. T
he
resu
lts o
f the
se a
ctiv
ities
shou
ld b
e us
ed to
en
hanc
e pu
blic
aw
aren
ess a
nd a
ccep
tanc
e of
fu
sion
pow
er a
nd it
s fut
ure
impo
rtanc
e.
An
impo
rtant
ele
men
t com
plem
entin
g th
e A
ssoc
iatio
ns’ s
cien
tific
an
d te
chni
cal w
ork
in F
P6 w
ill b
e in
vest
igat
ions
of s
ocio
-ec
onom
ic a
spec
ts, f
ocus
ing
on e
valu
atio
n of
eco
nom
ic c
osts
and
so
cial
acc
epta
bilit
y of
fusi
on e
nerg
y, in
add
ition
to fu
rther
stud
ies
on sa
fety
and
env
ironm
enta
l asp
ects
. Th
e C
omm
issi
on S
ervi
ces f
ully
supp
ort t
he v
iew
that
pub
lic
awar
enes
s and
acc
epta
nce
of fu
sion
pow
er is
an
impo
rtant
are
a of
ac
tivity
. Fur
ther
stre
ngth
enin
g of
act
ions
in th
is a
rea,
par
ticul
arly
w
ithin
the
fram
ewor
k of
EFD
A a
nd th
e A
ssoc
iatio
ns, i
s for
esee
n.
The
Com
mis
sion
Ser
vice
s will
und
erta
ke th
ese
activ
ities
dur
ing
FP6.
Furth
er st
udie
s on
soci
o-ec
onom
ics b
ased
on
the
resu
lts o
f the
ex
istin
g Po
wer
Pla
nt
Con
cept
ual S
tudi
es w
ill
star
t in
2003
.
32
R
ecom
men
datio
n C
omm
issi
on S
ervi
ces’
Res
pons
e T
ime
poin
t / in
dica
tor
for
impl
emen
tatio
n
10
In v
iew
of t
he a
ge p
rofil
e of
the
prof
essi
onal
s cu
rren
tly a
ctiv
e in
the
prog
ram
me,
eff
orts
shou
ld
be m
ade
to b
ring
in n
ew y
oung
scie
ntis
ts a
nd
tech
nici
ans,
and
to d
evel
op th
eir e
xper
tise.
Thi
s al
so re
quire
s tim
ely
deci
sion
s on
the
futu
re
prog
ram
me
tow
ards
the
“Nex
t Ste
p”, t
o cr
eate
en
thus
iasm
and
to o
pen
attra
ctiv
e pr
ofes
sion
al
care
ers.
The
Com
mis
sion
enc
oura
ges t
he A
ssoc
iatio
ns to
mak
e pr
opos
als
for M
arie
Cur
ie g
rant
s whi
ch p
rovi
de a
n ef
ficie
nt m
eans
to a
ttrac
t, yo
ung
rese
arch
ers i
nto
the
fusi
on c
omm
unity
.
One
of t
he st
rong
poi
nts o
f the
fusi
on M
obili
ty S
chem
e is
that
it
prov
ides
a m
echa
nism
by
whi
ch re
sear
cher
s fro
m th
e al
l A
ssoc
iatio
ns (p
artic
ular
ly a
lso
thos
e in
the
new
ly a
ssoc
iate
d st
ates
) ca
n w
ork
on th
e la
rge
expe
rimen
ts a
nd fa
cilit
ies o
f the
fusi
on
prog
ram
me.
Thi
s is e
spec
ially
val
uabl
e in
pro
mot
ing
the
expe
rtise
of
you
nger
rese
arch
ers.
The
real
isat
ion
of a
pro
ject
like
ITER
wou
ld a
ttrac
t bril
liant
, you
ng
phys
icis
ts a
nd e
ngin
eers
. Th
is is
link
ed to
a d
ecis
ion
on IT
ER c
onst
ruct
ion.
This
is a
n on
goin
g ac
tivity
.
11
The
co-
oper
atio
n w
ith in
dust
ry, w
hich
has
de
velo
ped
cons
ider
ably
in re
cent
yea
rs, s
houl
d be
furth
er in
tens
ified
. The
invo
lvem
ent o
f SM
Es
and
the
expl
oita
tion
of sp
in-o
ffs s
houl
d be
su
ppor
ted.
The
Com
mis
sion
, in
conj
unct
ion
with
the
actio
ns o
f the
C
omm
ittee
on
Fusi
on In
dust
ry (C
FI),
has p
rogr
esse
d in
pro
vidi
ng
info
rmat
ion
to in
dust
rial p
artn
ers f
or th
e la
rge
scal
e in
volv
emen
t w
hich
will
be
need
ed in
the
cons
truct
ion
of IT
ER. T
he c
o-op
erat
ion
with
indu
stry
has
bee
n es
sent
ial:
cost
est
imat
es fo
r sy
stem
s tha
t mig
ht b
e co
nstru
cted
for I
TER
are
bas
ed o
n ev
alua
tion
stud
ies m
ade
by in
dust
ry. P
artic
ipat
ion
of S
MEs
in
ITER
con
stru
ctio
n w
ill b
e pr
omot
ed th
roug
h ne
twor
king
/clu
ster
ing
with
the
Ass
ocia
tions
. Fur
ther
inte
nsifi
catio
n of
indu
stria
l in
volv
emen
t in
fusi
on w
ill fo
llow
any
dec
isio
n to
pro
ceed
with
IT
ER c
onst
ruct
ion.
This
is a
n on
goin
g ac
tivity
.
