en - european memorandaeuropeanmemoranda.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/files/2014/05/11008-13.pdf · signed...

11008/13 AF/nj 1

DG G III EN

COUNCIL OF

THE EUROPEAN UNION

Brussels, 14 June 2013

11008/13

RECH 273

ATO 58

COMPET 464

COVER NOTE

from: Secretary-General of the European Commission,

signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director

date of receipt: 12 June 2013

to: Mr Uwe CORSEPIUS, Secretary-General of the Council of the European

Union

No Cion doc.: SWD(2013) 213 final

Subject: Commission Staff Working Document : Towards a Modern Euratom Research

Programme

Delegations will find attached Commission document SWD(2013) 213 final.

________________________

Encl.: SWD(2013) 213 final

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 11.6.2013

SWD(2013) 213 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Towards a Modern Euratom Fusion Research Programme

1

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 2

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION ............................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 PRESENT CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 NATURE OF THE ISSUE AND PROBLEM REQUIRING ACTION ...................................................................................... 5

2.3 LEGAL BASIS FOR COMMUNITY ACTION ............................................................................................................... 6

3. OPINIONS AND CONSULTATIONS OF EXPERTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES .............................................. 7

3.1 INPUT FROM EXPERTS ..................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 CONSULTATION OF STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................................................. 10

4. TOWARDS A MODERN EURATOM FUSION RESEARCH PROGRAMME .................................................... 12

4.1 OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................................................................. 12

4.2 FUTURE APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................... 12

4.3 FUNDING SCHEME UNDER HORIZON 2020........................................................................................................ 13

4.4 TRANSITION TO THE NEW STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................. 13

4.5 FUTURE OF JET ........................................................................................................................................... 14

4.6 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................................................ 14

5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 14

5.1 CONTINUOUS MONITORING ........................................................................................................................... 14

5.2 EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................................... 15

ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................................ 17

LIST OF CURRENT CONTRACTS OF ASSOCIATION ........................................................................................................... 19

OVERVIEW OF EURATOM FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FUNDING ..................................................................................... 20

OVERVIEW OF THE EFDA ROADMAP (TABLE OF CONTENTS AND LIST OF MISSIONS ONLY) .................................................... 21

REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON THE FUTURE STRUCTURE OF THE FUSION PROGRAMME (MAY 2012) – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ONLY ................................................................................................................................................................... 22

REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON THE FUTURE STRUCTURE OF THE FUSION PROGRAMME (MAY 2012) AND ANALYSIS OF

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 23

POSSIBLE LEGAL STRUCTURES RELEVANT FOR COORDINATION OF JOINT PROGRAMMES ........................................................ 34

2

Executive Summary

The present report addresses the question of how the European fusion research programme,

other than ITER construction, should evolve to face future challenges. Comprehensive

stakeholder input has been considered, including through an on-line survey launched at the

end of June 2012 as well as meetings, workshops and other events.

Key considerations are as follows:

The future European research efforts in the field of fusion must be reorganised and restructured to ensure the success of ITER while enabling Europe to benefit from this success.

A common research roadmap between the national fusion associations is therefore needed to enable national and European resources to focus on ITER and its eventual exploitation. This roadmap should be developed, agreed upon and implemented by the national fusion labs by means of a joint programme coordinated by a dedicated legal entity; it should remain a living document requiring regular review and updating.

The European fusion research programme under Horizon 2020 should support the implementation of this joint programme, implemented by the national labs.

3

1. Introduction

Fusion has the potential of becoming a virtually inexhaustible and competitive greenhouse gas-free energy source. The EU has for many years been at the forefront of fusion research, and the EU flagship experimental device JET (Joint European Torus), in operation since 1983, achieved a world record fusion power in 1997 when it demonstrated operation with a plasma containing a mixture of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, the fuel of future fusion power plants. Thanks to JET and other machines worldwide, the basic physics understanding has progressed sufficiently to advance to the next stage, the construction of ITER – a machine capable of producing fusion plasmas at the scale of future power plants and validating the current understanding of fusion science at reactor scale, thereby proving that fusion has the potential of becoming a truly industrial source of energy. The success of JET and preparation of ITER design/construction would not have been possible without a highly developed and integrated EU R&D fusion programme.

All EU Member States are involved in fusion research. Bilateral Association Agreements (so-called 'Contracts of Association') between national labs and the Commission have been the mainstay of the Community programme for many years, providing funding from the Euratom programme to support the development of core activities and at the same time leveraging important national funding. In addition, the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA), a multilateral agreement signed by all ‘Associates’, promotes collaborative activities through a range of instruments, including the running of common research infrastructures (like JET and the High Performance Computer). This combination of bilateral and multilateral instruments has enabled the fusion programme to become the most integrated programme of research in any field of science and technology in Europe and has successfully maintained Europe’s position as the leading global player in the development of fusion.

ITER will be the future cornerstone of the EU and global fusion programme, and therefore the design and construction of this cutting-edge research facility is clearly the main priority of the current European effort. However, the benefits of the investment in ITER cannot be reaped unless EU fusion researchers are fully involved in its construction and exploitation. It is therefore imperative to prepare the 'ITER generation' of scientists and engineers, the young researchers working today in the Associates who should be in senior positions by the time ITER is ready to be exploited to its full potential. Furthermore, the design of certain ITER components is not yet finalised and in some cases needs further R&D (e.g. diagnostics and test blanket modules for tritium breeding), and in order for ITER operation to be effective, the operational scenarios must be well prepared and studied beforehand. All this will require effective involvement of a range of national labs, where the expertise in all these domains is concentrated, and a concerted policy regarding education, training and mobility / access to infrastructure; it is therefore more important than ever to have a strong integrated fusion research programme in Europe requiring reinforced cooperation between Member States.

But ITER will not be the end of the story. With ITER construction underway there is a need already to plan for the following stage, i.e. a device ('DEMO') that can demonstrate actual electricity production, and this requires the fusion programme to face new challenges. Indeed, in order to have an impact on energy production in the 2nd half of the 21st Century, an ambitious strategy must be adopted requiring a refocusing of the research effort already during Horizon 2020, involving a gradual transition from today's fairly broad programme aimed at exploring the fundamentals of fusion science to one driven by a strongly goal-oriented roadmap agreed by the EU fusion stakeholders.

These dual objectives of ensuring the success of ITER and of the post-ITER phase are fundamental to the development of fusion as an energy source. As a result the future Euratom fusion research programme cannot be 'business as usual' and instead requires a new approach. The EU programme will have to take on increasingly complex and large-scale projects, focusing more on ITER and longer-term technology development, and requiring effective pooling of national research efforts.

4

The present report looks at how the European fusion research programme should be implemented during Horizon 2020 and beyond in order to achieve the above objectives, and complements the Commission's proposal for a 'Council Regulation on the Euratom Research and Training Programme (2014-18) complementing Horizon 2020' (COM(2011)812 of 30/11/2011). The report addresses issues such as the organisation of future European fusion research, the appropriate funding schemes and legal structures. The construction of ITER is not covered by the present analysis, even though much of the envisaged research is aligned with the needs and ultimate success of ITER.

2. Problem definition

2.1 Present context

The Euratom fusion programme is currently implemented using three instruments: (i) the

Contract of Association (CoA); (ii) the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA);

(iii) the Mobility Agreement. The CoA is a bilateral agreement between the Commission and

national institutes, or in some cases Member States / third countries (Switzerland), and

defines an 'Association' between these entities (refer to Annex 2 for full list). An Association

may include one or more fusion research institutions (or 'Associates') in the country

concerned, and in a few cases in more than one Member States (e.g. an Estonian institute is

in the Finnish Association, Cypriot in the Greek, etc.). There are currently 26 fusion

Associations, and a small number of Commission officials assess and contribute to the

coordination of the Associations' work programmes via bilateral Steering Committees (one or

two meetings per year). EFDA, on the other hand, is a multilateral agreement between all the

fusion Associates plus the Commission, representing Euratom. EFDA’s main tasks are:

coordination of the collective scientific exploitation by the Associates of joint facilities,

primarily JET (see Box 1), but also a High Performance Computer; co-ordination of joint

physics and technology activities of the Associates; development and exploitation of common

tools or devices; and training of researchers, including promoting links to universities. In

addition, the subsidiary Mobility Agreement binds the same entities as EFDA, and provides

travel and subsistence support for EU researchers as part of the joint activities under the

current EFDA programme.

Both the CoA and EFDA will come to an end on 31 December 2013; the Mobility Agreement

entered into force in October 2009 for a period of five years.

Box 1: The unique nature of JET – the Joint European Torus

JET was built and operated as a Joint Undertaking under Euratom (i.e. legal entity established by Council Decision) from 1978 till the end of 1999. After the turn of the Century, following the winding up of the Joint Undertaking, the facility was operated by the UKAEA (now CCFE – Culham Centre for Fusion Energy) under contract on behalf of the European research community as part of the newly established EFDA. The rights, obligations and liabilities for the various parties are established in EFDA and the accompanying JET Implementing Agreement (JIA), signed by all Associates and the Commission, and in the JET Operating Contract (JOC) between the European Commission and CCFE. Towards the end of 2009, a 15-month re-fit began during which some 86,000 components were changed at a cost of €55M, the main improvement being the installation of an internal tokamak wall of beryllium and tungsten tiles, thereby replicating the same plasma-facing components to be installed on ITER. The experimental campaign with this new ‘ITER-like wall' (ILW) started successfully in early September 2011, and will continue until full qualification of the ILW, including a possible 'burning plasma' D-T (deuterium and tritium) phase. JET is still the largest fusion device in the world, and is the machine on which ITER is most closely modelled; the on-going investigations on the behaviour of the ILW will provide invaluable data and experience needed for the successful and efficient exploitation of ITER itself.

JET is not cheap – the annual cost of the JOC is around £50M, of which up to 75% is paid by the Commission from the Euratom Framework Programme budget and the balance is paid from a joint fund established under EFDA and managed by the Commission. The joint fund is made up of third party contributions from the Associates in proportion to the size of the Euratom contribution to their respective programmes (with one exception – as host, CCFE pays a higher contribution, up to 14% of the total cost).

5

The CoA has been an instrument for supporting a broad-based fusion programme aimed at

exploring the fundamentals of fusion science. Currently, CoA are mainly used to provide so-

called 'baseline support', essentially paying up to 20% of the cost of the activities in the

national work programme. In total, the funding of baseline support to the 26 Associations

currently accounts for some 40% of the total Euratom annual fusion research programme

budget (the cost of JET operation being the other major item in the budget – see Box 1). The

CoA is generally appreciated by the Associates, largely because it is a multi-annual

instrument that provides a relatively dependable source of funding – something that is

important in a field where long-term research is the norm, and therefore continuity regarding

resources and competences needs to be assured. At least 80% of the funding of the

Associations is provided by domestic sources.

Overall, the Community investment has traditionally been much more significant in fusion

than other areas of scientific research in Europe; the Euratom programme has been at the

heart of this endeavour since the beginning, and has probably funded more than 50% of the

cumulative effort in this sector over the years, all things considered – i.e. CoA, EFDA/JET

and ITER construction. A breakdown of the Euratom funding is provided in Annex 3.

The Euratom fusion programme committee (CCE-Fu) brings together the nominated

representatives of the Member States plus Euratom fusion programme associated countries

(Switzerland). It provides advice and recommendations to the Commission in the

implementation of the fusion programme, approving the annual Euratom work programmes

and endorsing decisions of the EFDA Steering Committee that have impact on the Euratom

budget. Unlike programme committees under the TFEU, this is a consultative committee1,

currently chaired by the Member States, and is not subject to comitology rules. In summary,

the strategic direction of the EU fusion programme has been influenced by a number of

actors, even though the Commission, as the executive body under Euratom, traditionally

plays the lead role.

2.2 Nature of the issue and problem requiring action

While it can be argued that the present structure of the fusion programme has served fusion

well up till now, it is not suitable to address future challenges, notably in relation to ITER

development and exploitation. This was one of the main messages of the JET Panel (section

3.1 ii), repeated in the Horizon 2020 proposal and considered necessary by the Working

Group on the future structure of the fusion programme (3.1 iv). In particular, though there is

already a large degree of coordination in the activities carried out in national programmes,

monitored as best as possible by the Commission members of the respective CoA Steering

Committees, the current emphasis on baseline support for national programmes means the

CoA as it is used at present is not an ideal instrument to manage joint activities.

The complexity of the current governance structure is illustrated in Fig. 1. In terms of the

detailed programmatic content of the EU fusion programme, the responsibilities are shared

between the Associates and the Commission for the part relating to the CoA, and lie with the

EFDA Steering Committee for the joint activities (including exploitation of JET). An EFDA

Leader and an EFDA Associate Leader for JET – currently the two functions are carried out

by the same person – are appointed by the EFDA Steering Committee to manage the EFDA

activities, whereas a Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) plays an advisory

role. Two Close-Support Units (one at the JET facility in Culham, UK, and one at Garching in

Germany) support the management of EFDA activities.

On the other hand, EFDA has proved effective at enhancing cooperation between the

Associates (and indeed was set up for this purpose), and 'joint programming' activities are

1 Established in accordance with Council Decision of 16 December 1980 (not published in the OJ)

6

gradually becoming established under the current EFDA framework2 (through EFDA

Implementing Agreements, e.g. in power plant physics and technology).

However, since EFDA does not have legal personality and therefore cannot deal with the

financial administration of these activities, the Commission must handle all EFDA-related

payments.

Fig. 1 The current structure of the European fusion programme

Annually this amounts to a large number of additional subsidiary contracts and notification

letters, often only corresponding to 'fractions of a ppy' (person per year) of effort,

representing a very significant administrative burden both for the Commission and the

Associates. This has resulted in some hundreds of open commitments, with the ensuing

difficulty in ensuring compliance with the underlying financial regulation and control

framework, not to mention the complex interactions between the Commission and the

different stakeholders.

2.3 Legal basis for Community action

The right for the Community to act in this field is set out in the Euratom Treaty, in which there

are specific provisions (in particular Title II Chapter 1) covering Community research

programmes, their scope (Euratom Treaty Annex 1), and the role of the Commission and

other EU Institutions.

According to Article 4 of the Euratom Treaty, "the Commission shall be responsible for

promoting and facilitating nuclear research in the Member States and for complementing it by

carrying out a Community research & training programme". Article 6 of the Euratom Treaty

gives the Commission the possibility to encourage implementation of coordinated national

research programmes by promoting joint financing by Member States and undertakings,

providing financial assistance within the framework of research contracts and placing

installations, equipment or expert assistance at the disposal of Member States, enterprises

2 COM(2008)468 final "TOWARDS JOINT PROGRAMMING IN RESEARCH: Working together to tackle

common challenges more effectively" (p.5), 15/7/08

7

and persons (in many ways, these provisions are similar to those under the TFEU Article

185; however, Article 6 has never or very seldom been used). Article 7 of the Euratom Treaty

is the basis of the Community programme itself, stating that "Community research and

training programmes shall be determined by Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from

the Commission. This Article is the legal basis for the adoption of the Framework Programme

for nuclear energy research and confers the execution of the research programmes to the

Commission. Article 10 of the Euratom Treaty provides that "the Commission may, by

contract, entrust the carrying out of certain parts of the Community research programme to

Member States, persons or undertakings, or to third countries, international organisations or

nationals of third countries".

In addition, the Horizon 2020 legislative package provides for several instruments that could

be used for the implementation of the fusion programme. The related definitions and specific

rules are all set out in the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation.

3. Opinions and consultations of experts and interested parties

A thorough and wide-ranging consultation of interested parties has carried out based on the analysis by and opinions of external experts invited to participate in in-depth reviews, ex-post evaluations and impact assessments over a number of years, and the consultation of concerned stakeholders, notably via a Web-based survey but also via events, meetings or committees. These consultations have underlined that the future Euratom programme requires a new approach, structure and governance. 3.1 Input from experts

i) 2008 'Facilities Review'

The ‘Facilities Review’ was set up by the Commission with the remit to review the strategic vision for fusion research and the facilities required. An independent panel consisting of five EU members from outside the fusion community and four international members with experience of fusion R&D carried out the review in 2008. The panel visited most of the fusion laboratories in Europe and issued its report in October 20083, the chairman reporting the panel's findings to the CCE-Fu on 30 October 2008. In relation to EU devices, the panel recognised that the construction of ITER in Europe requires a reorientation of the programme and concentration on core activities. It ranked the existing facilities in the fusion programme in terms of the necessary shift of emphasis towards those facilities most relevant for ITER (and DEMO). For the support of ITER it found that JET and ASDEX-Upgrade were the most relevant devices (at least until other satellite devices, e.g. JT-60SA, become available). It also recommended that a number of other devices should end their missions as part of a focussing of the programme. Among the general findings of the panel were:

The main programmatic thrust of European Fusion R&D should be on ITER support and long-lead DEMO preparation.

Europe, as the main investor, should draw maximum benefit from ITER, in particular by ensuring efficient and optimum progress of ITER in a DEMO perspective.

Europe should maintain and further strengthen the integrated character of its fusion programme. Care must be taken not to lose competences as well as R&D and training capacity of the national Associates when reorienting their programmes.

Existing support schemes for staff mobility, education and training need to be continued and expanded.

3 http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/978-92-79-10057-4_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/978-92-79-10057-4_en.pdf

8

Intensive mutual collaboration on the major facilities of the European and the international fusion programmes should be developed in parallel to the recommended adaptation of the European facilities base.

There is a growing role for industry and utilities in ITER and post-ITER phase, whose definition will be mandatory for the ultimate success of commercial fusion power development.

ii) Independent panel on the future of JET

On the initiative of the Director-General of Research & Innovation, a panel (the ‘JET Panel’) of independent experts was set up at the beginning of 2011 to study the future role of the JET facility. Later, the Panel's mandate was extended to review a Commission document on the strategic orientation of the EU fusion programme, as part of the preparation for Horizon 2020. The Panel consisted of eight members (seven Europeans and one American) from outside the fusion Community but with extensive experience of large-scale scientific projects. The Panel provided its report on JET in July 2011 and the report covering the wider mandate on 1 September 20114.

The reports contained a clear message: in order for fusion to acquire credibility as an energy source the fusion community must first ensure that ITER is a success and secondly must develop an ambitious yet realistic roadmap aimed at demonstrating electricity production by 2050. A reorientation of the fusion programme towards addressing more of the technological issues associated with fusion power plants would be necessary to be consistent with such a timescale. In order to achieve this, the JET Panel suggested that the governance of the fusion programme should be reorganised and simplified. In relation to JET, the Panel emphasised the importance of making a comprehensive qualification of the ITER-like wall (ILW). The ILW project in JET, an investment of around €55 million, is critical for ITER because JET is now the only experiment operating with the same first wall materials (beryllium and tungsten) that will be used in ITER. The Panel considered that such a qualification would take up to at least the end of 2015 (if not longer). Furthermore, the Panel did not exclude the operation of JET beyond ILW qualification. Provided JET could be turned into an experiment with a strong international participation, the Panel was convinced it could play a highly important role for the training of future ITER operators (the Panel doubting that international teams would be able to operate ITER efficiently unless they had trained on similar devices beforehand). iii) Horizon 2020 Impact Assessment

The Euratom Annex to the Horizon 2020 ex-ante Impact Assessment5 presents the analysis of the options for future action in both the fission and fusion research programmes, and was subsequently used to define both the level of funding and areas of activity in the Euratom Horizon 2020 proposal. The activities are entirely consistent with those defined in more detail in the new common roadmap (Annex 4).

As part of the preparation for this impact assessment, the services of DG-Research & Innovation (Directorate-K 'Energy') launched a survey of the fusion Associations to elicit information on the administrative effort required to participate in the fusion activities of the 7th Euratom Framework Programme. In total, 19 Associations responded to a range of questions on the man-days of effort required for tasks of a legal and financial nature, tasks covering planning / programming, and also expressed their opinions on the current instruments and their preferences for the future. All Associations underlined that there was too much fragmentation in the system, with baseline support, priority support for EFDA tasks, mobility support, etc., and that simplification should be introduced. Associations were in particular concerned with the amount of effort required to respond to EFDA calls, as well as the delays between planning and response to these calls and receiving Community funding, and also

4 European Commission, reports unpublished (disseminated to HRUs and CCE-Fu delegates)

5 Annex 6, page 75

9

signalled their dissatisfaction with the F4E rules and way of working with the national fusion labs. There were clear indications in the case of smaller Associations that this effort was disproportionate in view of the small amounts of additional funding involved. iv) Working Group on the future structure of the fusion programme

Acting on the advice of the JET Panel, and following the publication of the Commission’s full package of Horizon 2020 proposals, the Director-General of Research & Innovation set up in late 2011 a small Working Group of key actors from the fusion community, chaired by the Commission, to explore the different options for the future structure of the EU fusion programme under Horizon 2020. The group met on a number of occasions in early 2012 and the final report was disseminated to the wider fusion community in May (see Annex 5).

The Working Group was of the opinion that, while ensuring as a first priority the success of ITER, the programme would increasingly need to focus on issues relevant for fusion power plants. However, in view of the complexity of the tasks involved and the significant level of funding required, the group re-emphasised that enhanced cooperation between the actors in the EU fusion programme would be needed, and that increased joint programming would have to be a cornerstone of the new structure. Other key factors underlined in the report were the need for a long-term perspective, the importance of ensuring continuity in research activities, and the efficient implementation of the programme. In particular:

The activities of the accompanying programme (i.e. the programme outside ITER construction) should be driven by a common roadmap, with the ultimate aim of supporting ITER design and construction and demonstrating electricity production by fusion around the middle of the century. Such a roadmap must have broad support among the fusion community for it to be effective.

The roadmap should be translated into work packages. The approach should be to direct the majority of Community funding to the implementation of these work packages in order to provide the necessary stimulus and encourage enhanced cooperation and maximise the EU added value.

The Working Group considered different options for the 'new central organisation' that would manage and implement the programme along the lines above, and narrowed it down to two possibilities: (i) a new Legal Entity (LE); (ii) a dedicated Fusion For Energy (F4E) department.

The Working Group found that further analysis of the two options was necessary and therefore suggested that a more in-depth study be carried out using their report as a starting point. In this context the group stressed that "transitional measures and/or a transitional period would necessarily be part of the scope of a more in-depth analysis, especially if expert advice indicated the unlikelihood of bringing about the required radical change for the start of Horizon 2020". v) Interim and ex-post evaluations of Euratom FPs

Under the terms of the Council Decisions establishing Euratom Framework Programmes, ex-post evaluations – both interim (at the mid-point in the programme) and final – are a fundamental requirement in all FPs, and fall under the responsibility of the Commission as the executive body, usually with the help of external experts. The most recent such evaluation of dates from February 2010 – Report on the Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007-2011)6, prepared by a high-level panel of experts. The report concluded that:

“For such a long-term R&D programme, it is important to maintain and follow a global roadmap giving the main steps which are foreseen today as necessary to reach an industrial deployment

6 European Commission, unpublished

10

of fusion energy production with some realistic dates as targets for each step and with cost estimates of the various actions needed to reach each milestone.

…

The previously mentioned complexity of the programme and of the various cooperation agreements is certainly not helping to define such a global roadmap. Nevertheless, being in the forefront of the fusion scientific community, Europe should take the lead in making a roadmap proposal. The rationale of the programme is clear enough. However, its relevance depends on the realism in the short or medium-term objectives.”

Key opinions expressed by experts

Ensure the success of ITER as the key infrastructure on the road to fusion power.

Ensure that Europe can benefit from this success by being well placed to apply the results from ITER to address the longer-term challenge of fusion power.

Establish a goal-oriented roadmap, developed, endorsed and implemented by Europe's national fusion labs, which should be implemented through a joint programme with the growing participation of industry.

The European fusion research programme under Horizon 2020 should support this joint programme of the national fusion labs.

3.2 Consultation of stakeholders

i) 2012 Survey of fusion research stakeholders

Following the submission of the Working Group report in May 2012 (see 3.1 iv), the European Commission carried out a public Web-based survey during summer 2012, focused in particular on fusion research stakeholders. The consolidated results, together with a comprehensive analysis, are provided in Annex 6. The following main conclusions can be drawn:

The fusion labs overwhelmingly support the overall objectives as defined by the JET Panel (success of ITER and first demonstration of electricity generation from fusion by 2050), the importance of joint actions along a common roadmap, and the need for the Euratom programme to prioritise funding on these actions.

The research community in general appreciates the importance and role of the Commission / Euratom, the quality label that that brings, the achievements to date, and the need to maintain a common effort in the future in order to realise the widely agreed objectives.

Nearly all labs are prepared to devote significant national resources to the common effort, though the resources available through the Euratom programme remain a crucial catalyst. In this respect, the EU instruments should remain flexible and easy to use.

ii) The Fusion Industry Innovation Forum (FIIF)

The FIIF was formed in 2010 to advise and support the Commission in the development of a demonstration fusion power plant and the valorisation of fusion research results, as well as the training and education requirements for the formation of a competitive fusion industry of the future. The FIIF has representatives from utilities, nuclear vendors and innovative SMEs. On two occasions, the FIIF has been consulted on proposals for the Horizon 2020 fusion research activities, once in the summer of 2011 prior to the preparation of the Commission’s proposal and then at a meeting on 18 July 2012 dedicated to the proposed roadmap for fusion energy being prepared by EFDA. The main conclusions of these consultations are:

Industry supports the proposal for conceptual design work to take place during Horizon 2020 on a fusion power plant that will generate significant amounts of electricity for the grid and demonstrate the closed fuel cycle. At this time, there needs to be sufficient

11

confidence in the technology for industry and the utilities to be able to assess the commercial prospects of fusion energy. In particular, any future organisation of the fusion research programme should include specific resources to address systems engineering and integration in which industry would play a valuable role. The activities in Horizon 2020 should prepare the way for the formation of a consortium or consortia that would become central in the detailed engineering design of the power plant post-Horizon 2020.

For the valorisation of research results, in the near term, there should be a proactive approach to the spin out of technology to other sectors. The methodology should take advantage of the best practices and experience of other large research areas such as high-energy physics and space science. In the long term the programme should focus on the lessons learned from the construction and operation of ITER and implement an industrial approach to technology transfer from ITER to the power plant design team and the various industrial stakeholders.

Training industrial experts in specific fusion domains is extremely important and should address all categories from leaders and decision makers down to the level of technical staff. However the training needs should initially consider a small number of specific competences required for the conceptual design activities, growing to a larger volume covering all the necessary competences to construct and operate a fusion power plant. Therefore, in the near term, networks should be developed, utilising the existing centres of excellence and facilities, to deliver recognised training programmes.

iii) Meeting with involved stakeholders

On 25-26 July 2012 a major stakeholder meeting took place in Garching, near Munich, to discuss the proposed EU Fusion research roadmap and to present and discuss latest views on the restructuring of the EU fusion research programme during Horizon 2020. Participants included a wide range of representatives of European research institutes, including researchers, team leaders and HRUs (Heads of fusion research units in national labs).

There was general agreement on the usefulness of reviewing the current organisation of the programme, with nevertheless a need for a transition period. Participants expressed the wish for a clarification of legal issues in any evolution towards a new central implementing organisation, though those from new Member States in particular expressed the view that a continuation of the CoA in their present form would be desirable. There was also broad agreement regarding the general principle of concentrating the EU’s resources on key activities with more clearly defined goals (e.g. successful implementation of the ITER project) and the importance of giving more visibility to Europe at international level. Many of these opinions were echoed in the results of the on-line survey. iv) Euratom Consultative Committee for fusion research

The Consultative Committee for the Euratom Specific Research and Training Programme in

the Field of Nuclear Energy Fusion (CCE-Fu) has welcomed the 2012 fusion roadmap

elaborated in common with the fusion programme stakeholders, in view of fulfilling the

challenging goal of demonstration of electricity production by 2050. The CCE-Fu concurs

with the view that the main priority during Horizon 2020 is the completion within scope,

schedule and cost of ITER and the preparation for its operation. It underlined the importance

of ensuring that the fusion roadmap is made a living document with regular reviews and

updating to respond to the physics, technology and budgetary developments.

12

Key messages from stakeholder consultations

Through appropriate instruments and processes, the Euratom fusion programme should

promote effective and efficient implementation of the common roadmap

support EU stakeholders / Member States in their joint research efforts

leverage national sources of income and provide long-term continuity and sustainability

ensure simplification for all actors.

4. Towards a modern Euratom fusion research programme

4.1 Objective

The general objective is to ensure efficient and effective progress along the common fusion roadmap during the period of Horizon 2020 and beyond. In section 5, a number of outcome or impact indicators are defined to assist in monitoring progress. These take into account the leveraging of national resources as well as the scope for simplification and the possible effects on administrative costs.

4.2 Future approach

The foundation of the future European fusion research effort should be a common

programmatic roadmap developed by the national fusion labs (the current Associates).

Box 2: A common programmatic roadmap (see also Annex 4)

As part of the exercise, the Commission asked EFDA to prepare a comprehensive programmatic goal-oriented roadmap to reach the objectives laid out in the JET Panel's report and the Horizon 2020 proposal, namely the successful construction and operation of ITER and the first electricity production from fusion by the middle of the Century.

The roadmap was formally presented by the EFDA leader at the 52nd

EFDA Steering Committee on 3-4 October 2012. The roadmap is structured around a number of key missions, with associated milestones, that define the activities needed to realise the overall objectives, as well as addressing training requirements, basic research, industry involvement, and international collaborations. Though largely activity-based, the roadmap mentions the key infrastructures, both current (such as JET) and future (ITER, JT-60SA, etc.) that will be needed to carry out the various experimental campaigns in support of these activities. The roadmap also mentions the possible need for as yet unplanned facilities to address critical issues. However, the key infrastructure and the critical path is ITER, and the vast majority of the tasks foreseen under the roadmap during Horizon 2020, as well as the related resources, will be concentrated on ensuring success of ITER construction and operation.

The roadmap is a living document needing regular monitoring and adjustment, which should nevertheless mean a common basis for the full breadth of joint activities to be undertaken and which can define the majority if not all actions to be supported through Euratom co-funding in Horizon 2020.

The common roadmap should be implemented through a joint programme.

The establishment, in the longer term, of a dedicated legal entity to implement the new joint programme will allow for efficiency gains, and for this reason was already mentioned in the Horizon 2020 Euratom proposal. All fusion research actors currently involved in activities of relevance for the roadmap would be encouraged to become cofounding members of the new entity, which would have considerable freedom to establish an appropriate governance structure, procedures and operating methods in order to implement its programme of research in line with the roadmap. Annex 7 presents a number of possible legal structures relevant for the coordination of joint programmes.

13

4.3 Funding scheme under Horizon 2020

The Commission's Horizon 2020 Euratom proposal allows for the deployment of different instruments to implement the programme. This includes a co-fund action to support a dedicated legal entity set up by current EFDA members. A consortium of national labs instead of a new legal entity could also be envisaged. However, other schemes in the Horizon 2020 portfolio are also possible, either as well as or instead of a co-fund action. The corresponding Grant Agreement(s) will establish the conditions under which the fusion labs will continue to benefit from Euratom funding. Though full details of the Horizon 2020 Model Grant Agreement have yet to emerge, stakeholders have underlined the importance of multiannuality and retroactivity (in the event of late signature of the Grant Agreement) to ensure continuity in the on-going activities, e.g. scientific exploitation of JET.

The use of recognised Horizon 2020 instruments would ensure consistency between the fusion programme and the rest of the EU effort and put an end to the situation whereby the fusion programme is a special case with unique instruments and methods of implementation. In the past this may have been justified owing to the lack of appropriate FP instruments for programmes like fusion, but with the advent of new Horizon 2020 instruments and the corresponding evolution away from project management to management of whole programmes there is no longer any justification for fusion to remain apart. The use of standard Horizon 2020 instruments is also essential to facilitate cross-cutting collaborations in domains such as materials, ICT, safety, robotics, etc., where these can complement those in the joint programme.

The provisions of Title II, Chapter 1 of the Euratom Treaty also remain available and continue to offer flexible options for the promotion and support of common European research, in particular as the legal basis for a continued exploitation of JET (see below).

4.4 Transition to the new structure

Specific arrangements will need to be put in place to ensure a smooth and rapid transition

from the current Euratom Framework Programme (2012-13) to a true joint programme under

Horizon 2020 Euratom. These arrangements should ensure continuity of fusion research

activities, including the management of the legacy7 and the continued operation of JET.

In the shorter term, important efficiency gains can still be expected through the creation of a

comprehensive consortium of all interested fusion labs. It would then be the Consortium

Agreement that establishes the appropriate governance structure and rights and

responsibilities of all the consortium partners and defines how the joint programme under the

new roadmap will be implemented. For the purposes of the formal links with the Commission,

one of the major national labs would act as consortium coordinator. The consortium would

benefit from the experience gained with the current EFDA framework and would ensure a

continuation of the multilateral dimension to the joint European fusion research effort. The

'consortium' approach would also allow the direct involvement of other entities8 where such

participation could assist in the implementation of the joint programme. In particular, care

must also be taken to ensure that the initial allocation and distribution of tasks under the new

roadmap in the first year of the joint programme represents an appropriate incentive for all

national labs to continue to participate and to develop their competences in line with the

requirements of the roadmap. This will require a detailed breakdown of tasks, alignment with

the competences in national labs, and assurances regarding the multiannual nature of this

effort. The intention would be to maintain the important leverage effect of Euratom funding

while at the same time turning the focus to activities under the joint programme. As a further

7 This includes (i) notifications for priority support and fellowships launched under EFDA before the end of

2013 but with an end of execution date after the beginning of 2014, and (ii) the wrapping up of activities under the Contracts of Association such as approval of 2013 reports, auditing and related final payments.

8 For example, would allow a greater role for new entities such as FuseNet Association, which could

implement activities in the key area of education / training and related mobility.

14

benefit, such an evolution should bring about an important simplification for both the

participants and the Commission compared with the current structure.

4.5 Future of JET

Regarding the funding of JET, it is desirable to continue the current bilateral arrangement

between the Commission and the CCFE (the JET operator) to pay for JET operation

(currently done via the JET Operation Contract – JOC). JET can then be made available by

the Community to the joint programme as an in-kind contribution as foreseen in the Horizon

2020 Euratom proposal. However, the scientific exploitation of JET would remain fully

embedded in the joint programme and be the responsibility of the consortium. This is

essential in view of JET's role as the most important experimental device in the joint

programme. Since the current EFDA / JIA / JOC framework provides the legal basis for the

respective liabilities of the parties, including the Commission, in relation to the winding up of

JET operation, the continuation of a bilateral 'JOC-like' contract for JET operation, which

incorporates the important provisions from the previous structure, would also be the most

appropriate way to ensure there is continuity in the definition and quantification of these

liabilities.

4.6 Next steps

Work must start immediately, under the auspices of the current EFDA, on the preparation of the Consortium Agreement. At the same time, an optimal distribution of tasks to fulfil the roadmap missions in the initial years of Horizon 2020 must be discussed between all the national labs. Discussions also need to commence between the Commission and CCFE on a new bilateral contract for JET operation from 1st of January 2014. In parallel, work is already in progress on Horizon 2020 instruments, in particular the programme co-fund action and the related Model Grant Agreement. This will clarify Euratom funding modalities, procedures and timing in order to provide assurance to the current EFDA members regarding the Euratom contribution to the joint programme. Finally, the effort required to manage the legacy activities will need to be assessed and a plan of action drawn up clearly specifying the roles and obligations of the actors involved and the steps needed to ensure the current programme dovetails as efficiently as possible into the new structure.

The Euratom 2014 Work Programme will bring the above elements together and clarity outstanding issues related to the proposed Grant Agreement(s) for the chosen instrument(s). The Commission will be vigilant that an appropriate governance structure is put in place that ensures activities remain in line with the roadmap and are implemented as efficiently as possible. Progress will be monitored by the Commission through annual reviews, using if necessary international experts.

All these efforts show that there are many tasks which need to be carried out in parallel and all are geared for an effective implementation of the new programme, but also for a timely adoption ready from 1st of January 2014.

5. Monitoring and evaluation

A monitoring and evaluation system will be put in place to monitor the European fusion research actions and to assess the extent to which the new structure / framework has met its objectives. 5.1 Continuous monitoring

The European Commission will ensure the overall coordination of this initiative. A Committee of member States representatives established under Euratom part of Horizon 2020 will support the European Commission.

15

In addition, all entities involved in the management and implementation of the programme will be asked to provide annual reports to the European Commission. These reports will provide an overview of activities for the year in question, as well as detail of budgetary issues, and should allow the European Commission and Member States to verify that entities involved in implementation of the programme comply with the regulations in force. An important aspect of this monitoring will involve the assessment of the outcome, impact and performance indicators (see section 4).The following indicators are proposed:

total budget / resources (national and Euratom) coordinated / managed under the new structure;

number of researchers involved in mobility under the new structure;

number of annual commitments and payments required in the Commission accounting system in order to implement the new programme and manage the legacy;

total administrative costs (national labs, European Commission, Consortium's support unit, other as appropriate) in the implementation of the new programme and manage the legacy.

NB Performance indicators regarding programmatic aspects are provided in Annex II of the Euratom Horizon 2020 proposal. 5.2 Evaluation

By 2016 an evaluation will be carried by a panel of independent experts, appointed by the Commission in order to assess:

the implementation of the new fusion programme;

to what extent it has managed to deliver its anticipated benefits, and, in particular, its ease of use, and how far it has helped to contribute to the implementation of the European fusion research roadmap;

the need to adapt the new fusion programme.

16

Annexes

1. Glossary

2. List of current Contracts of Association

3. Overview of Euratom Framework Programme funding

4 Overview of the EFDA roadmap (Table of Contents and list of missions only)

5. Report of the Working Group on the future structure of the fusion programme (May 2012) and analysis of results

6. Consolidated results of the public consultation carried out during summer 2012

7. Possible legal structures relevant for coordination of Joint Programmes

17

Annex 1

Glossary

Term Definition

Accompanying programme

The overall R&D programme aimed at supporting ITER and preparing for the post-ITER phase carried out by research institutions in the Member States.

AISBL Association Internationale Sans But Lucratif (international non-profit organisation)

ASDEX-Upgrade Fusion tokomak device at IPP, Garching, Germany

Associate See 'CoA'

Broader Approach Bilateral international agreement between Japan and Euratom covering aspects other than ITER

CCE-Fu

Consultative Committee for fusion – the Euratom FP programme committee for fusion, comprising delegates nominated by the EU Member States and Euratom FP Associate Countries (currently only Switzerland) and responsible for oversight of the implementation of the Euratom fusion programme.

CERN European Organisation for Nuclear Research

CoA – Contract(s) of Association

A contract under Article 10 of the Euratom Treaty between the European Commission and a fusion research organisation (or a State), creating a 'Euratom Association' (the lab / institute concerned is termed the 'Associate'). This contract specifies the programme of work to be undertaken by the Association within the overall Work Programme for fusion in the Euratom Framework Programme, and provides the mechanism for funding from Euratom. Currently, a Steering Committee, made up of members from the national and Euratom sides has responsibility for guiding the activities of the Association. There are currently 26 CoA in force.

DEMO Future fusion reactor to demonstrate electricity production

EC European Commission

EEIG European Economic Interest Grouping

EFDA – European Fusion Development Agreement

A multilateral agreement between Euratom and all the fusion Associates. The mandate of EFDA now covers:

Coordinated activities in physics and emerging technology;

The collective use of the JET facilities and a High Performance Computer;

Training and career development of researchers, promoting links to universities and carrying out support actions for the benefit of fusion research;

European contributions to international collaborations that are outside of the scope of Fusion for Energy.

The planning and supervision of the activities carried out under EFDA is the responsibility of the EFDA Steering Committee in which all EFDA signatories are represented. It appoints an EFDA/JET Leader supported by two Close-Support Units (CSU). The current EFDA expires at the end of 2013.

EGTC European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation

ESFRI European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures

ESO European Org. for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere

F4E Fusion For Energy

FP (Euratom) Framework Programme

FuseNet The European Fusion Education Network – originally an FP7 Coordination / Support Action, which led to the founding of the FuseNet Association – an independent legal entity under Dutch law – in December 2010

HRU Head of Research Unit (Head of the fusion research programme in each Associate / national lab)

IA – Implementing Agreement

A multilateral instrument under Art. 5.2 of EFDA, involving co-funding from Euratom and in-kind contributions from EFDA signatories, which can be

18

considered an example of Joint Programming. There are currently 3 IAs in force, covering the collective use of the JET facilities, a High Performance Computer and coordinated activities in Power Plant Physics and Technology.

ITER International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor

ILW ITER-like wall (in JET)

JET Joint European Torus

JIA JET Implementing Agreement – an IA under EFDA

JOC JET Operating (or Operation) Contract, a bilateral contract between the Commission and CCFE (Culham Centre for Fusion Energy) for the operation of JET under the EFDA/JIA framework

Joint Programme / Programming

Joint Programming can be defined as the centralised planning, say on an annual or multi-annual basis, whereby public institutions in more than one Member State jointly decide on a division of activities to maximise complementarities and eliminate overlaps in order to attain agreed common goals. Each institution's contribution would be included in its own annual / multi-annual work programme and have assured resources from its own national funding agency.

JT-60SA Advance tokomak under construction in Japan under the Broader Approach agreement

JRC The EC's Joint Research Centre

Member States Member States of the European Union (may also include 3rd

States fully associated to the Euratom fusion and/or Framework Programme)

Mobility Agreement Agreement signed between all EFDA parties by which the Commission, through the Euratom Programme, provides financial support for travel and subsistence of researchers from the Associates in the furtherance of the Euratom fusion programme.

New central organisation

An organisation with legal personality to which the responsibility for the management and implementation of the accompanying programme would be externalised during Horizon 2020.

R&D Research and Development

STAC Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (an EFDA Committee, but also called upon by the CCE-Fu)

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Lisbon framework)

19

Annex 2

List of current Contracts of Association

EU Member State* / Euratom FP Associated

Country Euratom Association

Austria OAW Belgium Belgian State Bulgaria IRNE

Czech Republic IPP.CR Denmark DTU (RISOE) Finland TEKES France CEA

Germany FZJ Germany IPP Germany KIT Greece Hellenic Republic Hungary HAS Ireland DCU

Italy ENEA Latvia AEUL

Lithuania LEI Netherlands FOM

Poland IPPLM Portugal IST Romania MEdC Slovakia CU SC Slovenia SFA (MESCS)

Spain CIEMAT Sweden VR

Switzerland CRPP (Swiss Federation) UK CCFE

* Institutes in Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg and Malta are linked

with the Greek, Finnish, Belgian and Italian Associations respectively. The case of Croatia will be treated by the end of 2013.

20

Annex 3

Overview of Euratom Framework Programme funding

EU and Euratom Framework Programme funding (includes operational credits + Commission's administrative costs)

Framework Programme Total EU funding

(€B)

Total Euratom funding

(€B)

Euratom funding (€M) for - fission (indirect actions) - fusion (indirect actions) - JRC (direct actions)

FP4 (1994-8) 11.88 1.23 170 794 271

FP5 (1998-02) 13.70 1.26 191 788 281

FP6 (2002-06) 17.88 1.35 209 824 319

FP7 (2007-13) 50.52

2007-11= 1.45 287

654* 517

2012-13= 0,55 118

197* 233

Horizon 2020 (Commission proposal)

86** 1.79 355

710* 724

* excludes ITER construction ** Amount for Specific Programme for Horizon 2020 without EIT (COM (2011) 811 final)

21

Annex 4

Overview of the EFDA roadmap (Table of Contents and list of missions only)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction. Make fusion a credible energy option 2. ITER – the key facility of the roadmap 3. A pragmatic approach to fusion energy – Fully exploit the potential of innovation 4. The missions to the realization of fusion 5. Roadmap outline and milestones 6. Training and education – Form “Generation ITER”. 7. Breaking new frontiers – The need for basic research 8. Industrial involvement 9. Exploit the opportunities from international collaborations 10. A living document: roadmap reviews and decision points 11. Resources

Annexes

Mission 1 Plasma regimes of operation Mission 2 Heat exhaust systems Mission 3 Neutron resistant materials Mission 4 Tritium self-sufficiency Mission 5 Implementation of fusion safety aspects Mission 6 Integrated DEMO design and system development Mission 7 Competitive cost of electricity Mission 8 Stellarator development Annex 9 Training and education Annex 10 Basic research Annex 11 Analysis of resources Annex 12 Industrial involvement Annex 13 International collaborations

22

Annex 5

Report of the Working Group on the future structure of the fusion programme (May

2012) – Executive Summary only

The Director-General of Research and Innovation set up a small Working Group to explore the different options for the future structure of the EU fusion programme in Horizon 2020. It started its work in January 2012 and this report constitutes the outcome of its deliberations. The Working Group has considered options for reforming the EU fusion programme such that it can effectively take on the challenge of implementing a roadmap aiming to demonstrate fusion's capacity for electricity production in the 2050 timeframe. In order to achieve this, the Working Group is convinced that, while ensuring as a first priority the success of ITER, a transition to a programme focussed on issues relevant for a fusion power plant is needed. The complexity of the tasks involved and the significant level of funding required mean that enhanced cooperation between the actors in the EU fusion programme is needed, essentially requiring Joint Programming to be a cornerstone of the new structure. Other guiding principles are the need for a long-term perspective, the importance of ensuring continuity in research activities, and an efficient implementation of the programme. Key to success will be the securing of the long-term commitment from and collaboration between the fusion stakeholders, in particular the agreement on the underlying roadmap that will drive the whole programme. The Working Group has considered different options for the new central organisation that would manage and implement the programme, and has narrowed it down to two possibilities:

a new Legal Entity (LE);

a dedicated Fusion For Energy (F4E) department. Both possibilities have advantages and drawbacks. The LE could be carefully designed to fit the new requirements for the management of the EU fusion programme along an agreed roadmap while keeping bureaucracy to a minimum, especially in dealing with participating research institutions. The alternative of a dedicated department in F4E would be a more coherent option, especially if the long-term goal is to unify the management of all Commission-funded fusion activities. On the other hand, much effort is today being devoted to making F4E an efficient organisation for procurements, which will remain its prime role for some time. In both cases, how to deal with possible conflicts of interest would have to be addressed. In practice, moving from the present situation to the new structure would probably entail significant effort irrespective of the option chosen, and it is therefore possible that a transition period would be needed. The Working Group finds that further analysis of the two options is necessary and suggests that a more formal ex-ante evaluation be carried out using the present report as a basis. The Commission would then submit a proposal to the CCE-FU as part of the consultation process.

23

Annex 6

Report of the Working Group

on the future structure of the fusion programme (May 2012) and analysis of

results

Response statistics for 'Consultation on the European Fusion Research Programme'

NB For each question, options are presented in order of decreasing rate of selection and not in the order in the original questionnaire. No free format text responses provided

139 responses were submitted between 27 June and 21 September 2012

Information about respondent

Please select your country of residence/establishment -single choice reply- (compulsory)

Number of requested records

Requested records (139)

% of total number records (139)

Germany 49 (35.3%) (35.3%)

France 12 (8.6%) (8.6%)

United Kingdom 12 (8.6%) (8.6%)

Switzerland 9 (6.5%) (6.5%)

Spain 8 (5.8%) (5.8%)

Sweden 7 (5%) (5%)

Italy 6 (4.3%) (4.3%)

Belgium 5 (3.6%) (3.6%)

Czech Republic 4 (2.9%) (2.9%)

Netherlands 4 (2.9%) (2.9%)

Denmark 3 (2.2%) (2.2%)

Finland 3 (2.2%) (2.2%)

Greece 3 (2.2%) (2.2%)

Poland 3 (2.2%) (2.2%)

Austria 2 (1.4%) (1.4%)

Hungary 2 (1.4%) (1.4%)

Lithuania 2 (1.4%) (1.4%)

Portugal 2 (1.4%) (1.4%)

Estonia 1 (0.7%) (0.7%)

Slovakia 1 (0.7%) (0.7%)

Slovenia 1 (0.7%) (0.7%)

Bulgaria 0 (0%) (0%)

Croatia 0 (0%) (0%)

Cyprus 0 (0%) (0%)

Ireland 0 (0%) (0%)

Latvia 0 (0%) (0%)

Luxembourg 0 (0%) (0%)

Malta 0 (0%) (0%)

24

Romania 0 (0%) (0%)

Your involvement in fusion – please select the type of organisation you work for -single choice reply-

(compulsory)




national lab or research institute 111 (79.9%) (79.9%)

national funding agency or ministry 12 (8.6%) (8.6%)

Other 12 (8.6%) (8.6%)

no involvement in fusion research 4 (2.9%) (2.9%)

Are your responses your own personal view or are you responding on behalf of your organisation as a whole? -single choice reply- (compulsory)




personal view 105 (75.5%) (75.5%)

organisation view 34 (24.5%) (24.5%)

Objectives and strategy of the fusion programme over the period of Horizon 2020

Do you agree with the following statement? "The objectives of Euratom fusion research over the period of Horizon 2020 should be to make significant progress towards ensuring success of ITER and towards the generation of electricity from fusion by the middle of the century." -single choice reply-

(compulsory)




Yes, totally agree 102 (73.4%) (73.4%)

Yes, tend to agree 36 (25.9%) (25.9%)

No, tend to disagree 1 (0.7%) (0.7%)

No, totally disagree 0 (0%) (0%)

Don't know 0 (0%) (0%)

A research roadmap is currently being developed by EFDA (European Fusion Development Agreement) staff. Provided this roadmap is widely endorsed, do you agree with the following statement? "The majority of Euratom funding should be devoted to critical issues identified in the agreed roadmap." -single choice reply- (compulsory)




Yes, tend to agree 80 (57.6%) (57.6%)

Yes, totally agree 52 (37.4%) (37.4%)

Don't know 4 (2.9%) (2.9%)

No, totally disagree 2 (1.4%) (1.4%)

No, tend to disagree 1 (0.7%) (0.7%)

How would you rate the importance for your institute / country of such an agreed long-term fusion energy roadmap in Europe?

-single choice reply- (compulsory)

Number of Requested % of total

25

requested records

records (139)

number records (139)

Important provided the roadmap is aligned with institute/national priorities, otherwise it may be difficult to devote too many resources to the implementation of roadmap activities

83 (59.7%) (59.7%)

Essential, enabling better planning at institute/national level for the long term and/or better coordination with European partners

49 (35.3%) (35.3%)

Not important since the bulk of the institute/national programme would still be decided on the basis of institute/national priorities

4 (2.9%) (2.9%)

Don't know 3 (2.2%) (2.2%)

Do you agree with the following statement? "Pooling of resources at the EU level is the right way to address fusion research challenges and international competition." -single choice reply- (compulsory)




Yes, tend to agree. 69 (49.6%) (49.6%)

Yes, totally agree. 56 (40.3%) (40.3%)

No, tend to disagree. 11 (7.9%) (7.9%)

Don't know 3 (2.2%) (2.2%)

No, totally disagree. 0 (0%) (0%)

Experience of the current implementation of the fusion programme

How would you best describe your experience of fusion energy research in Europe, and related priorities? Please select up to a maximum of three statements from the following list.

-multiple choices reply- (compulsory)




Euratom funding is important for the status of my institute/national programme and ensures continuity that safeguards jobs, services and/or investments in facilities.

78 (56.1%) (56.1%)

Euratom co-funding is an important catalyst – the higher the budget allocated to EFDA collaborative activities, the more my institute / country is prepared to reciprocate.

76 (54.7%) (54.7%)

Collaboration is beneficial for my institute /country and I think should grow in the future with even more institute/national resources devoted to common activities.

64 (46%) (46%)

Raising the institute's/national scientific prestige through, for example, publications in reputable journals is an important objective.

46 (33.1%) (33.1%)

Collaboration in Europe is beneficial, though I think my institute/country is now contributing as much as is practicable to common activities in view of the current priorities of the institute/country.

40 (28.8%) (28.8%)

My institute/country is focused on sustainable and competitive energy production in the long term and is prepared to do the maximum possible to help Europe achieve this objective.

35 (25.2%) (25.2%)

The main interests of my institute/country do not correspond with EFDA priorities.

5 (3.6%) (3.6%)

Don't know 1 (0.7%) (0.7%)

How important is the ITER project for your own institute's / country's research effort?


Number of requested

Requested records

% of total number records

26

records (139) (139)

Essential – if ITER suffers serious setbacks or is cancelled, this would probably mean the end of my programme

94 (67.6%) (67.6%)

ITER is important, but it would not be the end of the world if it were cancelled

34 (24.5%) (24.5%)

My institute's / national programme would survive almost intact if ITER were cancelled, although I recognise the importance for Europe and for global scientific and technological cooperation in general.

11 (7.9%) (7.9%)

Don't know 0 (0%) (0%)

How important for you is the Contract of Association (CoA) between the Commission and your institute / country?





Essential – without the CoA it would probably be difficult to secure national funding

79 (56.8%) (56.8%)

Useful – the CoA is a sign of the quality of the institute / national programme, but other schemes could provide a similar assurance

47 (33.8%) (33.8%)

An additional source of income only – the CoA is not an element of the process of deciding funding at national level

7 (5%) (5%)

Don't know 6 (4.3%) (4.3%)

What is your experience of the EFDA Implementing Agreement instrument as a means of promoting collaborative efforts? (in view of the special nature of the JET Implementing Agreement, you should consider only the HPC and PPPT IAs in your response).





Positive, but other schemes could provide similar or even better outcomes.

72 (51.8%) (51.8%)

Positive, and I would be happy to see this type of instrument be the cornerstone of future enhanced collaboration in the European Programme.

22 (15.8%) (15.8%)

Don't know 20 (14.4%) (14.4%)

Not positive, and I would not support continued use after the expiry of current activities, though my institute/country remains open to other means of multilateral cooperation.

14 (10.1%) (10.1%)

My institute/country is still developing its opinion, and institute/national involvement so far has been at a minimum or modest level to allow an assessment of how effective and/or appropriate the instrument is before committing further resources.

11 (7.9%) (7.9%)

Means to achieve the objectives of the fusion programme in Horizon 2020

Joint Programming means the coordinated planning whereby public institutions in EU Member States decide collectively on a distribution of activities in order to achieve common goals, each institution's contribution being included in its own annual work programme with assured resources from its national funding agency. For more information on what is entailed and the importance for Europe as a whole, please refer to the following Website: http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/areas/programming/joint_programming_en.htm. To what extent do you think your institute/country would be prepared to participate in the Joint Programming activities with other national labs/programmes?


http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/areas/programming/joint_programming_en.htm

27




I'd be happy for a significant part of my institute's/national programme to contribute to Joint Programming activities.

69 (49.6%) (49.6%)

Though this would depend on the details of an agreed European fusion roadmap, I'd be happy for the majority of my institute's/national programme to contribute to Joint Programming activities.

34 (24.5%) (24.5%)

My institute/country would seek to collaborate through Joint Programming in only a very limited number of areas since the vast majority of institute/national resources would continue to be devoted to national priorities.

17 (12.2%) (12.2%)

Don't know 14 (10.1%) (10.1%)

My institute/country is not interested in Joint Programming 5 (3.6%) (3.6%)

In order to carry out the joint activities under an agreed roadmap, the competencies in the EU fusion community may have to evolve significantly (e.g. owing to the need for increased focus on power plant physics and technology). What do you think is the level of preparedness in your institute / country for such an evolution?





While agreeing that an evolution is necessary, in view of the inertia in the national system and the specificities of fusion research, I believe that the necessary changes in the composition of personnel would take significantly longer than the period of Horizon 2020

67 (48.2%) (48.2%)

My institute/country is prepared to take the necessary steps to ensure that the composition of personnel evolves at the pace required in order to implement the roadmap, which will probably mean significant evolution during the period of Horizon 2020

54 (38.8%) (38.8%)

Don't know 11 (7.9%) (7.9%)

There is little prospect for the structure of the domestic programme to evolve significantly and my institute/country would therefore seek to continue its collaboration on the basis of its existing competences, while accepting that these may be less needed in the implementation of future joint activities.

7 (5%) (5%)

What do you believe is the long-term role of the European Commission (EC) in the fusion programme?





The EC should continue in its current role as the central organisation in view of its traditional neutrality and as a guarantor, as the executive body under Euratom, of the prestige of the programme.

53 (38.1%) (38.1%)

In view of the current trends – e.g. simplification in the implementation of European research in general and reduced EC resources – I accept that the EC will no longer be able to play the same role as in the past, but it should continue to act in a catalytic and leveraging capacity in order to promote cooperation in implementing the roadmap

43 (30.9%) (30.9%)

The EC should act as a funding agency in support of a fully integrated externally managed European fusion research programme that implements the roadmap

30 (21.6%) (21.6%)

Don't know 13 (9.4%) (9.4%)

28

Would your institute/country be prepared to investigate the possibility of establishing, with other partners in Europe, a new legal entity under national law to act as the central organisation for implementing the fusion research programme in Horizon 2020?





No, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that this is the best option for the fusion research programme in the long term and there is support from a significant number of current EFDA members.

49 (35.3%) (35.3%)

Yes, but unlikely on the timescale of 1/1/2014. 41 (29.5%) (29.5%)

Don't know. 28 (20.1%) (20.1%)

Yes. 18 (12.9%) (12.9%)

No. 3 (2.2%) (2.2%)

Currently, the Euratom funding instruments include Contracts of Association (CoA), concluded between the EC and national labs, and EFDA instruments (in particular Implementing Agreements) providing coordination of and support for multilateral activities. Both the current CoA and EFDA expire at the end of 2013. The vision expressed in the EC's Horizon 2020 proposal is to establish, in view of the evolving priorities and objectives within fusion energy research, a more appropriate governance and funding structure, though temporary arrangements could be put in place to ensure continuity during a transition period. Regarding this post-2013 programme, which is your preference?





During a transition period, and following a review of available instruments, continue with the present balance of Euratom funding, i.e. the majority devoted to broad-based support ('baseline support') of national programmes and only a small amount on activities implemented under multilateral EFDA-type instruments (excluding the JET Implementing Agreement), while at the same time introducing simplification in the system.

76 (54.7%) (54.7%)

During a transition period, and following a review of available instruments, alter the balance of Euratom funding, with more available under multilateral EFDA-type instruments and a corresponding reduction in broad-based support, thereby paving the way for a more appropriate structure while introducing simplification in the system.

36 (25.9%) (25.9%)

Move rapidly towards a new way of funding, concentrating exclusively on roadmap priority tasks ('missions') via a limited number of partnerships/consortia, with safeguards as appropriate to ensure opportunities for continued involvement of all national labs.

23 (16.5%) (16.5%)

Don't know 4 (2.9%) (2.9%)

29

Regarding the involvement of industry in the Horizon 2020 fusion research programme, which of the following statements most closely represents your views?





Industry will only become more involved once a DEMO programme has been defined and the returns on investment can be more accurately estimated; until that time the present situation should continue, with industry involved primarily via ad hoc alliances with current EFDA members and through specific procurement arrangements

85 (61.2%) (61.2%)

In view of their competences and experience in complex engineering projects, and the innovative solutions they can bring, industrial organisations should play an increasingly important role in the programme and appropriate funding schemes need to be found and/or partnerships with public bodies created in order to ensure they can contribute effectively

50 (36%) (36%)

Don't know 4 (2.9%) (2.9%)

Regarding the possibility of spin-off applications, which of the following statements most closely represents your views?





Technology spin-offs can be important, but the onus for such aspects should be left to individual EFDA members.

56 (40.3%) (40.3%)

Technology spin-offs can be an increasingly important result of the fusion research effort, including as a means of showing an innovation spirit and value for money, and need to be appropriately supported and promoted by the European fusion programme as a whole.

43 (30.9%) (30.9%)

I am not convinced that technology spin-offs will be a significant aspect of the programme, and believe they will remain a niche area in the foreseeable future

36 (25.9%) (25.9%)

Don't know 4 (2.9%) (2.9%)

Research infrastructures, mobility and education & training

In view of the expected orientations of the EFDA roadmap, which of the following statements most closely represents your view?





JET is a major asset for the Euratom effort and is crucial for successful operation of ITER and can potentially provide an important training facility for future ITER operators as part of an international network of key facilities.

66 (47.5%) (47.5%)

JET can provide important data for ITER through the qualification of the ITER-like wall, but for the moment there is no clear justification for prolonged operation beyond this.

59 (42.4%) (42.4%)

Don't know 9 (6.5%) (6.5%)

JET may no longer be able to continue contributing to roadmap priority tasks in a cost effective way

5 (3.6%) (3.6%)

30

Which of the following statements most closely represents your view?





Increased mobility is essential in order to allow researchers from smaller national programmes to access the key fusion facilities in Europe

123 (88.5%) (88.5%)

It is desirable for as many institutes as possible to have their own fusion devices, no matter how small, in order to provide local training and research facilities for students

12 (8.6%) (8.6%)

Don't know 4 (2.9%) (2.9%)

Do you agree with the following statement? "It is desirable to develop facilities of pan-European/global interest by pooling national resources." -single choice reply- (compulsory)




Yes, tend to agree. 75 (54%) (54%)

Yes, totally agree. 36 (25.9%) (25.9%)

No, tend to disagree. 15 (10.8%) (10.8%)

Don't know 12 (8.6%) (8.6%)

No, totally disagree. 1 (0.7%) (0.7%)

The EFDA roadmap currently being developed may identify other fusion devices, i.e. in addition to JET, considered essential in reaching key milestones (these facilities may correspond to those already identified in the 'facilities review'). To what extent should the Euratom programme foresee host support for the operation of these other devices?





If a device is considered essential for the roadmap then an appropriate amount of funding for host support should be provided through the programme.

80 (57.6%) (57.6%)

Host support may be justified in certain situations, but terms would have to be negotiated on a case by case basis, and would inter alia take into account funding provided in the past through the Euratom programme.

28 (20.1%) (20.1%)

In view of the limited available funding in the Euratom Horizon 2020 programme, it is unlikely that significant financial support could be provided, but mobility of researchers and/or secondment of staff should be supported to the extent possible.

28 (20.1%) (20.1%)

Don't know 3 (2.2%) (2.2%)

Regarding the importance of education & training, which of the following statements most closely represents your views?





Education & training is crucial for the success of the programme, and efforts in Europe need to be coordinated as much as possible at a central level and should consider both more basic research and future industrial/engineering requirements.

79 (56.8%) (56.8%)

Education & training, though important, can be addressed more effectively at the national level and should therefore be principally the responsibility of individual EFDA members.

52 (37.4%) (37.4%)

Don't know 8 (5.8%) (5.8%)

31

What is your opinion of training initiatives currently receiving Euratom funding (Fusion Researcher Fellowships and Goal-Oriented Training)? -single choice reply- (optional)





The current mix of Fusion Researcher Fellowships (broad subject areas) and Goal-Oriented Training is about right.

68 (48.9%) (48.9%) (50.7%)

Fusion Researcher Fellowships (or similar schemes) should be the priority.

31 (22.3%) (22.3%) (23.1%)

Don't know 18 (12.9%) (12.9%) (13.4%)

Goal-Oriented Training should be expanded, including more links with industry as appropriate.

17 (12.2%) (12.2%) (12.7%)

N/A 5 (3.6%) (3.6%) -

Analysis of results The survey attracted many responses (139), mainly from managers and team leaders of fusion labs

(111), but also from national funding agencies/ministries (12) and companies (3). A large fraction of

the answers come from Germany (35% – NB in line with the relative proportion of German to total

Member States investment in fusion research) followed by FR (8.6%), UK (8.6%), Switzerland (6.5%),

Spain (5.8%), Sweden (5%), Italy (4.3%) and Belgium (3.6%). A majority of fusion Associations have

contributed (22 out of 26, only 4 small Associations not responding), usually via the HRU (Head of

Research Unit), including all of the major players. In total, 34 of the 139 respondents stated they were

responding on behalf of their organisation (including 16 HRUs responding on behalf of

institutes/Associations), while the rest submitted personal views. The views of the Associations/HRUs

generally corresponded to those of the whole population, except as indicated below.

On a number of points there was almost consensus among those who responded to the survey.

Firstly, concerning the general objectives of the fusion programme in Horizon 2020, all except one of

those who responded either totally agreeing (73%, incl. 19 HRUs) or tending to agree (26%, incl. 3

HRUs) with the statement "The objectives of Euratom fusion research over the period of Horizon 2020

should be to make significant progress towards ensuring success of ITER and towards the generation

of electricity from fusion by the middle of the century". Secondly, 95% (incl. all HRUs) either totally

agreed (11 HRUs) or tended to agree (11 HRUs) with the statement "The majority of Euratom funding

should be devoted to critical issues identified in the agreed roadmap". Thirdly, 90% – and all but one

HRU – either totally agree (incl. 14 HRUs) or tend to agree (incl. 7 HRUs) that pooling of resources is

the right way for Europe to address research challenges and international competition. These results

clearly show that the fusion community is united on the main objectives of fusion research in Horizon

2020 and the approach to tackling them, namely a common EU fusion roadmap implemented with

pooled resources. Some ¾ of all respondents (incl. 16 HRUs) would be happy to see a significant part

of the resources of their institute's / national programme dedicated to joint programming activities in

order to achieve common goals.

A common roadmap implies strengthening joint activities and methods of working, but despite the

support for the principle of a common roadmap and joint programming, around 55% of respondents

(incl. 11 HRUs) would prefer (in a transition phase) that the instruments and balance of Euratom

funding remain unchanged, i.e. CoA providing funding predominantly for baseline support, with the

remainder in favour either of keeping the same instruments and shifting the balance in favour of

support for joint roadmap activities using EFDA-type instruments (26%, incl. 10 HRUs, again

representing a mix of sizes) or a more radical evolution involving entirely new instruments and/or

methods of support (16%, incl. just one HRU, though a major player). Though at first hand these

results appear contradictory, it is important to bear in mind the predicament in many national labs with

significant workforces and expensive and complex infrastructures. The responses probably reflect the

importance of instruments favouring longer-term planning and continuity, such as CoA, and a

conservative and cautious approach towards a new and unproven programme structure and

organisation. This highlights the need for transparency and openness in presenting the new structure

as well as for a transition period to enable the national labs to adapt.

32

In response to a question addressing fusion energy research in Europe and related priorities,

respondents were asked to select up to three from seven statements to describe their experiences.

About 33% consider the raising of scientific prestige of their institute through, e.g. publications in

reputable journals, to be an important objective, with 29% believing their institute is contributing as

much as is currently practicable to common activities, and about 25% agreeing that their institute is

focused on the bigger picture of sustainable and competitive energy production in the long term.

However, the three most selected statements all refer to collaboration in Europe and the importance of

Euratom funding. Some 46% thought this collaboration beneficial and that it should grow in future, with

55% and 56% respectively agreeing with the statements "Euratom co-funding is an important catalyst

– the higher the Euratom budget allocated to EFDA collaborative activities, the more my institute /

country is prepared to reciprocate" and "Euratom funding is important for the status of my institute /

national programme and ensures continuity that safeguards jobs and/or services and/or investments in

facilities." Furthermore, regarding the instruments, 91% of respondents (and all HRUs) are of the

opinion that the CoA is either essential (57%, incl. 17 HRUs), and without it there would be difficulties

in attracting national funding, or useful (34%, incl. 5 HRUs), in particular as a sign of the quality of the

institute's contribution to the Euratom effort as a whole. The high regard for the CoA, and especially its

role in securing national funding, indicates the significant risk that total funding may diminish if change

is considered too radical. A director of one research institute explained this attachment to the CoA as

follows: “the CoA is more than money, it defines a community and thereby a privileged partnership”.

Some 38% of respondents (incl. 10 HRUs, representing small and large Associations) think the

Commission should continue to play a central role in the management of the Community-funded fusion

programme, in view of its traditional neutrality and guarantor of the prestige of the programme, while

for the remainder opinion is divided between those who accept that the Commission will play a lesser

role but continue to act in a catalytic and leveraging capacity (31%, incl. 8 HRUs, again representing a

mix), and those who see the Commission as a simple funding agency in the future with the programme

managed externally (21%, incl. 4 HRUs representing small/medium-sized Associations). A small

number of respondents (13%) indicated that their country or institute would be prepared to investigate

the possibility of establishing a new legal entity to act as the central organisation for implementing the

fusion programme, with a little over double this number also being prepared but not by the start of

Horizon 2020. The percentages are slightly higher for HRUs, but still represent a minority (25%) who

would be prepared to investigate this option in the short term.

Interestingly, in free text, a number of respondents expressed fears that the increased coordination

required to implement a central roadmap would necessarily mean more ‘top-down’ management by

Brussels, while others complained that the administrative burden involved in current cooperation

mechanisms under EFDA was too high in view of the low level of available funding.

On the subject of human resources, just under half of the respondents accept that evolution in the

composition and profile of the personnel in the institutes is required in order to address future

challenges, essentially meaning more emphasis on power plant physics and technology rather than

more academic plasma physics. Around ¾ of the remainder (incl. 9 HRUs) believe the institutes would

put in place policies to ensure the correct evolution of competences and these should have significant

effect during Horizon 2020. The large inertia of the workforce in national institutes and the complex

and hi-tech nature of the activities in fusion science and technology therefore place a brake on the

speed at which radical change can be introduced, and once again time has to be allowed for the

necessary transformations to take place.

Regarding fusion research infrastructures, a clear majority (68%, incl. 17 HRUs and all the major

Associations) consider ITER to be critical for the fusion programme and that their national programme

would not survive if ITER were cancelled. Nevertheless, this still leaves a minority who believe either it

would not be 'the end of the world' (25%) or even that their programme would survive almost intact

(8%) if ITER were cancelled. Regarding EU devices, 48% (13 HRUs) consider JET to be crucial for the

operation of ITER, and that it could be a potential training facility to prepare ITER operators. On the

other hand, some 42% (incl. 9 HRUs representing a number of major Associations) do not at present

see any clear justification for continued JET operation after the qualification of the ITER-like wall.

Almost 80% of respondents and Associations consider it important to have pan-European fusion

devices funded through the pooling of resources, and an even greater number (c. 89%, incl. 19 HRUs)

33

consider increased mobility allowing access to the key European facilities is preferable to many

institutes having their own small fusion devices. The latter result is particularly noteworthy and

reaffirms the outcome of the 2008 'Facilities Review'. Furthermore, if new machines are needed, for

example when JET has ended its mission, then there would appear to be clear endorsement of the

strategy already developed under the ESFRI framework. In addition, around 75-80% of all

respondents and HRUs consider it may be justified for Euratom funds to be used to support the

operation of national devices for the carrying out of key roadmap activities.

Only approx. 36% of respondents (incl. 7 HRUs) thought the role of industry in the programme would

develop significantly during Horizon 2020, with 61% (incl. 15 HRUs) believing major changes would

only come about once a DEMO programme has been defined. Nonetheless, 45% of HRUs (incl. a

number of larger players) consider that technology spin-offs will become an increasing important

aspect of the research effort and need to be appropriately supported and promoted by the programme

as a whole. The rest of the respondents, including one or two large Associations, thought that spin-offs

would remain a niche area of the programme for the foreseeable future.

Regarding education & training, the majority (57% of all respondents, though 90% of HRUs) think it

should be dealt with centrally in Europe. On the other hand, almost half of all respondents (60% of

HRUs) do not think there is a need to expand goal-oriented training at the expense of a broader fusion

training programme.

Finally, there is a general request of the whole Euratom programme (not just fusion) that broad-based

bottom-up instruments in Horizon 2020 (under the ‘excellent science’ pillar) should be open to

excellent researchers in the nuclear field. If not, as a leading UK university explained it, there is a risk

to “damage recruitment of the best minds, creativity of researchers, (… and) make involvement in the

fusion programme less attractive to universities.”

34

Annex 7

Possible legal structures relevant for coordination of Joint Programmes

i) Legal framework available under international law

Intergovernmental agreements

Organisations established through intergovernmental agreements have a legal personality which

is governed by international law. For example, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research

(CERN) was founded in 1954 as the first European research organization based on an inter-

governmental agreement and has been a model for other scientific organizations such as the

European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (ESO). A more

recent example is the International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor (ITER), created in November

2006. However, prior to the agreement, there are unfortunately long discussions between the

partners about the funding of resources, the governance, the seat, etc., all necessary elements to

operate the entity. Furthermore, there is very limited flexibility once the organisation has been

established.

ii) Legal frameworks available for nuclear research under Community law (other than Joint Undertakings under the Euratom Treaty)

European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC)

This is a cooperation instrument at Community level, based on Article 159 of the Treaty, for the creation of cooperation groupings in the Community territory. The objective of an EGTC is to facilitate and promote cross-border, trans-national and/or interregional cooperation between its members, primarily regional and local or other public bodies, but covering national authorities as well, with the aim of strengthening economic and social cohesion. This may include using it for research purposes, as research is recognised as a tool for fostering regional development. European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG)

The EEIG is explicitly designated as a means to “cooperate effectively across frontiers”9. Its

purpose is to facilitate or develop economic activities of its members. It can comprise companies

or firms as well as other legal bodies governed by public or private law and natural persons. It

was one of the first legal instruments to bring about the single European market. The members

of the grouping shall have unlimited joint liability for its debts and other liabilities of whatever

nature.

iii) Legal frameworks under national law

Companies

Companies are often used to set up European research facilities because they are well adapted

to public-private needs and are better integrated into the legal framework of the country where

they are located (e.g. French Société civile, UK Limited liability Company (Ltd), German

Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH)). There are many different legal types, most of

which are limited liability, non-profit companies. One example set-up during the last years is XFEL

Gmbh, located in Hamburg, for the development of research and research services based on free

electron lasers.

9 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Grouping.

35

Foundations

This legal form is typical for non-profit organisation, governed by national law. In The Netherlands,

this legal form is commonly used for research organisations. It emphasises the non-profit

character of the research work and allows for a flexible governance structure with a board

consisting of representatives from the stakeholders/financing parties and a management,

reporting to the board, but having full authority for the daily management of the organisation.

AISBL (international non-profit organisation under the Belgian Law)

This legal form is typical for non-profit organisations, governed by the Belgian national law, but

allowing international partners and activities. It allows for a flexible governance structure with a

board consisting of representatives from the stakeholders/financing parties and a management,

reporting to the board, but having full authority for the daily management of the organisation. One

example during the last years has been the set-up of the COST office, based in Brussels.

iv) Existing legal entities

These include national fusion labs and organisations such as FuseNeT, which is open to

membership of all fusion research stakeholder organisations, including national labs and industry.

If EFDA members would decide to establish a new legal entity responsible for the implementation

of all common roadmap activities then maximum flexibility would be guaranteed in the allocation

of funding and common resources.

An alternative would be for EFDA members to designate national labs as coordinators of the work

under the various roadmap 'missions' (or themes). Consortia of national labs would then be

established under the leadership of these coordinating labs. Though this would obviate the need

to set up a new legal entity, it would necessarily be more complex to manage and would restrict

flexibility in the implementation (more difficult to move funds from one mission to another), and the

overall coherency of the programme may be impaired.

F4E is not considered an option, certainly in the short term, since adding additional

responsibilities for research programme implementation could interfere with F4E's overriding

mission as a procurement agency for the Euratom contribution to ITER and risk overburdening

the agency in the current difficult period. Nonetheless there is a mandatory review of F4E's

activities that, according to the original Commission proposal establishing the agency, is due

within 10 years of its creation – i.e. in the 2017-18 timeframe.

en - european memorandaeuropeanmemoranda.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/files/2014/05/11008-13.pdf · signed...

Documents